JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (Sub-Committee on Salmon Drift Netting, Draft Netting and Angling) debate

Salmon Drift Netting, Draft Netting and Angling: Presentations.

Chairman

The Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was established by the orders of the Dáil on 16 October 2002. Salmon and broadband were probably the first two issues to come to the committee's attention. In November 2002, the joint committee hosted a delegation from the Chilean Parliament and had a discussion on the dumping of salmon as it affected Ireland, the EU and Norway. Following the "Prime Time" programme in October 2003, the joint committee on 5 November conducted a review of the aquaculture industry. In the autumn of 2004 the joint committee engaged Mr. John Browne of Stillwater Consultants to write a report on the issue and I thank him for all his work and guidance on this complex issue. I also thank the clerk to the committee and his staff for the work they have done in preparing the documentation and arranging for the attendance of delegations today.

Following the joint committee's consideration of this report, it decided at its meeting of 9 February to establish a sub-committee on salmon drift netting, draft netting and angling. Today, the joint committee has formally sent a motion to the sub-committee. The seven members of the sub-committee are Deputies Ferris, McEllistrim, O'Donovan, O'Flynn, Perry, Eamon Ryan and Senator Brendan Kenneally. I hope that our work here will send out to the industry and the media a message that the committee has taken notice of the salmon issue and that in a professional and diligent manner it seeks to add value by widening the current debate in a informed fashion.

The sub-committee is providing interested groups with a formal opportunity at parliamentary level to inform Members of the Oireachtas and the public as to the issues at play. The sub-committee has decided to adopt the following format as the most efficient procedure for the conduct of business. In the morning session, the sub-committee will hear from the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, about scientific data from the standing scientific committee of the National Salmon Commission. We will hear economic data from Mr. Brendan Whelan and Michael Neylon and we will hear from Dr. T.K. Whitaker. In the afternoon, the sub-committee will hear from State agencies, fishery owners, tourism, trade and other stakeholders. We will then hear from draft net organisations, anglers, drift net organisations and will conclude with officials from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The sub-committee will then report to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources which in turn will report to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher. Our schedule has been made out for the day: the committee will be here until 7 p.m. and all public hearings will take place today, after which there will be deliberation on the submissions and presentations made.

I draw everyone's attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but that this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. The Minister of State will make a brief statement, which will be followed a question and answer session.

There is a substantial body of work to be dealt with today and I will allow no slippage on time. I advise everyone that we are scheduled to take the next group at 10.50 a.m. and, accordingly, I will allow questions and answers only until 10.45 a.m.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Deputy Gallagher)

Gabhaim buíochas don Chathaoirleach agus do mo chomhghleacaithe atá ar an fhóchoiste seo. Tá sé tábhachtach go bhfaighimid deis gach dream aige a bhfuil suim sa tionscal tábhachtach seo. Gabhaim buíochas roimh ré leis na dreamanna éagsúla a bheidh ag déanamh cur i láthair roimh an fhóchoiste idir seo agus 7 p.m. Beimid ag súil ar na moltaí a thiocfaidh ón fhóchoiste ina dhiaidh an chruinnidh.

I welcome the decision to hold these hearings today in the context of the review of angling and commercial netting of salmon. I appreciate the opportunity to address the hearing to outline Government policy in this area.

While the sub-committee will find from today's proceedings that the management of this important natural resource is not simple or straightforward, I am nevertheless confident that these hearings will illuminate all of the issues surrounding the management of the Irish wild salmon fishery. As Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, I look forward to the outcome of the sub-committee's deliberations in due course.

The inland fisheries sector, within which the salmon resource is managed in Ireland, is characterised by a regionalised management structure with strong involvement by local interests in decision-making. There are complex issues of ownership, reliance on State funding and tensions between different stakeholders. Within the sector, however, there is general agreement that over-exploitation of salmon stocks poses a significant threat to the long-term sustainability of this valuable national resource.

Salmon habitats and stocks are under threat from a variety of adverse environmental and water quality pressures. It is against this backdrop that the development and advancement of effective strategies to protect habitats and stocks, which attract a broad degree of consensus among stakeholders, is, therefore, essential.

The Government has long held the view that our wild salmon stock is a national asset which must be conserved and protected, as well as being exploited as a resource, by all on a shared and sustainable basis. As a result, a delicate balancing exercise is necessary between the needs of the coastal and rural communities which depend on fishing resources for their livelihood and recreational users, including tourists. With this in mind, the Government has accepted the scientific advice that continues to maintain that reductions in the overall fishing effort are required in order to sustain and rebuild salmon stocks nationwide. For this reason, current Government policy has been designed to bring spawning escapement up to the level of the scientifically advised conservation limits.

Since 1996, the Government has introduced a range of measures aimed at reducing fishing effort and improving the management, protection and conservation of salmon fisheries. These initiatives are outlined in the comprehensive management paper submitted by the Department to the committee in advance of today's hearings. It is important to note what has happened in recent years and this is documented in the paper. There have been considerable advances in salmon management policy, both in the management of the commercial salmon fishery and in recreational angling.

As part of these measures, the central and regional fisheries boards operate the wild salmon and sea trout tagging scheme, which, significantly, has seen the total allowable commercial catch of salmon reduced from 219,619 fish in 2001 to a proposed total allowable catch, TAC, of 139,900 fish for the 2005 season. This represents a cut of more than 36% over a four-year period.

I recognise, however, that only with full alignment of catch on the scientific advice can we have confidence that a sustainable management regime is in place. It is important to note this and the fact that there have been advances in terms of the reduction from 12 to six miles and from four days to almost 100% control. All these things have taken place in the past four years and I have no doubt they will make a contribution in the future.

Since taking up my appointment as Minister of State with responsibility for the marine in September last year, I have reaffirmed the Government's belief that the current strategy of developing a sustainable commercial and recreational salmon fishery through aligning catches on the scientific advice holds out the strong prospect of a recovery of stocks and of a long-term sustainable fishery for both sectors. During the past three years we have put in place a regime of increasingly constrained quotas and fishing effort, a mechanism to manage this on a collective basis and, most importantly, a consensus around urgent alignment on ever-improving scientific advice. We cannot ignore what any objective observer would term as no mean achievements.

Like my predecessors, I also value greatly the contribution being made by the various State agencies and wider stakeholders who collaborate with the Department in the management of the wild salmon resource. In this regard, I value the advice of the National Salmon Commission and the central and regional fisheries boards' managers, as well as that of the scientists at the Marine Institute and the Central Fisheries Board in determining the necessary conservation measures for the resource.

I also value the open, transparent and professional manner in which all issues, but particularly scientific advice, are aired and explained. This is a robust and healthy process, which bodes well for the putting in place, on a shared and open basis, of effective conservation measures in the very near future.

I recently published draft wild salmon and sea trout tagging scheme regulations in which a national total allowable commercial catch of wild salmon and sea trout for 2005 at 139,900 fish is included. This is in line with the recommendations made by the National Salmon Commission. Under the Fisheries Acts, the draft regulations are available for a 30-day consultation period to allow interested parties an opportunity to submit any objections they may have. I look forward to receiving those and will take them into consideration.

I assure the committee that I am committed to the statutory consultation process, which has been the hallmark of the success of this scheme to date. I wish to emphasise that I have not made decisions on the final terms of the scheme for 2005, nor will I do so until the consultation period has ended, and I have weighed and considered all of the objections received during this time.

In publishing these draft regulations, I recognise that there have been strong concerns expressed over the divergence in the advice available to me this year from the National Salmon Commission and the fisheries managers in respect of both the total allowable catch and also the question of when full alignment with the scientific advice is to be achieved. I also recognise the concerns expressed about the proposals that the total allowable catch for 2005 be permitted to exceed the level specified by the scientific advice.

What I have done to date is, like all my predecessors, accept the National Salmon Commission's recommendations. There is no divergence from that policy. While I appreciate that the scientific advice for 2005 is based on a revision of the methodology used in previous years and, therefore, results in a much lower proposed TAC than would otherwise have been the case, I am aware that the adoption of this particular advice would nevertheless mean an additional cut of over 30% on the actual catch in 2004. By not proposing to adopt the advice according to the new methodology for 2005, I am recognising the difficulties that a TAC of this level would cause for the coastal communities that depend on the salmon resource for their livelihoods.

In general terms, however, I remain strongly persuaded of the case to move, sooner rather than later, to the national conservation limits as recommended by scientists. It is my intention to have in place by 2007 national district quotas aligned on scientific advice. From that year onwards, we will manage salmon on a sustainable basis according to world-class scientific advice. Let me make clear that when I was appointed to the Department last year, the advice I received was based on a 50% probability risk. However, this figure changed to 75% some time ago. I am still accepting the National Salmon Commission's figures, subject to the case that will be made.

I am responsible for this issue and I want to ensure we have fisheries in the future. I want to take into consideration all factors, namely, the scientific advice and socio-economic factors, which none of us can ignore. I will ask the new National Salmon Commission, which I intend to appoint in the near future, to progress as an immediate priority of national policy the specific recommendation made by the outgoing commission to align the exploitation of salmon on the scientific advice by 2007. In this context, I will rely strongly on the advice on the commission. I will ask the new commission to advise me on how best these recommendations can be implemented, bearing in mind the primary requirement to ensure the future biological viability of the salmon resource in all catchments and the needs of all stakeholders, including those who derive their living from the wild salmon resource.

I assure members, the wider public and all the stakeholders that I will examine carefully all recommendations made to me in this regard and encourage the incoming commission to be open, innovative and flexible in its identification of the best course of action. I take this opportunity, at the end of the term of the first commission, to thank its chairman and members for their input and commitment in recent years.

With regard to the potential for economic development of the salmon resource I am fully aware of suggestions in some recent reports to the effect that there is greater economic potential for the State to be derived from the development of the angling tourism sector than the commercial fishing sector where salmon is concerned. I am also aware that consultations conducted by State agencies on these findings have elicited widely divergent views among stakeholders, not only in the findings but also on the methodology adopted to carry out all these studies. Consequently, ongoing analysis indicates different valuation figures for the wild salmon fishery and no consensus has been reached on any suggestions that a rebalancing of exploitation of the salmon resource in favour of angling tourism could deliver significant benefits to the State from a public good perspective.

The critical question is whether the very significant investments in the sector which would be required for a buy-out of the commercial fishery, for example, compare in terms of return to other potential investments in the tourism area or in inland fisheries. To date, I remain convinced that this is the case. However, I intend to take up this matter shortly with my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, with a view to asking his Department and the relevant State agencies under its aegis to apply their expertise in evaluating the role of salmon angling development and present a definite view of its potential within the broader tourism sector.

Like my predecessors, I am committed to the conservation of the wild salmon stock so that in the future the resource can provide the maximum contribution to the regional and national economy. In this regard, I will consider both the health of the salmon resource and the socio-economic impact on the coastal and island communities which depend on this resource to supplement other incomes and provide a livelihood. In that context, I will continue to be guided by the fundamental principle adopted and adhered to by previous Ministers during the past three years, which is that the national TAC should be progressively aligned over that period to scientific advice. I have already stated that the Government remains fully committed to this principle as the only sustainable and defensible way forward for salmon management. Likewise, as Minister of State responsible for salmon management policy, I am fully committed and will apply all my energies to this goal in the next two years.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl don Chathaoirleach as ucht an deis seo a thabhairt domh. Beidh mé ar fáil i gcónaí chun casadh leis an choiste. Tá súil agam ag deireadh an tseisiúin seo, agus nuair a bheas an tuairisc réidh, go mbeidh an-suim againn inti agus go gcuideoidh sí go mór linn nuair a bheas na tuairimí go léir faighte againn agus na moltaí curtha le chéile.

Chairman

Is it agreed to note and publish the submission of the Department? The committee has received and accepted an invitation from South Donegal Chamber of Commerce to visit Killybegs at the weekend. Lest the media or public believe we are on holidays, I must state that we are not. This is a very busy committee.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I thank the Minister of State. I welcome the statement in the Department's submission that the public consultation process will last until 13 April and that no decision has yet been made. The Minister of State is giving serious consideration to not accepting the split-decision advice of the National Salmon Commission and is opting instead to maintain stocks according to scientific advice. I welcome the fact that the public consultation is genuine and not just referred to in the Statute Book for the sake of it. The work of this committee will involve examining what is in the best interests of coastal fishing communities, the economy and angling tourism.

We are at a point of crisis and important decisions must be made regarding the protection of what is regarded as a unique and symbolic species by the Irish and others in this part of the world. When I consider statistics on the River Liffey, I note that it is clear we are at a point at which the decisions we make may tip the balance towards survival or extinction. If we make the wrong decision, we will lose a genetic imprint or stock that cannot be replaced.

We have received a number of submissions in advance of today's hearing. They represent a useful means of obtaining information. One of the submissions, namely that of the Wild Salmon Support Group, which will be represented today by Dr. T. K. Whitaker, makes a number of points, which I will frame into questions for the Minister of State. Margaret Downes, who wrote the submission, makes the point that our tagging and quota management system has not been a system of conservation during the past three or four years because we have not been able to catch the commercial quota that has been set. In a submission by Stop Salmon Drift Nets Now, it is stated that in 2001 the catch was almost 200,000 fish, whereas it declined to 120,000 by last year. Fishermen were unable to reach the overall commercial quota allocation of 161,000 last year and caught only 143,000 fish. How can one describe the current approach as a conservation policy when no restriction is applied in the sense that the quota exceeds the number of fish caught? The quota set each year is higher than advised by scientists and cannot be reached by fishermen because there is insufficient fish. Does this not indicate a crisis? Is it not a cause of concern for the Minister of State?

To be clear that we are counting apples with apples or, in this case, salmon with salmon, does the Minister of State agree that the scientific community has indicated the total catch this year, by all means of exploitation, rod and commercial catch, should be no more than 124,000 fish? It is difficult to estimate the angling catch, given that one never knows what one will catch when one sets out to fish. Nevertheless, does the Minister of State accept as accurate the Department's rough estimate for the anticipated angling catch this year of 27,000? Will he confirm that to comply with the European habitats directive the treaties of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, NASCO, which Ireland signed and helped to formulate, and the scientific advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, which has responsibility in this area, we must set a commercial quota of approximately 97,000 fish, as opposed to the figure of 139,900 recommended for various reasons by the National Salmon Commission? Will he confirm that this is the difference between the two headline figures arrived at by the different bodies?

The Minister of State has stated he is following policies adopted by his predecessors. One of the issues referred to in the submission from the wild salmon support group which I presume Dr. Whitaker will raise later is a ministerial undertaking given two or three years ago to follow scientific advice from 2005 onwards. The Minister undertook to continue to ignore scientific advice until 2005, at which point we would behave ourselves and follow scientific advice. To put back this date to 2007 is akin to saying, "Lord make me virtuous but not quite yet." Why has the Minister of State gone against a ministerial undertaking made to Dr. Whitaker who I presume reliably recorded it by indicating the Government will not adhere to scientific advice until 2007?

I am familiar with many of the coastal communities in County Donegal, County Kerry and elsewhere on the west coast which the Minister of State correctly wishes to develop and foster and agree that we need to develop a salmon exploitation system which benefits these communities. The crisis levels of salmon, particularly in rivers on the south and east coasts, are such that coastal communities in which salmon are, thankfully, reasonably abundant will suffer further if we do not replace the mixed stock management system or national quota with a single stock management system.

It is clear from the submission made by the Kerry drift net fishermen, with which the South Western Regional Fisheries Board officer appears to be ad idem, that rivers in the county could support greater exploitation under a single stock management system. This is not currently possible because if we were to allow a larger quota for Kerry and Cork fishermen, they would catch fish heading to rivers which are at crisis point, including the nearest river to me. Not a single extra fish would be caught because of our decision to permit offshore indiscriminate drift netting. Does the Minister of State not agree that the cleverest strategy, in terms of benefiting coastal communities and fishermen, would be to move towards a single stock management system and end indiscriminate offshore netting? By all means, let us allow commercial exploitation in rivers with a strong salmon run. However, this cannot occur in parallel with offshore drift netting but must be done under an estuary or local river management system.

I have never come across a policy area on which I have been able to consult reports in the Oireachtas Library dating from the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s through to 1987, 1996 and 1997, all of which reach the same conclusion, in this case that the State should move away from indiscriminate offshore netting of salmon. We have a continuous record of the same policy advice being given and ignored. In the light of the current crisis in stock levels is it not time to accept this advice?

Salmon stocks are beset by problems, ranging from pollution, drainage schemes and forestry to climate change and poaching, all of which are difficult to address individually or on the basis of single rivers because one can use the wider excuse that the fundamental problem is not pollution or poaching but the fact that fish are being caught elsewhere through indiscriminate netting at sea. What is the point of cleaning up my act on the River Liffey if the fish it could attract will be caught off the west coast? Does the Minister of State agree that it would be much easier to solve many of the problems affecting salmon management if we were to begin to move to a single management system? This approach would ensure anglers, commercial fishermen and the millions of citizens who want the salmon protected would be aware of the position regarding their nearest river system and benefit as a result. We are on the brink of losing the salmon of knowledge. If we, as policy makers, allow this to happen, it will attest to a terrible lack of wisdom on our part.

Deputy Gallagher

As I made clear, we have provided for a 30-day period during which all submissions will be taken into consideration. Approximately 2,000 printed postcards calling for an end to the indiscriminate drift netting of salmon have been received. Those who suggest I will banish salmon from Ireland as St. Patrick banished snakes want these cards considered as a submission. As they do not make a scientific point, I am not certain they should be considered as such. It would be a waste of time to devote attention to trying to analyse them.

Chairman

I also received one.

Deputy Gallagher

The Department is interested in serious submissions as opposed to items of this nature.

The Deputy mentioned the difference between last year's quota and catch. While I always take advice from scientists, we also know that determining the number of salmon is not an exact science. No scientist could put his or her hand on his or her heart and say the figure is exact. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore scientific advice.

Another theory which I am sure others will raise today and on which I made a verbal submission to the Department at the end of last year is that the shortfall could have been due to a late run of fish. Given that we do not sufficiently understand the science, why must the season run from one specific date to another? To propose a degree of flexibility is not to suggest we ignore science but an expression of a school of thought which cannot be ignored.

When the three-year strategy was agreed to bring the landings in 2005 into line with scientific advice it was based on the advice at the time that we adhere to a 50% risk assessment. After two years ICES suggested that be changed to 75% so it would be wrong to give the impression that we are deviating from an agreed strategy. It was changed in mid-stream. If we were to continue with the 50% risk assessment which was deemed at the time to be sufficient to ensure sustainability we would have been in line with the scientific advice. That is the fact, not my opinion.

There is control on the number of fish landed by commercial anglers, compliance with which is between 98% and 99%, information that is helpful to all the stakeholders. We have made significant advances in this area. We also know that from 1 January to 31 May, one fish per day is the limit and from 31 May to the end of the season it is three fish per day, with an overall catch of 20 fish. If one multiplies half of that total, ten, by the number of anglers it comes to 300,000 fish. That is going from the sublime to the ridiculous because the landing is approximately 30,000 fish. We must consider all the relevant factors.

The Department and the industry, the stakeholders, have made major advances in recent years. One can go to the library and look up all the recommendations but changes have occurred. We all recall the days when one or two regions could have landed more than the total allowable catch today. We are responsible and listen to scientific advice but the goal posts changed in the middle of the strategy and it became a political issue, rather than a recommendation from ICES.

There is a major debate about single stock management. Many regional boards have made recommendations on this as against mixed stock fisheries. No one ever said that a carefully managed mixed stock fishery was incompatible with long-term protection and sustainability but the scientists cannot say for sure whether this is so. If the five regional boards and the central board could flesh that out I would be open to reviewing it.

I am realistic enough to know that the problem of management of fish stocks does not just concern netting. There are seals further out to sea. It is not popular to talk about this but seals consume more fish than do the Irish people. While we must consider this, I condemn the action of irresponsible people in the south west earlier this year. To say something must be done about the seals does not mean one condones such an action. Global warming is another important issue, as are back catches of fish in the Atlantic. It may be difficult to deal with those issues but they should be considered.

I have dealt with the question of management and the change from 50% to 75% in respect of conservation limits. Deputy Eamon Ryan and others must recognise that there is more regulation now than ever before. I hesitate to use the term "zero tolerance" but the problem has reduced significantly. Those involved in fishing, whether anglers, tourists, or the commercial fishers, are responsible. We all have responsibility for future generations. We are the custodians of this resource and must work together which is my intention.

I would not like the impression to be given that I decided to deviate from scientific advice, which is filtered through the National Salmon Commission comprising representatives of all the stakeholders. There is a change regarding the 75% and 50% in respect of conservation limits. If it were 50% we would be in line with the scientific advice.

Chairman

We are under pressure now and are ten minutes behind time.

Senator Kenneally

I too welcome the Minister of State here this morning. Commercial fishermen would confirm his comment about there being more regulation than ever. They do not complain about that because it is in their interests that the industry be properly regulated.

While much of the scientific advice is very good, sometimes the scientists do not have all the information. We do not take enough cognisance of what experienced salmon fishermen say. While many will say what suits them to bring about a situation they want, there are many very responsible traditional salmon fishermen who might disagree with some of the scientific advice. They know from experience what is happening.

My experience is mainly confined to the Waterford estuary where the fishermen tell me that the numbers of fish went upriver this year. There are no fish counters there to quantify exactly how many went up. To an extent the scientists operate in the dark. What proposals are there to extend the number of fish counters around the country? We need that information to know exactly what is happening to the fish stock.

My view differs from that of Deputy Eamon Ryan on many issues and I take comfort from what the Minister of State said about the quota of 139,900 for the coming year. While he has not made a final decision on it he said that his predecessors have followed the evidence as presented to them. I hope that figure will not be altered.

Could the quota be distributed in a more equitable way? In my area the quota is 9,600; in the south west it is 46,000 but the number of spawnings in the south west is only a fraction of those in my area. An inequity appears to have emerged over several years. Are there any plans to tackle that?

I have discussed the buy-out privately with the Minister of State. Part of the problem is that the figures given have created unrealistic expectations about the amount of money available to fishermen. If there were a more realistic debate on it, perhaps some progress could be made. I welcome what the delegates say regarding a study with the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism. It is important to define the exact benefits. How long does the delegation think it might be before such a study is available?

Senator Finucane

I thank the committee for instituting this debate because the issue has been vexatious over many years. The Minister of State's predecessor, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, stated in February 2003 that it was clear from scientific advice that if we did not reduce our exploitation of stocks, we would have no salmon resources in the near future. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, is probably aware of much criticism regarding the figure of 139,000 fish on the netting side. I understand from the anglers' association that a major protest is planned by anglers in Cork tomorrow.

I know of many people involved in netting activity who retain licences which, because of the decline of salmon over the years, may no longer be of economic value to them. For a number of years they have looked to the possibility that they might be compensated for the loss of the licence. Will the Minister of State say why the Government appears to oppose a State buy-out? That seems to be inconsistent with what is happening in other countries. I would be interested in the observations of the Minister of State.

Deputy Ferris

I thank the Minister of State for his presentation. Coming from a coastal community and having at one time been a salmon fisherman, I have a fair knowledge of the present predicament. There is a deliberate attempt to get rid of the traditional drift and draft fishermen, which concerns me. Some of the scientific evidence does not coincide with the reality locally. The Minister of State touched on this when he mentioned the enormous damage being done by seals to salmon stocks off our coast. Furthermore, if one goes back ten years, before the fishing period was reduced from 100 days to 36 days, it will be seen that the safety days have been also been reduced.

There are also natural changes. This year, the main run of salmon did not take place until the second week of August and this was not factored into the situation whereby the season officially ends at the end of July. I know from the west Kerry fishermen that in August the water was, to use their own words, thick with salmon. The growing problem of river pollution is also having a major effect, yet there seems to be a deliberate attempt to penalise the drift and draft fishermen.

Will the Minister of State take into account the situation regarding pollution and, in particular, the late run of salmon? The run has been taking place later every year. I fished salmon in 1996. On one evening I went out along the nets and counted 34 salmon, but by the time I got the net on board, just six remained. A seal had taken the others. That is an example of the damage being done by seals to salmon stocks. The deliberate attempt to place the blame for the situation on drift fishermen is wrong.

Deputy McGuinness

I thank the Minister of State and the officials for the action they took regarding salmon at the Lacken weir on the River Nore in Kilkenny. While that is a parish pump story, the issue is serious in terms of conservation of salmon. I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say about the comment from the chairman of the fisheries board responsible for the River Nore who said that the weir should not have been constructed where it was, or about his intentions as to how the matter will be dealt with in the long term. Another Minister of State said that a late salmon run was involved and that they were "silly" fish. The present Minister of State comes across in a much better and more constructive manner.

I am glad that the final decision in regard to 2005 has not yet been made and that further consideration will be given to the submissions. I would like to see the scientific advice given adhered to as much as possible. It is time to take action. The Minister of State referred to the actions of previous Ministers and the line they took on this issue. We have gone past that and I urge the Minister of State to take a different line. A more dynamic approach is needed and a bold step must be taken.

The graphs provided in the scientific analysis show that most of the figures fall way below the conservation line. The Barrow, Nore and Suir are very badly affected. A bold decision must be taken for 2005 to make up for what we have lost in terms of salmon conservation over recent years. A line must be taken from what has happened in other European countries, many of which have voluntarily bought out the drift net fishermen. Ireland is now being singled out for adverse comment regarding tourism, how we deal with salmon conservation and how we have not taken steps voluntarily to buy out the drift net fishermen.

Regarding the viability of rural communities around the coast, how many active licences are there which in terms of their annual returns can be described as viable and economic? Would the people with such licences look at the possibility of a voluntary buy-out in terms of finding another way to fill the number of hours in their days or lives in which they were involved in fishing? The issue is no longer merely economic. We are now trying to save the salmon. We have fallen below the conservation figure limits and we must now consider the matter not just from an economic perspective but from that of saving the salmon.

Salmon is part of our history and folklore. It was celebrated on our coinage. We need to do much more. We may talk of seals and nature, but nature takes its course. We need to look at the man-made problems. A resolution to one would be a voluntary buy-out which would save those communities around the coast which rely on fishing of this kind. We should also urgently examine the tourism aspect. Countries which have already bought out the drift net fishermen have reported dramatic increases in their tourism because the visiting anglers stay longer than most tourists and spend more.

We must get real. I urge the Minister of State not so much to abandon the line of previous Ministers of State but to take a bolder position than taken in the past because saving the salmon is urgent.

Mr. Gallagher

Regarding equity throughout the regions, while I have responsibility for deciding on the national quota, it is, perhaps fortunately, not my responsibility to decide on the regional or district quotas. When we establish the national quota, it will be a matter for the regional and central managers to sit down, almost in conclave, and decide on the basis of scientific advice in each region. It is their responsibility. None of us has any difficulty in accepting the principle of equity based on that advice. What my predecessor, Deputy Browne, said two years ago was also based on scientific advice at the time. We decided on a three-year strategy. Confidence may be lost among the stakeholders if we decide on a strategy but change mid-stream. We have one year to go. We based the strategy on a 50% scientific risk, not 75%, as a result of the involvement of ICES.

I am never afraid to take a bold step or adopt a position, provided it is in the best interests of the country, taking into consideration all aspects, including science, socio-economic factors and the dependence of coastal and rural communities on the salmon fishery. There are, taking in drift, draft, snoop and loop, some 1,500 fishing licences and I expect all will be drawn down this year. However, I am sure there are many who will rightly tell us that none of those licence holders could survive on income from commercial salmon fishing, that it supplements other income, whether it be social welfare or from small-scale farming. There are also those who are returning from various parts of the United Kingdom where they spend some months of the year to top up their income and provide for themselves and their families.

There is a human factor but there is also a false perception abroad. It has been suggested on national radio that it is really only a pastime now. Those who think so should come and familiarise themselves with the reality. Let no one get the wrong impression. I have national responsibility, which I intend to fulfil. There may be different perceptions of me. I see both sides of the coin but it is a delicate balancing act and I wish to deal with it as best I can.

Senator Finucane referred to the buy-out. I am glad the issue has been raised since it gives me an opportunity to respond. In recent years the Government has consistently ruled out a buy-out as an effective means of achieving the restoration of salmon stocks, something that does not necessarily follow. I will give an example. The Canadians spent $70 million on a buy-out on the ending of commercial fisheries. They tell me there has been no visible recovery of stocks. I must take cognisance of this. There is also a perception that Ireland is the only country involved but that is not true or factual. Fish are still being caught with drift nets in England, Scotland and Wales where commercial fishing has continued. It is important to note that little or, in some cases, no information on the extent of the catch is available there, whereas in Ireland we have 98% reporting as far as commercial fish are concerned, with approximately 58% reporting on catches in the angling sector.

I thank the Minister of State. I am sorry for rushing him at the end and for curtailing the members, but a specific timeframe was agreed. Unfortunately my task is to keep within that timeframe or I will lose my job. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for appearing before the committee today. I will ask members of the standing scientific committee to join us now.

I welcome Dr. Niall Ó Maoiléidigh chairman of the National Salmon Commission's standing scientific committee, Dr. Ken Whelan, Mr. Michael Neylon and Mr. Brendan Whelan. I understand Dr. Vera O'Donovan is not with us. I draw everyone's attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but this does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The format will be that Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh will make a scientific presentation that will be followed by a question and answer session. The economic presentation will be made as well and then we will have a set of questions. Dr. ÓMaoiléidigh is aware of the timeframe. I am sorry to have to restrict his presentation and I hope both speakers will stay within the time limits agreed with the consultant. We are behind time as a result of the Minister of State's presentation and the passionate questioning by Deputy Eamon Ryan.

Dr. Niall Ó Maoiléidigh

I thank the committee for the opportunity to give this presentation. I remind members that this is the same presentation slightly shortened, that was given to the salmon commission, to five of the regional fisheries boards and at four public presentations to commercial fishermen and to angling groups. It is well-travelled at this stage. It is good that this committee will hear the same presentation, which means we can all sing from the same hymn book.

I want to do three things today. I want to give some background as to why this process has evolved, to show the methodology involved and some of the numbers we are talking about. We have given the committee a written submission to back this up, which is based on a number of publications including a scientific paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science. Essentially, the process for the scientific group started with the salmon management task force in 1996. Unlike what happened previously, the salmon management task force outlined the basic management concepts we should adopt. It stated in its report that sustainable fishing can take place if there is a surplus of fish over spawning requirements. That was an important statement because essentially it said that there is an optimal number of fish or spawners for any given river. That was to define the conservation limit. In addition, when the conservation limit is being met, the surplus to spawning requirements is maximised. That is another important point because once the surplus is maximised it may be harvested sustainably.

The scientific advice we are trying to give is based on achieving this conservation limit to maximise the returns for all the stakeholders. To give some gloomy news, this is not a process happening only in Ireland. I am showing two panels. They may be slightly difficult to see from the back of the room, but the trend is not difficult to make out. This is the southern European stock complex, representing the total number of fish available prior to any fishing taking place. It is called the pre-fishery abundance. From the first panel, on one-sea winter fish, it will be seen clearly that the decline in numbers has moved from 3.5 million to 1 million since 1970. That is a very steep decline and includes the UK, France, Ireland and the other countries such as Spain and Portugal from where we get information.

The second panel, on two-sea winter or multi-sea winter fish, the larger fish which stay at sea two years or longer, shows more clearly the decline in this stock complex. That is quite a steady decline and again the number equivalents are from about 2.5 million down to 500,000 fish. Clearly there is international concern. The group responsible for the international management of these fisheries is NASCO, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. Two years after the salmon commission stated what the salmon limits should be, NASCO picked up on a similar issue and said stocks should be maintained above conservation limits by the use of management targets. Nationally and internationally we are now setting the scene for a new type of management regime that we are just beginning to develop. In 1999 the National Salmon Commission was established under the Act. It represents the Government and managers including the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries as well as the other important stakeholders, the commercial and recreational fisheries groups, processors and the aquaculture industry.

The role of the National Salmon Commission is to assist and advise on conservation management protection and development and to recommend schemes, including the tagging of salmon and TACs and quotas. That is what it was asked to do. Under the Act the commission, in its wisdom, set up a standing scientific committee, whose brief was to advise the National Salmon Commission and assist it on all technical and scientific matters as regards the performance of its function. We were asked to advise on a number of matters. The process involved is as follows. We get estimates of the total catch from the catch records. We then try to estimate the total returns which generated that catch and the spawners, in other words what was left behind after the catch was taken. We then estimate a conservation limit. In other words we must determine whether the number of spawners meets the requirements. We then have to incorporate a risk assessment element because, as several people have pointed out, scientific advice is based on estimates. We have to get a feel for the risk element, in terms of the uncertainty of the data and the process being used. Finally, we must recommend a precautionary catch that we believe will preserve the stock, or some other stock rebuilding strategy.

That is the process, the first part of which has now been simplified. We have introduced a carcase tagging and log book scheme and we are getting far better information back from that process than previously. The national coded wire tagging programme, which comprises a tiny 2 millimetre tag with a code which is injected into the nose of migrating smolts before they leave the rivers, provides several items of information. Due to the fact that we have clipped the adipose fin at the back, we are able to identify these fish when they return as adults. We have been tagging smolts in all rivers around the coast fairly consistently since 1980. Our colleagues from Northern Ireland are tagging smolts from the River Bush.

In many rivers we have a direct index of the number of fish returning, how many are being caught and how many are going up the river within the season and outside the season, in other words taking account of late runs and any other things happening over time. In many rivers, we count all the fish returning throughout the season. It is important to realise that the tagging programme is only as good as the recovery programme. Under the programme that was set up in 1980, we have been sampling between 30% and 50% of the declared catch annually, which means that between 100,000 and 200,000 fish are physically examined for the presence of these tags. That is quite a robust scanning programme.

One of the most important items of information — which was alluded to earlier — is that if we tag fish from a certain river, for example, the River Liffey, the fish may be caught in counties Mayo, Donegal, Galway, Kerry and elsewhere. That is the potential the fisheries around the coast have for catching fish from the River Liffey.

To give another example, while most of the fish from the River Slaney are caught in the south, they may be caught in Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Kerry and west Cork. While fish from the River Lee may be caught to a lesser degree in counties Donegal, Mayo and Galway, they can be caught in counties Kerry and Cork and in the southern region. Fish from the River Shannon may be caught in counties Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Limerick, Kerry and Cork and in the south. The fish from the River Corrib in the west may be caught in counties Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Kerry and west Cork.

In the County Mayo fisheries at Burrishoole, where we have a superb data set from 1980, we know that significant numbers of these fish are caught in counties Donegal and Mayo, and that quite a high proportion are caught in the Galway-Limerick and Cork-Kerry areas and also in the south. While the majority of fish from the River Erne are taken in County Donegal, they still are caught in Mayo, Galway, Kerry and Cork. What I have been illustrating is the mixed stock nature of fisheries. Each of the fisheries from Donegal to the south can take stocks from any other region. A mixed stock fishery is where the fish do not necessarily originate in the region.

We also generate other information from the tagging. We know the number of fish being taken in the fisheries and we know the number returning to the rivers, we can estimate what we call the average catch rate — that is, the total catch divided by the total number available. We tag wild fish as well as hatchery fish. There is a difference between the two. In 1980 about 70% of the wild fish were being caught when they came back to the coast in commercial fisheries and the percentage for hatchery fish was 90%. At present, the situation is much better. We are catching between 40% to 50% of the wild fish and between 60% and 78% of the hatchery fish. That is important because it means that 50% of the wild fish returning to the coast are caught.

How do we estimate spawners? If we assume that, based on our index rivers, 50% of fish returning to the coast are likely to be caught and we know the district catch is 10,000 fish, then 50% is equivalent to 10,000 fish and the total return, 100%, is 20,000 fish. In order to obtain a figure for the number of spawners, we take the total minus the catch, which gives the figure for the number of fish, 10,000, left behind. That is a simple example but obviously it is never as easy as that. In some years, the figures may be higher or lower. It can also happen that 60% of the fish returning are likely to be caught. If we take the example of a district catch of 10,000 fish then 60% is equivalent to 10,000 fish, then 100% is equivalent to 16,666 fish and the number of spawners is the total minus the catch, which is 6,666.

It is important that we have catch rates. We have figures for the catch in every district in the country and we have an estimate of the catch rate from the tagging programme, which means that for every district we can generate the number of spawners coming back to the district. We need to measure that off against a standard and what we measure it off against is what we call the conservation limit. Essentially, what we see in the image projected from the computer is a geo-rectified image, a picture taken from an aeroplane which is overlaid with the river feature on it. Due to the fact that it is digital format, we can measure the level of water in the river. In other words, we can measure what is called the wetted area.

The number of spawners a river can accommodate is restricted by the size of the river and, after that, one does not get a higher output for the level of input. Essentially, we have calculated the wetted area of each river in Ireland, then transposed conversation limits for European index rivers to Irish rivers, including the Burrishoole and the Bush, and we are able to populate every stream in Ireland with the correct number of spawners that would be required to keep it at its conservation limit. As we can do this in respect of every stream, we can then sum it up for all the streams in a particular district and arrive at a second very important number, namely, the conservation limit required for the district and the number of fish that those rivers can accommodate before they begin to be lost or, in other words, the level at which any number over and above the figure is a surplus.

Essentially, we have a process that includes a risk of not meeting the conservation limit. What do we mean by that? In recent years the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, has been trying to develop this approach and it rolled out the first set of risk assessments two years ago. We try to keep the national programme in line with the international programme because obviously we are getting the best scientists involved internationally and nationally to get the process going.

Why are there risks involved? If one takes the average return and spawners, what one is actually saying is that, on average, that return will come back to the country. There is a 50% chance, if one takes the return figure, that one will meet the conservation limit. This is a risky management strategy to adopt, namely, that one will be right 50% of the time. Another element of uncertainty in our data is that we know females, who are the egg carriers, are more important than the males and we must meet this 60:40 requirement of females to males. In order to meet this requirement, more fish than normal must be allowed to return to the river.

The final part of the risk assessment is that we now have conservation limits for individual rivers. We would prefer to see all rivers in a district meeting the conservation limit, rather than there just being a conglomerate. This also affects the overall conservation limit. The advice from ICES is clear. It states that falling below the conservation limit should be avoided with a high probability. The figure of 50% is not a high probability. What ICES has adopted, and what we have followed, is that the figure for salmon should be at least 75% so that there is a chance, given a certain catch option, that the conservation limit will be met. We have adjusted our conservation limit in 2005 to meet this objective in line with the developing advice from ICES. The Minister of State is correct, we introduced that this year. We did not develop the process the previous year because we were waiting for ICES to develop it. The scientific process involves taking the annual catch, getting returns on the coded wire tagging and estimating the average returns. From a stock and recruitment analysis and from the transport of stock and recruitment data from the wetted area to the rivers, we get conservation limits. We know the average returns on the spawners and we know the conservation limit. How are we meeting this conservation limit? Depending on the answer to that question, we apply harvest guidelines. Once we have decided the harvest guideline, we produce a number for each district, which is the precautionary catch advice.

Last year's conservation limit of the national stock was around 200,000 fish, while the new conservation limit is higher than that, as the Minister suggested. At a national level, it has not been raised that much, although it has been raised significantly in some districts. We have been below the conservation limit every year since 1990 and we are only gradually beginning to reach it. We can take Lismore as an example of the type of input data available to us. In Lismore, there are seven rivers, with the Blackwater river the most predominant while the Bride river is also significant. Although the other rivers contribute in only a small way to the number of spawners, they are still required. We know, therefore, the amount of spawners required on a river by river basis. There has been a big decline in the returns in Lismore since 1990. In later years, the situation has stabilised but not improved. The spawners were above conservation limits up to 1980, but have gone below the conservation limits consistently since 1990. This year, we gave fishermen harvest options from zero to 30,000 fish and the probability of meeting the conservation limit at those catch options. We have taken the advice of ICES to take a 75% chance of meeting the conservation limit. The catch equivalent of a 75% chance of meeting the conservation limit is 7,000 fish. However, the average catch for the period has been more than 15,000 fish. That means that since 2000, the chance of meeting the conservation limit is below 25% at that catch rate. The scientific advice is clear that we fishermen have to reduce the catch to about 7,000 fish.

The second example is that of Ballinakill. There are 13 rivers here and quite a number of them are important in the overall distribution of the rivers. In this case, the trend is slightly opposite. There was an increase in returns from 1990 to 2000, but it has decreased since then. The spawners were below the conservation limit for a long period and are currently only just above the limit. The 75% risk suggests that there are 9,000 fish to catch in the Ballinakill district. The average catch has only been 7,308, which includes rods. There is therefore an 80% chance of meeting the conservation limit. The scientific advice in this instance is to maintain this level of catch. This is because we must acknowledge that these districts catch fish from other districts that may not be meeting their conservation limits. Instead of increasing the average catch while waiting for other districts to improve, we believe that it should be maintained.

The final example is where the conservation limit is not met at all. In the Galway district, the Corrib river is the most important, while the Kilcolgan river is also quite important. There are smaller yet still important contributions from the other fisheries. In this case, both the returns and the spawners have plummeted and have been very low since 1985. The spawners are far below the conservation limit in this instance. At the 75% risk, there is no catch option which will provide a 75% chance that the conservation limit will be met. In fact at the average catch of 4,580 fish, there is a zero chance of meeting the conservation limit. Even if the fishery was stopped entirely, the chance of meeting the conservation limit is below 50%. It is up to the managers to decide what level of catch is required, but it is also up to them to declare the level of risk that will occur when the level of catch is decided. That is the significant change in the advice process.

We provide a catch advice table that states that there is no surplus fish in eight of the districts, while the catch has to be reduced in other districts. That is essentially how the catch advice works.

Mr. Brendan Whelan

We have been involved in the economics of salmon for more years than I care to mention. Our first work occurred in the early 1970s, where we looked at the economic evaluation of Irish salmon angling. We have worked on it since in a number of different contexts over the years. A constant theme in those studies is the balance between the commercial and recreational exploitation of Irish salmon. The conclusion in almost all of those reports, as well as in other reports by groups such as Indecon, was that the balance of exploitation should move in favour of recreation rather than commercial. This issue of balance only arises when we pass the conservation limits Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh mentioned. If the fishery is well below its conservation limits, then economics as well as biology demands that the catch should be reduced, no matter what the exploitation method, until a sustainable basis is reached. The economic arguments are about dividing the surplus between the different exploiting sectors.

All of the analysis that conducted in Ireland has focused on the economic impact, such as the amount of expenditure made, the number of jobs created by both sectors and so on. In a number of other countries such as the UK and the US, a variety of other concepts of value are taken into account, such as the existence value, the option value and the request value. These all reflect the general public's willingness to pay for non-market aspects of wildlife conservation but have not been taken into account in the work we have done in this regard. We have focused only on what we call the economic impact of the fishery resource on the economy and regions of the economy.

One frequently hears figures quoted which suggest a dead salmon on a fishmonger's slab is worth €25 whereas an angler will pay €1,000 to catch a salmon, and it is inferred that this is the ratio of value between the two activities. I warn against this fallacy because the correct way to consider this issue — we have considered it in detail — is not to think in terms of such a simple calculation but to examine what happens when one lets a marginal quantum of fish, say 1,000 extra fish, through one's commercial fishery and into fresh water. Approximately 75% or 80% of these fish will not be caught by anglers because angling is an inefficient way of catching fish. Moreover, of the fish caught by anglers, many will be caught by canny locals who do not spend much while relatively few will be taken by high spending foreign tourists. One must work through the economics of the calculation to assess the relative values of rod caught and commercially caught fish. However, when this is done, it will be found that the impact on the economy of rod caught fish is, based on certain assumptions, substantially greater than that of commercially caught fish, and this differential has been growing over time.

The price of salmon in fishmongers has, mainly due to the increase in farmed salmon production, remained static or increased little whereas the value of recreation and tourist expenditure has increased at least proportionately to income, perhaps more so. Recreational angling for salmon is a very scarce commodity in the world and becoming increasingly so. Therefore, the argument for exploiting the sector appropriately and putting the balance of our exploitation on the recreational side is increasingly strong.

My submission quotes some of the figures from the most recent report on salmon fishing, the Indecon report, which assesses the value of commercial catches at approximately €4 million, the contribution of overseas anglers at €6.5 million and that of domestic anglers at €4.6 million. Total expenditure by domestic anglers is much greater at approximately €51 million but the report discounts the majority of this of this because the money would have been spent in Ireland in any case.

One area where it is important to take this total expenditure into account is in assessing the regional impact of salmon angling. It is certainly the case that one of the effects of having a salmon resource and recreational activity is that it redistributes income from the more prosperous eastern counties, and cities and towns generally, into western and less prosperous regions. It is the total expenditure that matters in this regard rather than the reduced concept.

We have structured today's proceedings in an attempt to bring all players together so that we will have a clearer understanding of the issues involved. Mr. Neylon's enunciation of the economic impact has been very helpful to the committee.

Will Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh explain whether allowance is made in the scientific advice to cater for late running fish.

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Yes. The catch rates are derived from the index rivers. Due to the fact that we constantly monitor the run of fish past the traps in most of the rivers, any sudden bump in an autumn run, for example, would be reflected both in the return to the index river and in the catch rates. An issue would only arise if, for some reason, all those rivers I indicated did not have a late run but all the others did.

Chairman

This issue arose earlier and it was important to clarify the position.

I ask Deputy Ferris to concentrate on the economic arguments with Mr. Neylon and Mr. Brendan Whelan. After that, I will invite Deputy Eamon Ryan to present scientific questions for the attention of Dr. Ken Whelan and Dr. ÓMaoiléidigh.

Deputy Ferris

I have a number of questions for Mr. Neylon. How widely accepted are the research methodologies he has used in his report and how do they compare with those employed in the compilation of the Central Fisheries Board's report? What is Mr. Neylon's view of the Indecon report recommendation that more salmon be diverted into the angling sector? Why does he suggest that angling catch figures may prove inaccurate? How does he see the sector contributing to community sport through angling and fishing? What are the key changes that need to be made in order to ensure the optimum performance of the sector? Crucially, why is there so much hostility and suspicion in the fishing sector in respect of the scientific opinion regarding the protection of stocks?

Mr. Neylon

I shall respond to the questions in the order in which they were raised. It is not helpful at this stage to get involved in the nitty gritty of methodologies. However, it might be helpful to have an opportunity to discuss this matter on another occasion. My methodology is based on the work of the ESRI which has provided us with consistent methodology which has been refined over time. The notes at the end of my report refer to those methodologies. From what I heard earlier, it would be helpful to have a coming together of people to discuss the economics of the sector.

I do not wish to add to my previous comments regarding the Central Fisheries Board and the Indecon report. I have submitted a report to the Department which is an assessment of the Indecon study and points to the 20 methodological weaknesses to which I have referred.

Chairman

Will Mr. Neylon submit this document to the committee so it can be included in the body of our report?

Mr. Neylon

Yes. The third item related to views on diverting some fish stocks to angling. It is possible to establish the economic advantage on a river by river basis. Indecon has made a blanket statement, some of which was on a per fish caught basis, with no distinction between who catches the fish, the community in which it is caught and the benefit offset by the loss, for example, of certain public goods.

In my report I referenced public goods, a number of which are of concern to this committee. There is the public good of economic performance. There is also the public good of socio-cultural residue which exists, by and large, in remote coastal communities that happen to be the basis, incidentally or inadvertently, of tremendous cultural capital. Any impact or interference must be restructured with regard to the social capital networks that exist in those communities in terms of fishing, in particular, and the use of the sea. International experience suggests that it is almost impossible to reinstate that social capital. When one speaks of moving money and jobs from one area to another, that is a public good and must be taken into consideration.

With regard to angling catch inaccuracies, I spent five years working on a particular catchment and was responsible for bringing together the various stakeholders to establish a joint management regime. This was done under the auspices of the Central Fisheries Board and its regional counterparts. In order to negotiate an outcome, we had to have an understanding of the vested interests of each of the parties. It was quite transparent in some cases and one could establish someone's income and ask if they were willing to offset that for a benefit in some other way. With regard to the particular fishery, we were dealing with an approximate catch of 3,000 fish. In other words, could we negotiate that catch from an angling sector? Would it settle for 3,000 fish? It refused and said its catch exceeded that amount. In recent tagging reports, that river is listed as producing a catch of 500 to 600 fish. If one wants to discover what a person has in their back pocket, the simplest way is to offer them an exchange. That exchange was not accepted and this is one reason that I find such catch figures suspect.

The second reason is that catch figures are being multiplied on a model of high compliance. If 50 out of 100 log books are returned, the catch is multiplied to allow for the log books which have not been returned. That model does not take account of two factors. First, when I sent in my log book and had caught ten fish, I only reported five. There is a stronger possibility of that happening in this sector, because of its history, than in the country where the model was developed. Second, if I have a high catch I may be more likely not to return any catch at all because the one thing I do not want people saying, in this heated climate, is that I am a commercial angler with a significant catch. I may not, therefore, wish to return that figure. Those are two reasons for my doubting the returns to which I refer.

There is one final, more pressing, reason. The ESRI report of 1986 suggested a rod catch, when the averages are multiplied, of approximately 100,000 fish in the country at that time. Indecon went through the same exercise, some of which I have discredited. However, that report, when grossed up, also indicates a catch of 100,000 fish. I am not suggesting anything because I do not know what is the level of the catch.

The next question related to how this resource could contribute to communities and I have covered that point. The one piece that is missing is how coastal communities maximise the value of a €20 fish. If one runs down to the pier on a summer's evening, one could probably get a fish for €20 or €25. There is no agency charged with making sure that when it arrives in Billingsgate, it will be €80 or €100. There are only 100,000 of them in Europe. Can members imagine what must be the value? As a result of restrictions on catch, there are 100,000 fish available to a European-sized population. In order to maximise that, much work must be done. However, there are several models of artisan developments whereby one can have one's own smokery and mail-order business. This does not present problems.

How does one achieve optimum performance in the sector? One cannot achieve optimum economic performance in any sector until one creates a market. At present, there is no market for a fishery. If a prime fishery has 100 yards, there is no market because it is suppressed. The political economy has created a discourse which asks whether we want stock or commercial development. That discourse dates back over 30 years and most of this afternoon's arguments will refer to it.

I do not know the answer to the question on scientific advice. Science does not serve a good purpose by remaining secret. I appreciate the work that has been done in the past three or four years to ensure that everybody involved in this sector is literate about key stocking models and data collection. More of that work is needed. However, a scientist has another responsibility. When misstatements emerge in the public domain, scientists have a responsibility to say they consider them incorrect. Public discourse in this sector during the past ten years has referred to buy-outs across the north Atlantic. To my knowledge, no scientist has stated that there are not buy-outs but rather set-asides. People are asked to reduce catches and negotiations take place. That is what has happened but no scientist has said that it is not a buy-out. Scientists do themselves some discredit when promoting the truth as they see it if they do not challenge mistruths when they become aware of them.

Chairman

There are seven minutes remaining.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I will take three.

Chairman

The Deputy should address his questions to Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Dr. Whitaker

I will state my connection to wild salmon. I am a desultory, not very successful angler, but I have been associated with the Salmon Research Agency in County Mayo for quite a long time. I succeeded Dr. Went and was its chairman for some 15 years. In that way, I acquired both a deeper interest in and a greater knowledge of salmon. This group is simply an assembly of private individuals interested in conserving salmon as a unique national resource. Its main concern is that policy should be effective in achieving that aim. The sub-committee has heard evidence of the precipitous decline since 1970 in the numbers of salmon coming to our shores. This is not peculiar to Ireland but reflects the picture in the entire north Atlantic, where the number of fish caught has dropped by two thirds since the 1970s. The number of fish caught is taken to be representative of the number of fish coming this way.

Some years ago, a system of control involving tagging and quotas was introduced. It is a very expensive and rather cumbersome system. However, our concern is that it has not yet achieved anything in the way of conservation, not to mention renewal of stocks. This is because the commercial catch quota has, in the three years from 2002 to 2004, exceeded what could actually be caught. There is no element whatever of restriction or conservation, still less of regeneration of stocks. Therefore, we are very concerned that State policy and expenditure should now be directed effectively towards the aim we are all supposed to share, which is to conserve in so far as is possible this natural resource.

Consequently, after two years of remission, we want to see the scientific advice followed which will mean a substantial reduction in the commercial catch. We are not concerned with buy-outs or similar measures. Our view is that in so far as any reduction is now needed in the commercial catch to preserve stocks, there is no ground whatever for compensation, anymore than there is when people must stop fishing for herring or mackerel because they are scarce. An incentive could be offered to those who do not fish on a major scale to abandon fishing or give up fishing for a period to accelerate a restocking process. There is a very large difference in the scale of commercial fishing as 25% of commercial fishermen catch more than 70% of the fish, while 10% of commercial fishermen catch approximately 50% of the fish. There is a division between fairly large operators and small operators. There is scope for providing an incentive that would accelerate the regeneration of salmon stocks to licensed fishermen who represent the large number who catch such a small proportion of the fish. It would be worth getting rid of this small proportion to revive salmon stocks.

Speakers have mentioned that it is permitted to catch mixed stocks off our coasts. We have tried to avoid this practice by limiting the sea area in which Irish fishermen can fish. It seems that at least some of the fish intended for Wales, Spain, France or Germany are caught in our nets even though Irish fishermen do not fish further than ten miles off our coasts. I hope someone can investigate how near our fishermen have to come to our shores to avoid doing any serious depredation of that kind.

We need to observe scientific advice. We have ignored such advice for two or three years but we must now heed it because the trends are worrying.

Senator Kenneally

I thank Dr. Whitaker for coming before the sub-committee and giving us his views. He has already dealt with one of my questions by stating his position on the question of drift and draft netting and angling. In his submission and his remarks, Dr. Whitaker mentioned the disparity between the commercial catch quota and the actual commercial catch as being a reason for reducing the quota. Does Dr. Whitaker believe the actual catch figures are accurate or does he believe there is a certain amount of ongoing unreported catching? Dr. Whitaker also stated that he was opposed to any buyout on the basis that there was no justification for compensating someone simply because a practice is declining. However, he also mentioned an incentive to surrender in his submission. Could Dr. Whitaker elaborate on this issue? Has he drawn up any figures regarding what any incentive should be? The sub-committee's consultant gave members figures that showed that of the 877 fishing licences currently awarded, only approximately 169 licences are viable and that the remaining licences are marginal and should possibly be removed on a voluntary basis. Has Dr. Whitaker elaborated on how these licences might be removed?

I mentioned that, almost since the foundation of the State, the Government commissioned a series of reports every ten years or so examining the salmon management issue. Having read through these, they have usually called for a change in commercial net fisheries to favour an inshore, river catchment, single stock management rather than an open sea, mixed stock fishery. Given Dr. Whitaker's understanding of the management of this State, why have we failed to heed this regular advice?

Dr. Whitaker

Some of the advice was rather complacent. Ireland has an advantage in that stocks here are not yet in dire straits and so forth. On the other hand, there is a natural desire not to be too harsh on local coastal communities that depend to some extent on salmon fishing. There is a political difficulty in being hard on such people. As such, we find ourselves in a critical situation. We cannot neglect the facts and the danger of this great natural resource's extinction.

Deputy Ferris

I thank Dr. Whitaker for his presentation. This may be a double-barrelled question. His report is damning of drift fishermen, claiming they are doing 80% of the damage. On what does he base this claim given that many other factors could be taken into consideration? Whether it is fishing mackerel in the north Atlantic, seals attacking salmon on their return or river pollution, there is a problem at sea.

I thank Dr. Whitaker for appearing before the committee. This is the first time I have laughed in about two years. We recognise that Dr. Whitaker is a well respected, distinguished public servant who gave his life to public service. He is a former Secretary of the Department of Finance and a former Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland. We deeply appreciate his comments, and his facilitating the committee with his submission. Is it agreed to note and publish the report on behalf of the wild salmon support group? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at2 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome, from the National Fisheries Management Executive, Mr. John O'Connor, who is on the Central Fisheries Board, Mr. Harry Lloyd, Mr. Aidan Barry and Mr. Vincent Roche, from BIM, Mr. Michael Keating and Dr. Vera O'Donovan, from the Marine Institute, Dr. Ken Whelan — who is making his second appearance before the committee — from the ESB, Gerard Gough, and, from the Loughs Agency, Derick Anderson.

We have received submissions from the various groups and the committee has had some time to consider them. I propose that we start with a question and answer session to which we will devote one hour. I will give Mr. O'Connor two minutes to introduce this section to members.

I draw attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Mr. O'Connor will make an opening address and then there will be a question and answer session.

Mr. John O’Connor

On behalf of all of the State agencies, I thank the committee for the opportunity to make a submission. The various agencies have submitted their perspectives on the current position. The representatives of the various agencies have their own remit and that impacts on their approach to the submissions that have been made. There is no unanimity among the fisheries boards on the current and future positions. In the case of the Central Fisheries Board, the single biggest imperative concerning conservation is single stock management, that is, ensuring that stock is exploited on a single stock basis. The board is also concerned about the management and ownership of our river systems. Some of my colleagues have a different perspective, particularly those from the northern and south-western regions. However, the points on which we agree can be progressed further and the areas on which we do not agree will becomeclearer over time.

Chairman

Is Mr. O'Connor aware that a number of criticisms have been levelled at the Indecon report today?

Mr. O’Connor

I have heard the criticisms.

Chairman

Will Mr. O'Connor comment on the criticisms of the methodology used and could he advise the committee on the status of the Indecon report? Has it been endorsed by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources?

Mr. O’Connor

The Central Fisheries Board commissioned Indecon International Economic Consultants, with the approval of the Minister, to produce an independent report on the future of wild salmon in Ireland. The board submitted the completed report to the Minister and advocated strongly that its recommendations be implemented. The Minister then asked the board to carry out a process of public consultation to ascertain the views of those in the sector on the report and how it should be implemented. I visited all the regional boards in the country and spoke to a number of stakeholder groups. Members of the public were also invited to submit comments to the board and an independent consultant assessed the submissions received. On foot of this process, a report was compiled and submitted to the Minister advising implementation of its recommendations. The Minister and his Department are considering that report and a final decision is awaited.

Dr. Garrigan has briefed me on some of Mr. Neylon's comments and criticisms and I have also heard him comment adversely on the report in the past. The report was undertaken by a very reputable company which is one of the best economic consultancies in the country. It is not a matter for me to second guess the company, but I did recommend that Mr. Neylon bring his concerns to Indecon directly. This seems to be the most appropriate course of action. I wrote to the economic consultant who drafted the report and put Mr. Neylon's points to him. He responded to the effect that he stood over what is contained in the report. There is little more that I can do in this regard. Economists will sometimes disagree on the contents of reports but I cannot comment further except to recommend again that Mr. Neylon discuss the matter with the economic consultant directly. I would be interested to hear the outcome of such a discussion.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Connor for his comments. The committee will forward the transcript of these proceedings to the relevant departmental officials and request a response from the Minister to the criticisms voiced today.

Senator Kenneally

I welcome the representatives of different bodies appearing before the committee today, especially Dr. Whelan. I have several questions that I would like to address to the fisheries boards. I asked the Minister of State earlier about the distribution of quotas because I believe there is no equity in the distribution method. The Minister of State informed me that this is not within his area of responsibility. Perhaps Mr. O'Connor might be able to inform the committee who decides what the quotas are across regions and how such decisions are reached.

I also have a question about counters on rivers. We have heard about the scientific data available but quite a number of fishermen have informed me that they do not know the real situation because of a lack of counters. Some rivers have counters but a considerable number do not. One of the scientists who made a submission earlier admitted that the salmon run can occur later in the year, that some of the salmon runs are in September or even November and that was shown on some of the fish counters in place. The evidence from the Waterford estuary area suggests that large numbers of salmon go upriver after the season has ended. However, no one can say exactly what is happening because there are no counters there. Perhaps Mr. O'Connor could comment on this issue.

I also have a question for Mr. Barry from the South-Western Regional Fisheries Board. I have read his submission and his suggestion that certain areas should be used for conservation only and that there should be a permanent ban on fishing in those areas. Mr. Barry does not, however, recommend any areas in the south-western region for conservation and I want to know the reason for this.

On the quota issue, the committee is aware that up to 1975, 75% of the total allowable catch was caught in the east and south-east region. Currently, the quota in that region is 9,600, while the quota in the western region is 46,000. This cannot be justified given that the spawning level in the south and south east is 39,000, in Cork it is 7,000 and in Kerry it is 11,000. The disparity in the size of the quotas cannot be justified. Quotas are being distributed in a most inequitable fashion. Perhaps Mr. Barry can comment on this.

Mr. Barry also states in his submission that "we must stop all exploitation in seven of our 17 districts". I would like to know what seven districts he is referring to and whether any of them are in the south-western region.

These discussions must deal with the issue of a salmon buyout. The Department has consistently stated that it is not in favour of this approach. I would like to hear the views of the four representatives from the fisheries boards on a voluntary buyout and whether they could estimate what it would cost, that is, what moneys should be offered to the drift net fishermen.

Chairman

We will first hear from Dr. Ken Whelan on monitoring and fish counters before the four representatives of the fisheries boards respond.

Dr. Ken Whelan

Mr. Barry

The south west is fortunate in that its two districts, Cork and Kerry, both exceed spawning requirements and generate significant surpluses according to scientists. Evidence indicates that at 50% exploitation the catch for the southwest may consist in the region of 74,000 fish although the current quota is 45,000. Our exploitation is therefore much lighter than is indicated within strictly scientific terms. These figures are based on our current models and may be refined in the future. We are not at present in danger of breaching the margin of safety nor are we close to 75%. Models of the southwest region show a 98% to 99% certainty in the achievement of optimal spawning requirements in previous years.

Chairman

May I take it that all of the representatives of the fisheries boards sing from the same hymn sheet?

Mr. O’Connor

While Mr. Barry and I are in agreement on most aspects of salmon management, we are not on this. Our disagreement may arise from our respective remits. Mr. Barry is responsible for management of the south-west region and is successful at this. I have a national remit because of which I experience serious difficulties with the issue of multi-stock exploitation at sea. Fish from the Boyne, the Liffey, the Slaney, the Nore, the Suir, the Barrow and the Munster Blackwater rivers are caught indiscriminately off the west coast. When we ask about the areas that do not have a surplus or that the scientists recommended we do not exploit, we are told six of the eight of them are along the east and south-east coast. That is not a coincidence.

If we want to rehabilitate and have a fair and proper distribution of the fish, we must first cease the interceptive nature of the fishery. In other words, we should exploit the fish in each catchment area by bringing in exploitation into the basin estuaries. That does not necessarily mean somebody will get fewer fish. The quota nationally might not change but there might be a redistribution of fish. Mr. Barry is right when he said there is no threat to his rivers in the way he is exploiting fish in his region. It is a reasonable management system for him but unfortunately for those on the east coast and other areas, it is not a reasonable management system.

If we examine the way the Common Fisheries Policy works and the ICES advice we can see that all the sea fishery stocks around the coast are managed on an individual stock basis. My board would like to move to a situation where we bring the exploitation into the basin estuaries, exploit individual stocks and therefore give the other rivers that are not meeting their conservation limit an opportunity to be rehabilitated. I am not saying will solve all the problems but it should have a significant impact on improving the fisheries in the other districts.

Senator Kenneally

Who decides on the quotas for the various districts?

Mr. O’Connor

I should add that there may be areas along the Irish coast that might not be immediately suitable for single stock management. We should not introduce this measure everywhere. We should talk to people in the communities to determine where it can be brought in and how it will impact, if at all, on the communities. We should work with people. This is not something we can do overnight.

On the question of who decides on the quotas, the way we have been working in recent years is that the scientists do their assessment of the stocks and present figures to the National Salmon Commission and ourselves. We are a group of the eight chief executives of the fishery boards. We call ourselves the National Fisheries Management Executive, NFME. We then examine the science, like they do in the sea fisheries area, and it is one of the elements we consider in making our recommendations to the Minister on what we believe should be the exploitation pattern for the coming year. For example, we have to take into consideration the traditions in fishing throughout the country and the numbers of fish being taken. In other words, if we were to follow the scientific recommendations this year, we would close down eight districts because eight districts did not meet their conservation limits. That has to be taken into consideration in the light of what I just said about where the fish for some of those districts are being exploited. In terms of where we want to get to in the long term, we are trying to work with fishermen and redistribute over a period.

There has been much talk about the reason the fisheries boards have ignored the science. We have not ignored the science. The science is something that feeds into management, not management feeding into the science. Science is one element we have to take into account in making our judgments. It would have been easy for us to go with the science. Nobody could object to that but we took the difficult decision to work with this, change the exploitation pattern and try to get closer to meeting conservation limits.

Senator Kenneally

Would it be fair to say that it is not through their own fault that the eight districts are not meeting the conservation quotas?

Mr. O’Connor

It is not entirely through their own fault.

Chairman

Have you a question for the fisheries board representative, Deputy Ryan?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I do, and I have to dispute Mr. O'Connor's comments. It is a remarkable development that a central fisheries board would put aside scientific advice. We heard Dr. Whitaker say earlier that everybody recognises the need to go towards meeting scientific advice but we are deciding to do it in two years' time. I do not understand why we should not do that. Why do we have scientific advice if we do not follow it? I would argue that, ultimately, it is in the interest of the fishermen, the commercial nets men, that we follow scientific advice. It is remarkable that State agencies authorised for the conservation of a species ignore that scientific advice when ultimately it is in the interest of the commercial fishermen, the anglers and people interested in conservation. I cannot accept Mr. O'Connor's argument about management on one hand and scientific advice on the other as if they are two separate things. I find that remarkable.

In his presentation Mr. Barry made the point that single stock management would be easier. To a certain extent from his position, which is very much orientated to getting the best for the fishermen in Kerry and Cork, single stock management would benefit his constituents. A higher quota might be possible, for example. What we are hearing about this morning is not concentrating on buyout or an end to commercial fisheries but on a sustainable quota. A single stock management would allow Mr. Barry's fisheries to get an even higher quota and have a niche market, which could be exploited very effectively. Why did Mr. Barry argue against single stock management in his presentation? It does not make sense to me. His argument led logically in one direction towards single stock management and then he went in a different direction. Does Mr. Barry accept the methodology of the scientific advice presented here this morning by members of the standing scientific committee? Mr. O'Connor can respond to the comment I made——

Chairman

I will allow him respond. I will call Mr. Barry and then Mr. Lloyd. We will come back to Mr. O'Connor. You can consider the Deputy's remarks in the meantime, Mr. O'Connor.

Mr. Barry

Mr. Harry Lloyd

Mr. Roche

The advice was that there was no surplus in eight of the districts.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

As a result, we should set a national quota of 122,000 fish. That was ignored.

Mr. Roche

No, the advice was that there should be no fishing in certain districts. If we had followed the scientific advice, it would have meant no fishing, commercial or otherwise.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The advice was that we should set a national quota of 122,000 fish, regardless of whether we closed or opened fisheries.

Mr. Roche

There would be little point in going by the scientific advice if we applied it on a district basis. The scientific advice was based on the fact that some districts did not have a harvestable surplus.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

That would be a move towards a single stock system which we do not have.

Mr. Roche

We have the nearest thing to it, that is, quotas allocated on a district basis. That is the way it has been done since quotas were introduced.

Mr. Lloyd referred to the situation in Sligo. It would be extremely difficult to justify a closure of the Sligo district fishery in a situation where the balance of the counter, one of the few counters that is working, counted 4,000 fish last year. At the same time, downstream of the counter, there was a royal catch of well over 2,000 fish by anglers. It is an extremely healthy situation in which it would be impossible to justify a closure of the fishery. As CEOs and managers, we have serious questions to ask of the scientists about the scientific advice which requires refinement.

I can give another example. In the case of the Moy, almost 10,000 salmon were caught by anglers last year. It was said this morning that anglers would exploit about 20% of the catch in any river. It might be higher on the Moy where it could be approximately 25% but, assuming anglers on the river took 25% of the catch last year, it means 75% remains in the river. This means there are at least 30,000 salmon left. However, the conservation limit recommended by the scientists for the river is 24,000. This suggests we are way above our conservation limit. The surplus of 15,000 recommended for the Ballina district simply would not hold up in that situation. There are contradictions.

Nonetheless, my board will accept that in general salmon stocks are in decline. There is no question about this. In particular, we believe the problem is survival at sea rather than exploitation. I have not heard any scientist disagree with the fact that survival of salmon at sea is in serious decline. We need research into this and need it soon. In the meantime, we will have a serious difficulty.

Chairman

Mr. Keating, we heard about the €100 salmon this morning. At an optimistic level, what price per kilo could salmon achieve? What added value does the BIM ascribe to the value of the salmon catch?

Mr. Michael Keating

In answering the question I will make a couple of points by way of introduction. Somebody indicated this morning that no agency in the State had responsibility for the development of this sector.BIM has responsibility and I am delighted to be here today. That development of sea fisheries extends to wild salmon but we also have a wider remit in respect of the management of inshore stocks in a more general way. That is a point I would like to direct at Deputy Eamon Ryan. It is important we see that wider context.

In respect of a point made about ignoring scientific information, it is very important we all recognise, as Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh was at pains to point out earlier, that science is, by its nature, imprecise. The role of management will always be to interpret that in an appropriate fashion. Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh showed us extremely good graphs that showed a risk space. In other words, if one decides not to catch fish, the likelihood of achieving the catch limit is 100%. If one decides to catch one million salmon, the chance of achieving the catch limit is zero. There is always an interpretation within that space. One of the points made about fish not being taken, for example, in the south west in a mixed fishery — one can see that the quotas indicated for the coming year would forgo some of the opportunity — is that those fish will obviously increase the approximity to the appropriate catch limit in the other areas. That being said, two points emerge.

The Chairman asked me about the €100 fish. I would be more than happy to show him the €350 fish because one of the things we noted about the Indecon report was its reluctance to give what I would see as reasonable attention to the down stream value of the salmon sector. If one takes, for example, the wild catch at the moment, approximately 80% will go for smoking. If one looks at the retail price for smoked salmon, it is now in the order of €80 per kilo. Even if I just take a fish in a fish market, last Friday a wild salmon sold in Billingsgate for Â£25 sterling per kilo. When we came to this problem with the onset of the National Salmon Commission and the need to reduce the overall annual catch, BIM recognised that there had been a lack of attention to this sector. With the advent of fish farming, the price of salmon, in general, had been allowed to slip. Back in 2000, we were appalled to find fishermen accepting as little as €4 per kilo until we pointed out that was roughly the same price as cat food.

Since then, in the past four years, we have made a huge effort to provide ice bins, to increase the level of understanding and knowledge of fish handling by running training workshops and courses. By last year, we were confident the average price in those areas co-operating with us was in the order of €12 per kilo to the fisherman. That is a 300% increase. Yesterday our marketing division gave me figures. If I look at them and at that 80% of fish going for smoking — I am talking artisan processors who are resident in rural coastal communities and who are part of that wider fisheries context — we are talking about significant added value. In fact, at first point of sale — on the basis of 160,000 fish last year — we believe the direct value on the pier wall was probably in the order of €4.5 million. If one was to take the smoked and export add on, the entire value is probably closer to €7.5 million. There is somewhere in the order of an added value factor of 11:1. Some of the figures are erroneously under estimated. This has a bearing on some of the points other speakers have made.

I wish to add another point to that value argument. In rural communities that rely on fishing, people talk about salmon fishermen as if this cannot possibly be their mainstay. I agree that for the majority of salmon fishermen, it is not their mainstay. They participate in a wide range of inshore fisheries. We have been working hard to recognise our lobster, crab, shrimp. Many of our inshore stocks have been over exploited and we have been redressing that. If we were now to take this €4 million to €5 million income out of the sector by whatever means, the majority of those fishermen will diversify back into other stocks. While changing an approach to one species by way of conservation-driven thinking, we could damage the wider fabric. We need to be very mindful of that outside range of things.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Would we not get a higher premium if we sold fish in Billingsgate market which we could prove was caught on a sustainable, catchment management basis rather than by indiscriminate drift-net at sea which is seen across the rest of the Atlantic as being the wrong and unsustainable way to go? Would we not get a higher premium if we moved to this single stock management system and were able to sell it as an environmentally sustainable locally resourced fishery? Would that not lead to a massive further premium?

Mr. Keating

I do not think the housewife or the househusband buying the fish is necessarily totally driven in that way. The price is the price and the purse is what really matters.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

They are paying Â£25 sterling per kilo.

We all agree there is a huge problem at sea. It seems there is a dramatic problem with a decline from three million to one million and from 2.5 million to 500,000. We face an incredible crisis. Whatever about the problems on shore — pollution and so on — what I find remarkable is that all these State agencies and numerous people working for the State agencies question the science from our State officials. In 1996, we set out a new approach whereby we would follow scientific analysis. That is what we have done. The scientists came back at the end of this process and presented us with the information but I hear State officials question the scientific advice. It seems remarkable.

Deputy Ferris

We had a presentation this morning on the scientific analysis. Certain sectors are questioning the modalities of it. For the people at the coalface — I refer not only to the salmon fishermen but those right across the whole fishing spectrum — the scientific analysis from Europe or the United States is very questionable because there is no input as such from those trying to make a living out of it.

I wish to go back to a point made about salmon fishing which, if stopped, would have adverse effect on lobster, crayfish, oyster or whatever. For most people involved in salmon fishing on the west and south coasts, it is complementary to their yearly income. They fish lobster and crayfish from March until June. They fish for salmon for two months and then they fish oysters or scallops for the winter. The effect this will have on dependent people in rural areas if it is lost has been under estimated. We can all make theoretical arguments around statistics and scientific analysis but much of the scientific analysis I have seen over the years has been flawed. Nobody would understand what I am saying more than the people working with the regional fishery boards. How many of the State angling fisheries are leased each year? What is the income from the individual leases?

Chairman

I remind members that we are 15 minutes over time. We just want to get a flavour of the presentations today. We could spend the entire day here. We are getting a flavour of written presentations and clarification on a number of points, which will be helpful to the committee. According to two BIM reports in 2001, seals are doing untold damage. Can BIM comment on the report and its call for a seal cull?

Mr. Keating

We made a submission that clarified some of the points I made in respect of my earlier intervention which was originally sent as part of my submission to the Indecon report. I can make it available to the committee.

BIM has undertaken a number of studies on seals and we have come to a view. To put it bluntly and at the risk of sounding facetious, seals certainly do not eat hamburgers. Seals have a major impact on fish stocks. In terms of quantifying that impact, it would be dynamic, a function of how many seals are present in an area and the size of the stock. We have found that where, for example, one has nets at sea in which salmon are trapped, they present a very——

Chairman

Has BIM any position on the call by the Donegal Traditional Inshore Fishermen's Organisation for a seal cull? Have you any comment on that?

Mr. Keating

A cull is one extreme. Certainly, we are in favour of seal management and there are ways of doing that which do not necessitate killing animals. One can manage animals in more than one way.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Keating. To finish, I will call Mr. O'Connor and Dr. Whelan. I am sorry that we do not have any more time. Dr. Whelan wishes to answer a serious charge made against his thoughts and views.

Dr. Whelan

This follows Deputy Eamon Ryan's contribution. Obviously as someone who works closely with the scientists, I feel I must defend some of the comments made earlier. There are two points. If we had no scientists, a thought with which I will leave the committee, what would we do? We would mount a massive great experiment and say we should get funding, go out with nets and see if the fish are out there. We have not found the fish and that supports much of what the scientists are saying.

Equally, there is the question of marine survival, my own hobbyhorse which we have not discussed. We are working against a background where good science indicates we are at a stage where the marine survival is really very low. Every move we make, as managers or as scientists, is against that backdrop. My major concern is speed and the fact that, as we saw earlier, the term from egg to adult grilse is four years and from egg to adult salmon is five. With each year that we perhaps prevaricate, in terms of taking tough decisions on the scientific advice, there is a real threat that we are putting the weaker stocks seriously at risk. There is that area of speed of achievement. The reason we do so is that we can come back to the committee in ten years' time and say that yet again we are increasing the quotas. In reality, our rivers are an important salmon factory. I do not know of any manager who would not fill his factory with product in order to produce the export goods. That, in essence, is what we are doing at present, we are not filling the factory. We must find a way to fill the factory and then we can do everything Deputy Ferris wants, in terms of the management and exploitation of the stock, but we must get to the stage where we are producing the surplus to do that.

Chairman

Mr. O'Connor, the economic arguments this morning suggest that there is no real market for salmon angling. You might be able to comment on that when you respond to Deputy Ryan.

Mr. O’Connor

May I make a couple of general comments. Mr. Keating referred to BIM's remit of being responsible for the development of sea fish——

Chairman

I ask you to respond to Deputy Ryan, if you wish. He disagreed with you on something and I want to give you an opportunity to respond. You need not summarise any of the other views here because the committee is quite capable of understanding what was said, taking what was said in oral evidence here today together with the presentations. We rushed today's session because we do not have more time. If there are other unanswered questions or if you want to add to any of your presentations or to clarify any point, the committee would be more than delighted to receive those comments by e-mail or any other form of correspondence. That would help us, and our consultant, to frame our forthcoming report.

Mr. O’Connor

I will so confine my remarks. On a point of information, because there may be something that is misunderstood here, there were a number of elements to the scientific advice. There was a national quota of 122,000 fish, but then the scientists recommended what each individual district quota should be and that there should be no fishing in eight of those districts. If we were to accept the scientific advice this year there would be no fishing along the east and south-east coasts and in Connemara, Galway and Sligo.

To attempt to achieve a balance, bearing in mind what we discussed in terms of single stock management, we took fish from the northern region and from the south-western region. In fact, if we had taken the scientific advice, the quotas in the south-western and northern regions would have been bigger this year but we were trying to strike a balance.

I thank you all.

Sitting suspended at 3.17 p.m. and resumed at 3.20 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome the fishery owners tourism trade delegations: Mr. Peter Mantle, Delphi Lodge, Mr. Patrick O'Flaherty, Great Fishing Houses of Ireland, Mr. Brian Curran, Fishing Ireland West, Mr. Anthony Creswell, Irish Smoked Wild Atlantic Salmon, Mr. Peter Geoghegan, Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association representing the trade and Mr. Peter Dunn, Dunn's Seafare.

As the issues relate to trade and tourism, Senator Finucane will commence with questions regarding tourism and trade. We will finish the debate with questions to the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association and Dunn's Seafare. The committee has a large programme to get through today and I ask the delegations to be brief and to merely expand on the submissions already made to help us to put together our report.

I draw everybody's attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege. However, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Senator Finucane

I welcome the delegations. I will direct my first question to the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association. Can a value be put on commercially caught fish? What type of quality problems arise with salmon caught in estuaries? I am basing my questions on information supplied in the submission.

The committee has also received a submission from the Regional Fisheries Board. The representative from Irish Smoked Wild Atlantic Salmon may be able to reply to my next question. It is suggested compliance with regulations is high and that there is little illegal fishing. Perhaps the delegation would comment on that point. It is well recognised that smoked salmon is a prestige product. Mr. Mantle is well known for his achievements at Delphi Fishery in terms of the ground sea trout issue. Perhaps he will outline his experience in a fishery and how the current situation is impacting on him and the salmon going into the Delphi Fishery. Are such fish destined for other jurisdictions?

Chairman

As I stated at the beginning of the meeting, we will leave questions for the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters until the end of the meeting.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I will direct my first question to Mr. Mantle. Mr. Barry in his presentation suggests that ranching on the east coast and southeast coast rivers might be an interim solution given the crisis experienced in those rivers. How viable is that as a solution? Will it allow the protection of genetic stock and lead to a recovery in stocks? I am interested to hear Mr. Mantle's views on that matter.

Mr. Mantle is also a member of the Wild Salmon Group which made an earlier submission to the committee. The sense I am getting from today's hearings is that we need to get away from the concept of buyout. Dr. Whitaker made a convincing argument in that regard. Perhaps holders of smaller licences who are not taking huge numbers could be provided with an incentive to give them up. Concentrating on buyout may not be the right tactical approach. Everyone involved is experiencing a crisis including, fishermen, anglers and conservationists. If a significant surplus is identified one then gets into the discussion about how it is distributed.

It is shocking to note that in the Corrib and Galway rivers, never mind the Boyne or the Liffey, spawning return numbers are way below conservation level. In those circumstances, should we not focus on a conservation measure which would require the involvement of all interests and would benefit everybody rather than responding to the crisis by suggesting one sector should buy out another? Mr. Mantle has suggested in his submission that people in the angling tourism sector could contribute towards a buyout. The figure given is approximately €5 million. The Minister spoke today of €80 million. Perhaps Mr. Mantle would comment on that issue.

My next question is directed to Mr. O'Flaherty. I imagine Mr. O'Flaherty given his position in the hotel sector would have a fairly good indication of international thinking in this regard. What is the perception among international anglers of what is going on in Ireland? I am sure Mr. O'Flaherty travels to the international tourism fairs. How well recognised is this issue abroad and what effect is it having on the image of Ireland abroad?

Chairman

I ask Mr. Mantle to respond to the questions directed to him. Others may ask questions later.

Mr. Peter Mantle

Regarding ranching, our operation is slightly odd. We were forced to go ranching to retain some fishing credibility when our sea trout were wiped out. The salmon runs at Delphi were not sufficient to sustain us as a credible fishing operation. People do not get involved in ranching because it is expensive to construct and run. I do not hold it out as any kind of panacea for all the ills of Irish salmon. It is a stop-gap measure which was forced upon us, one we can just about justify because it keeps us in operation as a fishing lodge.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Can fishing stocks be restored to the wild through ranching?

Mr. Mantle

We also operate a parallel run of wild atlantic salmon into the fishery. That run never was or could be enough to sustain a significant angling operation. Ranching has two ancillary benefits: we can survive as a fishing lodge and, we can deliver a great deal of information about what happens to our fish because all the fish we have released during the past 16 years have been tagged and those tags have been recovered around the coasts of Ireland, in Greenland and in the high seas fisheries in the Faroe Islands. We have a good idea of what happens to our fish and of how few of them survive and return to Delphi. We know more or less precisely where they are being netted in Ireland and know how many of them have been netted here. We know, for example, that between 65% and 70% of the fish we release survive the tribulations of the high seas. When they make it back to Ireland, they are caught in nets outside our district. The district system scientists decided on is in need of some clear refinement to reflect the fact that, as we have seen today, salmon are not exploited exclusively on a local basis. In fact, the opposite is very much the case.

The district's figures will be of a lower quality then the scientists' overall total of 122,000 until the calculations of quotas by district are adjusted to reflect the differences I mentioned. We know, on the basis of information received from the tag recovery programme, that many of our fish have been taken in County Mayo and some have been taken in counties Donegal, Galway and Clare. The scientific district quotas are based on the assumption that all the fish caught in a district are destined for that district. We all know that is wrong, but we do not yet have the basis for adjusting those figures. That is why it is unfair to criticise the scientists, who have done their best with limited information. They are now hoping to improve their information to enable better district quota analysis to be conducted. It does not have anything to do with the figure of 122,000, which is totally solid and scientifically justifiable.

Mr. Patrick O’Flaherty

I wish to respond to Deputy Ryan's question about the perception of salmon angling in the international tourism market. I have a view on that matter as a hotelier and a fisheries operator, but also as chairman of Great Fishing Houses of Ireland, which is a voluntary marketing group of 21 houses throughout the country that offer quality accommodation and angling. The organisation has a strong presence in the US and UK markets. It is considered to be the best angling product for Ireland. I travel overseas to consumer fishing shows on that basis.

I agree with Mr. O'Flaherty's remarks. When one attends trade shows in various countries one hears potential tourists saying that although angling here is cheap, the product is not good due to the lack of availability of sufficient numbers of fish, which in turn has resulted from the fact that this country allows drift netting at sea. I agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan that there is a crisis throughout this sector. No fish will be available to be caught by netsmen or anglers if we continue the present management structure. That is the way it is going. The number of game anglers has declined substantially since 1999, from 84,000 to 43,000, and it will get worse. There is no sign that fish are being allowed to escape into rivers for spawning or angling.

We will work together on that. Senator Finucane asked about the value of commercial salmon. The landed value of such salmon to the fisherman is approximately €4 million or €5 million if a good price is achieved, as a speaker said earlier. It is significant that the price has increased from approximately €7 per kilogram to approximately €12 per kilogram. That reflects the premium quality of salmon, which is a commercial resource based on drift-netting. We can get the best value and quality from drift netting, rather than draft netting, which leads to problems in certain areas. I echo the comments of my colleague — issues relating to river estuaries need to be examined carefully. Many problems are encountered in such areas.

I will speak about the first landed value of commercial salmon. I am afraid the difficulty with the Indecon report was that it did consider the added value downstream, unfortunately. It estimated the value of smoked salmon from wild fisheries as being approximately €10 million in an extra increment to the national economy. That is its figure, not mine. The valuation of smoked salmon for export is significant at between €6 million to €7 million, not all of which is wild salmon. Unfortunately, the statistics for wild and farmed products are not separate. The statistics are deficient in many ways and the need for an exercise on added value down the chain for salmon was underscored in the 2003 Indecon report. It is generally accepted and was not allowed to go on.

As Senator Finucane said, it is a valuable resource. There were complaints some years ago that wild salmon stocks were not handled correctly. BIM has done a good job in accrediting vessels to handle fish properly on boats and through the distribution chain into plants. I do not argue for drift-netting over tourism. I merely point out that the value of a commercial fishery into which a State agency is putting a great deal of effort and in respect of which fishermen are attending workshops and being accredited with a pan-European, Commission approved, quality symbol speaks for itself. The system cannot be dismantled and it would be a pity if it were.

On the specific point regarding valuations of possible buyouts, although there appear to be two sides to this issue, this is not the case. It is not a "them and us" scenario because there are willing buyers and sellers. While we acknowledge that the beneficiaries of any extra fish should be expected to contribute, it is the assessment of the cost of a buyout that we raise in our submission. Even bending over backwards to be generous to the netsmen in terms of the value for fish and the number of fish they catch, one cannot conclude that a figure in excess of €20 million to €30 million is fair compensation.

There is no dispute that the landed value of the fish lies somewhere between €4 million and €5 million per annum. The debate revolves around how many years of value one must pay the netsmen to keep them satisfied. Another possibility is to seek to buy out only those involved in netting practices that are more destructive than non-netting practices. For example, if one were to focus on drift netting, the cost might be two thirds of the figure we have put forward. If one factors into the equation the fact that the fishermen have costs, one could justify lower prices still. I have no illusions, however, and I am certain that a buyout, whatever its nature, will involve some sort of horse trade.

One of the reasons there has not been a deal so far, despite the presence of many willing sellers and buyers, is that expectations were grossly elevated a few years ago when it was proposed to give all the netsmen £100,000 or £150,000, a figure so far removed from reality that those of us who had hitherto been encouraging dialogue on a buyout were forced into silence for a while. No buyout was possible at that kind of compensation level.

Chairman

I suggest that those present who are involved in the tourism industry communicate with the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, which has more time to spend on this aspect of tourism than this sub-committee whose focus is on a specific area. I thank the delegations for attending and apologise for cutting them short due to time constraints. The best is yet to come.

Sitting suspended at 3.55 p.m. and resumed at 4.05 p.m.

Chairman

I remind everyone that mobile phones must be switched off. We are now into the drift net session. We have the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, the Donegal Salmon and Inshore Fishermen's Association, the Irish Fish Producers Organisation, Galway and Connemara Salmon Fishermen's Association, East/South-East Netsmen Association, Cork Commercial Driftnet Association and Irish Salmon Netsmen Association.

I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but that this does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses. Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. The format will provide for a two-minute overview from Mr. Frank Doyle of the IFO. We will then move immediately on to questions beginning with Deputy Ferris and Senator Kenneally for this session. I am conscious that Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide must fly to Finland on business on the country's behalf. If there is a question for him, I hope it will be disposed of quickly.

Mr. Frank Doyle

From the commercial point of view, the debate on salmon always tends to be somewhat emotive in content. It is not a new subject by any means. It dates back to the 1930s at least and possibly earlier. In fact, I heard Mr. Curran refer to the Land Acts just a while ago. They go back much further than that. Therefore, the salmon issue has a long history. Unfortunately, from a discussion perspective, this is an emotive history and the subject is far from dispassionate.

The commercial sector has tried its best in the past 20 years or more. Our organisation started 21 years ago with the then Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, Deputy Paddy O'Toole, to try to get a policy together that would cover all aspects of fishing boats from the viewpoint of commercial, angling and other interests because the situation as it stood was going nowhere. Nothing happened until 1995-96 when the salmon task force was established. That reported in June 1996 and advocated an integrated combined approach which would take everything related to salmon under its wing and produce a policy for the longer term with everyone signed up in tandem. Unfortunately, the salmon task force report was selectively picked by Ministers over the intervening period, with bits being taken from here and there. The integrated approach specifically recommended by the salmon task force was abandoned and ignored. Consequently, we have the type of situation that obtains today.

The only people affected by the salmon task force report to date are those in the commercial sector, specifically the drift net sector which saw its fishing week reduced from five days to four, the daily time reduced from 24 hours to 17 and the 12-mile limit reduced to six miles. Catch logbooks were introduced as well and, in more recent years, commercial quotas, further increasing the pressure on that particular sector. Nothing was imposed on any other sector of the industry. In particular, there is no limit on the quantity of fish that the leisure or angling, sector can take. No limit is suggested anywhere in the discussions in this regard. Neither is there any limit on the number of licences that may be taken up. The result is that there is a totally skewed policy at present which is very heavily biased against one sector and exceedingly promotional towards another in terms of its application focus.

The salmon task force report said that the commercial or drift net sector was not by any means the only one likely to impinge on salmon. In fact, it recommended 40 factors that could impinge on the whole question of salmon. The real threat to salmon stocks has been largely covered in some shape or form this morning. It includes the condition of the freshwater environment and the question of sedation, with seals being mentioned prominently in that regard. There is the question of angling activities and the fact that there is no total allowable catch or any type of restriction on numbers or freshwater poaching upriver. There is also an insufficiency of staff and obstacles are presented by hydroelectric schemes and land drainage which cause enormous damage in terms of situation and loss of habitat.

There is also the socio-economic impact that will ensue if the type of policies being promoted are pursued. Finally, there is the question as to where the social, cultural and economic status of coastal communities exists in this debate. If salmon is excluded from the earnings of a great number of small-vessel fishermen, all of whose boats are under 40 feet and most of them under 20 feet in length, it should be borne in mind that €2,000 makes an enormous difference in their annual income. It is a small but important component of the total annual earnings of the fishermen concerned. We do not want to see the numbers reduced and are heavily opposed to the suggestion of a buyout. However, we are interested in the possibility of a properly constructed set-aside scheme for the recovery of stocks where the levels are determined in the first instance and management decisions are taken on that basis and, following recovery of stock levels, licences could be issued, allowing young people to get a foothold in the business.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Doyle for giving the joint committee an overview of the situation.

Deputy Ferris

I welcome the delegation representing commercial fishermen. I concur with many points in Mr. Doyle's presentation on the task force report and the effects it has had on what at one stage was a decent income from the industry. However, a point being missed in the debate is the concessions made by drift net fishermen on the reduction of the fishing area, the reduction of the overall length of nets, the reduction of the number of days from 100 to 36, non-flexibility in regard to safety days and the impact of these concessions on the income of those involved in costal communities. Nobody wants to conserve salmon stocks more than those dependent on them for a livelihood.

I wish to ask Lorcan Ó Cinnéide his view on the scientific reports based on his practical knowledge. Were those who depend on the industry for a living consulted in the process of drawing up a scientific report? What is his view on the effects of river pollution in the decline of salmon stocks? In County Kerry those engaged in the fishing industry were very concerned that pollution in rivers was a reason for the decline in salmon stocks. The figure I have for the number of licences between Kerry and Cork is 160 but how many of those with a licence are fishing actively? Will he comment on reports that salmon are unable to get up weirs and rivers due to a lack of water during the summer?

Lorcan Ó Cinnéide

I am no expert on the scientific measurable levels of pollution in rivers, except that I concur with the comments of Mr. Doyle and others, the regional managers, especially Mr. Barry, in identifying the state of the freshwater habitats as being a key determinant of the current and future state of salmon stocks. That is part of our analysis of the scale of things. The debate lacks perspective.

We must remember when discussing commercial drift netting that limiting the fishery from 12 miles to six did not halve the area but reduced the area of sea available by two thirds. Let me point out that this activity occurs for 6.2% of annual time. This means that for 93.8% of the year there is no man-made impediment at sea to fish arriving in rivers. The supposed damage being done by commercial fisheries appears to suggest that the majority of fish arrive during the two calendar months in which the State allows fishermen to operate — four days per week, for the relevant number of daylight hours — in order to commit suicide. This is completely at variance with the facts, as anybody who is right-minded knows.

In terms of the scientific analysis, the practitioners are making tremendous efforts to improve their knowledge and I am glad they are acknowledging that sea survival is a key determinant but that process takes place independently of fishermen. The experiential knowledge of fishermen would contribute greatly to the improvement of science. The use of the word "science" is being abused. Science is being attributed with characteristics as if it were scripture given from Our Lord on high, delivered to be the absolute basis of fact. We have seen from the earlier sessions of these hearings that there is a wide disparity of views. Unless there is a degree of respect by each group for the right to exist of those engaged in commercial salmon fishing, angling and commercial exploitation of freshwater angling tourism, the debate is largely a dialogue of the deaf. Facts become the first victims. The second victims, in the face of a sustained campaign characterised by an intemperate editorial in a national newspaper yesterday, are fishermen, specifically in small coastal communities and Gaeltacht areas.

Chairman

Mr. Peril is from the Irish Salmon Netsmen Association.

Mr. Peril

I am a practising drift net fisherman. The salmon stock has been in serious decline since the 1980s when we had 1,500 licences as well as another 1,500 nominees fishing. There were between 3,000 and 4,000 boats fishing for salmon, most operating illegally. I have not heard much about salmon ranching, only when Mr. Mantle spoke about it earlier. These are fish supplied by the ESB. Up to 80% of the composition of the so-called wild stocks actually come from hatcheries.

I understand that. I have an ESRI document from 1980, in which a survey was undertaken of commercial fishermen. They were asked if there were enough wild salmon to continue exploiting them, or whether further exploitation could occur. I will also submit this document to the joint committee.

A member of the fishery board from County Kerry stated fishermen could have caught up to 75,000 fish in their area if they had wanted to do so. He claimed that the fish were being caught at sea and going into nearby rivers, yet the area to which he refers does not have rivers that produce any significant numbers of wild salmon.

Séamas De Burca

I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to speak to the joint committee. This day ten years ago I was fishing and my total catch was seven fish which we sold to the local smoker at a reasonable price. There has been much doom and gloom about fishing but we should look back at what has happened in the past ten years. Every summer news reports tell of the Naval Service intercepting fishing boats and fighting with fishermen and so on. Suddenly, it is over and there is relative peace at sea. Why was there such a change? The change came about because fisherman believed, through the task force report, that we were going to get somewhere. We believed politicians were going to listen to us and give us a commercially viable industry, based on scientific means and methods.

As Lorcan Ó Cinnéide has said, we now fish for 6% of the year. Our quota is only a shadow of what it was. We are still struggling. We have come here today and been ridiculed by the high and mighty. They have claimed that the income we earn from our industry is only a pittance. It might be a pittance to them but it is a living to us. We are proud of it, including the 106 fishermen in Cork whom I represent. We have put much work into a policy document which we have presented to the joint committee. It is a vision for our future and sustainable fishing. We expose all the warts in our industry and agree that many bad things have happened. However, we also want to build an industry that will be a credit to this country, as well as a valuable industry here.

Many have spoken today about wild Atlantic salmon. We are all aware of the possibility that they could reach €100 in price. However, fishing is not about money. The people sitting here with me do not fish because we make a fortune. If one was interested in money, one would not get into fishing. It is a way of life and a community driven enterprise.

The industry is currently public. A fisherman can apply for a licence from the Government, operate through regulations and catch wild salmon. Much has been said about the interceptory nature of drift net fishing. One of the delegates commented about our international brethren but we should take the time to look at the interceptory nature of drift net fishing. Officials handle 100,000 salmon every year to check them for tags and so on. In a batch of salmon examined in 2002 eight were from Scotland, 120 were from England and Wales, two were from Denmark and six were from Spain. Is that the reason individuals like me, and families, living in coastal areas where most people only come to visit in the summer, should stop fishing?

Chairman

I thank Séamas De Burca for his comments. We had a number of questions but I am unfortunately constrained by time. Séamas De Burca could stay here all day but we will be ejected at 6.30 p.m.

Séamas De Burca

We are fighting for our livelihood.

Chairman

We may not finish all of today's oral proceedings. I ask Senator Kenneally to direct questions at someone, rather than making statements.

Senator Kenneally

I agree with what Lorcan Ó Cinnéide said on scientific evidence. It is not an exact process which even the scientists accept. We must ensure a reasonable balance is struck between the scientific evidence and the knowledge of regional managers. We must all work together. Nobody can definitively state we should be going one way or the other; it is all about compromise. By bringing together all parts of the salmon industry, of which there are many, a compromise with which all involved can be happy is possible. That is what we are striving to achieve.

The question of a buy-out has been raised for many years but little progress has been made. As I stated, this is because most fishermen have an inflated expectation of what they can get. However, that is a general question. On a more specific point, consistent with my earlier comments, the Waterford district is being badly treated in regard to the quota available to the many drift net fishermen in the area. Mr. Conners of the East and South-East Netmen's Association or another member of the delegation might comment on this issue.

Single stock management has been suggested by a number of speakers as one way to progress. Is it practical or feasible? Should it be used?

Some speakers stated any buy-out should be based on recorded returns for recent years. However, areas such as the south, south east and east would be badly treated if this was the case because salmon are not allowed to reach these areas.

I was disappointed with the make-up of the earlier panel of the management of the regional fisheries boards because while there were representatives of areas from Donegal to Cork, there was none from the coastal regions from Cork to Waterford and north as far as Louth. It would have been beneficial if there had been some input from that area because the fishery there has suffered more than elsewhere.

Mr. Michael Conners

I totally disagree with Mr. Peril's statement on poaching and sea officers not doing their jobs. If one examines the relevant files, there was not one prosecution against commercial fishermen in the past 12 months.

Chairman

Mr. Conners must confine himself to the question as we are nearly out of time.

Mr. Conners

Regarding the quota, the east and south east, including my area of the Rivers Suir and Blackwater, have one third of the drift net licences in the country — 240. Handing down a quota of 15,000 for an area with 240 licences made little of the fishermen there. Also, we have 39,500 spawn in wetted areas, as they are known. We are told the ratio is 1:1 and that if one breeds 39,500 spawn, one will have 39,500 fish. However, this is not the case for the Rivers Suir, Nore and Barrow where there are 9,200 out of 30,000. It does not make sense and we feel hard done by.

Chairman

I welcome those delegates representing anglers' interests. They include Mr. John Buckley and Mr. Jerome Dowling of the Trout Anglers Federation of Ireland; Mr. Edward Power and Mr. Noel Carr of the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers, and Mr. Niall Greene and Mr. Bob Wemyss of Stop Salmon Drift Nets Now. Before we begin, I remind delegates that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee which cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The meeting is running very much behind time. Senator Finucane will ask questions after Mr. Niall Greene speaks for two minutes to introduce the anglers' perspective.

Mr. Niall Greene

I have been asked by the angling group to make some comments. Each organisation has made a submission to the group. There may be some differences in emphasis and details but they are broadly coincidental. I will not go through our paper in detail because a good deal of the ground has already been covered during earlier submissions. A degree of conjunction is emerging in virtually all of the newspapers on the state of salmon stocks and the need for some kind of reduction in drift-nets and other forms of exploitation. There have been discussions about buy-outs and set-asides, and so on. The one thing that is needed to get around the dialogue of the deaf, as referred to by Lorcan Ó Cinnéide in the last session, is some kind of governmental or ministerial leadership to get us out of the problem. There is virtually no Government policy in existence with regard to the salmon issue. Most delegates today would disagree on the content of that policy, but some attempt must be made to put a framework together.

We have been talking to the drift-net men, although not in formal groups. We have spoken to people around the coast. I would not presume to represent them or their ideas because that is their function and it would be a breach of the confidence in which those discussions were carried out. It is clear that a significant number of people in the drift-net community believe they should exit that sector and concentrate on others.

The Minister this morning referred to a possible cost of €75 million to buy out all drift-nets. I have explained to him and his civil servants why the calculation on which this figure is based is totally wrong. Based on our discussions around the coast, and coincidental with Mr. Peter Mantle's separate figure, we believe that approximately €5 million per year, derived from Government funds, an increase in licenses and tourism, ownership and angling, would be sufficient to set aside or buy out the entire sector. However, we are speaking of an initial phase and part of the sector. Some fairly outlandish figures have been thrown around, but there is a basis for moving forward to help people get out of the industry.

In fairness to this committee and others, we share that frustration. The Farrell Grant Sparks report was commissioned immediately afterwards and we waited over two years for recommendations.

Chairman

I would not want anybody to think this committee sits on its laurels because it does not. Within the past six months we asked Dr. Beamish and his officials if they had concluded that report. The clerk will ensure that the Department is notified of your and our concerns with regard to bringing this report to conclusion.

Mr. Carr

Let us look at the mathematics of the situation. It is very simple. The salmon run around the Irish coast is, on average, 489,000 fish. Deputy Ferris confirmed that two thirds of the contents of the nets are taken by seals before they get to the pier. I have shown in my submission that there is very little fish for spawning at this time.

Anglers do not just fish and we are not only sportspeople. There are 64 places where fish can spawn but, sadly, this year there are only 32. We maintain the habitat while this occurs. That is why salmon still come to this country.

If a farmer plants a field of corn, he should reap a field of corn. Our corn is reaped before we get to it because it is on a common ground and the fish are moving. We do not mind that as long as what we do continues to be sustainable. We fear that it will not be sustainable based on the current figures and we want the committee to take this into consideration.

Senator Finucane

Could Mr. Greene answer my question about the issue of a buyout? Has Stop Salmon Drift Nets Now had any discussions with drift net fishermen or does it have any knowledge of how many of them would favour a buyout? Earlier today, representatives from the fishing organisations said, and I presume they are speaking on behalf of their members, that they would not be interested in a buy-out.

Mr. Greene

There are two questions for me to answer. We would be loath to put a precise number on how many fishermen are interested in leaving the industry. If one takes the point I made in my introduction, approximately 50% of drift net fishermen catch 20% of the fish. This figure represents an average of 40 fish per net in that lower end of the spectrum. I have spoken to many people in this band and they would be interested in leaving the sector. At the kind of numbers we have been talking about, which coincide with the numbers quoted by Peter Mantle, one would be talking about spending less than €1 million per year to achieve that buy-out. The money would be paid out over a number of years.

Senator Finucane also asked about traditional rights to fish. There are probably some instances of drift net fishing that go back far into the past but not too many. Factors like the technology of new netting techniques and bigger boats have made drift net fishing possible. Up until the 1970s, there were only approximately 226 drift nets around the coast. The practice then exploded and now the number of drift nets in use is back to 877. Something approaching 75% of the current drift nets have only been in existence since the 1970s. In some areas like Kerry, the proportion of drift nets that have come into existence since the "reforms" of the 1970s is much greater than 75%.

Senator Finucane

I wish to ask a question of the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers' representatives. In their submission, they mentioned an enormous loss of over 150,000 fish taken by the seals, specifically in drift nets. What scientific analysis was carried to come up with a figure of 150,000?

Mr. Edward Power

Mr. Carr will answer that question. He has considerable knowledge in this area as he lives on the coast.

Mr. Carr

We have conducted an internal survey on 11 piers along the west coast. Other pieces of scientific evidence include a survey by BIM in 2002 and a Donegal inshore survey conducted in 1999. As Deputy Ferris confirmed, approximately two thirds of fish are taken by seals — our survey produced a result of 55%-60%. Our argument is not about the amount of fish taken by seals as there is little that we can do about it. However, drift netting sets a wall and serves as a feeding ground for seals.

Senator Finucane

I wish to clarify a matter. When Mr. Greene spoke about a buy-out involving 50% of fishermen, did he mean buying out the licences or buying out the fish?

Mr. Greene

My remarks related to buying out the fish.

Deputy McGuinness

Mr. Greene mentioned the cost of the buy-out. Were those Mr. Greene's figures or was he quoting from another report? Huge differences in the figures have been quoted here today. Where does Mr. Greene take his figures from?

Regarding the catch by anglers, could Mr. Greene give us his view on the numbers? How long does he think it will take for the rivers that are badly affected to regenerate?

Mr. Greene

Mr. Wemyss will answer Deputy McGuinness's last question if that is acceptable.

Mr. Bob Wemyss

Regarding the regeneration of rivers, I have spoken to the scientists specifically about the south east. They have spoken about the productivity of the River Nore. The Nore is a limestone river, has very good productivity and will regenerate if it is given the chance to do so. However, this regeneration depends on the cessation of all exploitation, all draft and snap netting and all interceptory drift netting in the river. It was suggested that at the best estimate, it would take eight years to regenerate fish stocks and get back to the conservation limit in the Nore.

Deputy McGuinness

Could Mr. Wemyss talk about the numbers of fish caught by anglers?

Mr. Wemyss

Mr. Jerome Dowling

Sitting suspended at 5.20 p.m. and resumed at 5.22 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Ger Caughlan from the Cork and District Draft Net Fishermen's Association; Ms Carmel Lynn and Mr. Leo Boyle from the Traditional Inshore Draftnet Fishermen's Association; Mr. Brendan Long and Mr. Ned McCormack from the Slaney Draftnet Men's Association; Mr. Michael Hodgins representing Drogheda — River Boyne; and Mr. Peter Walsh from the Barrow-Nore-Suir Snap Net Fishermen's Alliance. I also welcome Mr. Gallagher from the Donegal Draftnet Fishermen's Association.

I draw the representatives' attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I will call Deputy Ferris and Senator Kenneally to put their questions. It has been a long day for all of us and I appreciate the fact that you have been here all day. We will finish this session at 6 p.m. and I ask the representatives to be brief in putting their points or answering questions. We appreciate the submissions they have made. As I said at the conclusion of the previous part of the meeting, if we have additional questions to ask we will forward them in writing and if our guests want to provide further information we would be delighted to receive it.

Deputy Ferris

I welcome all the representatives and thank them for their patience. I know they have been waiting all day to appear before the committee but that they have heard much of the commentary.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to contribute here this evening. As the Chairman said, we have been here all day and we listened carefully to what was being said. As a draft net sector, we have come here today with a clear vision. We want to ensure that everybody here knows that we want to be proactive in the sustainability of this resource. This sector, more than any other, has worked tirelessly over the past few years to ensure there is a sustainable future for the industry. We work closely with our colleagues at sea in the driftnet sector. We formed a national association and we work closely with them.

We are experiencing frustration because regardless of what we try to do it appears to come back in our faces in that nobody wants to work with us. It has been reiterated throughout the day that the prices we get for the fish are unrealistic and that the plans we have in place are unsustainable. Through our association, we have put plans in place. We presented one plan today, through our drift net colleagues, which will also improve the situation. It covers aspects such as pollution. Pollution can be attributed to many factors. In my own area of Cork, there are large chemical industries in Cork Harbour but the main problem we have is an algae bloom due to lack of water in dry weather during the season. That is the only contributing factor. It decreases the quality of the fish during that time of the year.

In terms of a buy-out and set aside proposal, we accept there is a need to rationalise within the organisation but that need is only based on the fact that the national quota we are given is too small for the number of current licences. They need to reduce the effort. Fishermen are realistic and they are prepared to work in a proactive way to come to a reasonable solution at a local district and regional level.

It has been said that the fish are not getting through to the east coast. If that is the case we would see the benefit of stopping that on the east coast in particular because the fish that would get through there would be twice as efficient, so to speak, as the fish that might get to the west coast, where there would be surplus fish. If that were the case, that would be of benefit in terms of replenishing fish stocks in that area.

Most of the talk this morning was about the concern, particularly from Waterford up along the east coast, about the fish not getting through from a draftnet point of view. We have said that if there is a need for this to happen we will work with anyone to ensure a sustainable plan is put in place. As part of that programme we took the initiative to present a sustainable plan for the future within the Cork district and we outlined clear and identifiable points in terms of diversification, the development of aqua-tourism, fishery museums and the involvement of fishermen in surveys instead of fishing. We regard all those aspects as a way forward to contributing to the reduction in effort while enabling people carry on fishing.

Senator Kenneally

I welcome the various representatives to the committee. They will have to forgive us if we appear a little punch-drunk at this stage. We have been in session since 9.30 a.m.

I read a number of the submissions, particularly those I got from the Barrow-Nore-Suir and the Slaney draftsmen. Deputy Ferris asked a question about pollution which prompts me to ask a question of the representative of that area. The Southern Regional Fisheries Board made a submission to the effect that the catch in the Nore and the Barrow rivers is 8% below the national average. Can Mr. Walsh comment on why that is happening?

Much of the adverse comment we have heard throughout the day from scientists, anglers and other interests represented before the committee appears to put much of the blame on the commercial fishing sector, particularly drift netting. We do not necessarily agree with that but there has been little mention of draft netting, as if it is not as worrying. In one of the submissions it represents only 3% of the national catch. The Nore, Suir and Barrow fishermen's submission also suggests there should be a ban on drift netting at sea. What percentage of the catch by drift netting is caught at sea and what percentage is caught in the rivers?

However, a dialogue is taking place in your part of the country.

Mr. Long

Indeed. The fish are scarce there at present.

Chairman

I have some questions for Mr. Hodgins about his submission. You referred to a sanctuary. Will you explain that? A holder of a commercial fishing licence is allowed to have a nominee do his fishing so the licence holder can hold down another job. As a simple measure, would it be a good idea to restrict that to the licence holder and remove the nominee provision?

Mr. Michael Hodgins

The anglers seem to have come here as the bully boy against the net men and the draft men. In every sport, there must be a sanctuary. The angler is giving nothing and is taking everything. Let us say there are nine clubs on our river. Where the fish lie is where one will find the angler. They are whipping the fish out. The State should step in to create a sanctuary of 100 yards or 200 yards or whatever amount of water it can. An angler will not open his mouth in favour of a sanctuary; he is only in it for feed and that is the bottom line. There must be a sanctuary.

There should be no nominees.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The point I have tried to make throughout the meeting is that we are not seeking to end the commercial fishing of salmon. This is a tradition we want to retain. It benefits communities which need the income. It provides a valuable support among a range of other activities such as lobster fishing. Having a commercial catch is an integral part of the process.

The angling tradition is another important part of our culture. It is correct for us to protect and develop it. I am an angler and I do not see why I should stop. It is something my children should be able to do. This is something we should keep, part of our culture that we need to protect and develop.

It is not that one is a bad practice or that one practice conflicts with the other. We want to develop both aspects but it seems there is a need to start doing it in a clever manner because the related environmental issues pose real difficulties. In doing that in a more clever manner, it seems it will be on a river basis. I am not knowledgeable about draft netting and, therefore, ask the following question of anybody here. How far down the rivers do such nets go? Do they go out into the estuaries? Is there almost the possibility of a new licence or that some drift net men could take up a draft net licence and, instead of going out to sea, catch the same fish in an estuary, bay or river? Can we amalgamate the two?

Mr. Leo Boyle

Generally, there is a one-mile sanctuary area between the mouth of the river and the first fishing station in-river. It is a considerable conservation method because, as the submission states, it has an in-built conservation element. We are controlled by the tides and fish a small number of hours per day under a very restrictive regime in recent times. We have paid a heavy price already and cannot pay anymore. Our backs are to the wall.

Not speaking for the draft net fishermen alone but for everybody, there is room in the resource for all the existing sectors — drift net, draft net, rod — but it is obvious that an effective plan needs to be put into place. Once this friction exists, such a plan will never reach fruition. It is that friction that has brought this about. We will never reach a consensus on these methods unless we discuss our problems in a diverse fashion. There is a way the problem can be solved.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Although this may be an undiplomatic question, is there friction between the drift netting and draft netting sectors?

Mr. Boyle

Yes. I am a victim of some drift netting because I fish on the east coast. The interceptory fishery is not doing us any favours. There probably may be ways around this. Obviously, a single stock fishery is a terrific idea but I cannot see that happening in the near future. In the interim, while we are waiting for this to happen, perhaps there could be a staggered season where the drift net fishermen would fish the first half of their season as usual and then, before the second half starts, leave that fishery for one month while we remain fishing our season. This would allow fish to get around to the east coast. The drift net fishermen could then return and fish the remaining period of their season. There is a consensus among both organisations to reach some sort of conclusion that will be amicable to both parties. At present, the east coast is under severe pressure.

As regards a previous question on buy-out, how one evaluates the price of a licence and the fact that nobody wants to give a figure, what I would be afraid of is that any buy-out theorised down the road would be based on the existing catch of the draft net fishermen on the east coast, which really would be deplorable because those fishermen are not catching the fish they should be. It would have to be based on a number of additional criteria.

What really disappoints me is the concerted campaign mounted, particularly in recent times, by a strong and influential group which is leaving no stone unturned in order to hammer the commercial man. I can take the hammering. We must appreciate that there are many adverse impacts on the salmon fishery. I can take my share of the blame and I am sure everyone whose activity impacts on salmon can also take it. However, there is a massive impact on salmon in many other areas outside of commercial exploitation and even the lesser exploitation of angling. There are so many other factors impacting on salmon such as pollution, predation, global warming and by-catches of 900,000 smolts.

Chairman

Although I must stop Mr. Boyle, I thank him for his contribution. I call Mr. Gallagher.

Mr. George Gallagher

I wish to answer the Deputy on the question of the nominee. I think there should be a nominee. At present, the Minister is putting between €1,000 and €2,000 worth of safety equipment aboard most fishing boats. If a boat does not have a nominee and if there are fish out there, attempts to go out will be made by those unfit to do so. The nominee system should, therefore, be retained.

Donegal has one of the largest inshore areas in the country. Over 1,000 homes are riding on what is happening here today and it is important that we get something out of it. Half of Donegal is a draft net area. For the past 50 years, that area had a bag net system which was fished along the rough coastline. It was successful. It was a family net of sorts but in recent years our board has classed it as a fixed engine system, with the result that there are many draft net licences in Donegal. The families to which I refer might as well not have licences because they are no longer allowed to fish.

To my mind, the fixed engine system was an old landlord system. One could go from bank to bank, but one could not fish for anything else on the open sea or along a rocky coast. It was even tested approximately ten or 15 years ago in Sligo. We won a victory in the High Court on the issue of getting our fishery manager interests to lift our gear.

At the time of the task force, we were not allowed to use monofilament nets. I was involved directly in fishing net management at the time, when multi-mono was recommended by the Northern Ireland board as one of the safest nets to use when fishing for salmon. It continues to be recommended by the Northern Ireland board.

Reference has been made today to pollution. All of us have seen fish kills over the years. It is terrible to see adult fish lying dead on the bank of a river, but one does not see the little mite that also dies in such circumstances. If pollution can kill adult fish, what does it do to the little mite that is down underneath?

Chairman

We have not heard from every speaker, but we have heard from every group.

Mr. Ned McCormack

I have listened to this debate all day. The commission people have been kicked from pillar to post. Nobody has seriously mentioned the real reason for the depletion of salmon stocks. We have given up three months' fishing and one day a week. We used to start on 1 April, but we do not start now until 12 May. The fish which escape during the three months should have been enough to stock the river, but the anglers are taking them out of it. They will have to come a long way as well to help the conservation effort. That is all I have to say.

Ms Carmel Lynn

Fishermen in Cork received €15 per kilogram for salmon last year. I heard somebody quoting a figure of €30 today. The average salmon last year was getting €60. Those who wish to calculate what fishermen should be paid or offered in set-aside or buy-out should examine the figures I have mentioned.

Chairman

I realise that I have not given the draft net group as much time as other groups. I apologise to Mr. Hodgins, but we have to finish now. We have an idea of the group's concerns. The committee's real work will involve dealing with the submissions it has received and sending follow-up questions to various groups for the purposes of clarification. The draft net group will be able to study the transcript of today's proceedings on the Oireachtas website in approximately a week's time, if it looks for the debates of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. If the group feels that its questions have not been answered, that it forgot to mention something or that it disagrees with statements made by another delegation, it should write to the clerk of the joint committee, who will ensure that such matters are brought to the committee's attention. I thank the group for appearing before the committee.

We have had a very long day. We will suspend the meeting for two minutes to allow Mr. Michael Guilfoyle and his officials from the Department to address the committee. I intend to bring the meeting to a conclusion at 6.30 p.m. Deputy Eamon Ryan will ask the questions.

Sitting suspended at 5.54 p.m. and resumed at 5.56 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Michael Guilfoyle, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I also welcome Mr. George Doherty and Mr. Frank Sheridan from the Department.

I draw everybody's attention to the fact that members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Like the members of the committee, Mr. Guilfoyle and his officials have listened to the various arguments which have been made today. While I do not expect them to have all the answers this evening, I hope they will make a statement to the committee. I hope they found today's proceedings helpful in their departmental roles.

Mr. Michael Guilfoyle

Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Doherty and I are glad to have attended today's meeting. It was a tremendous learning experience for us, rather than an imposition. Those who have spoken today have provided a valuable illumination of some complex issues. The Minister spoke in detail this morning about the Government's commitment to alignment on the scientific advice by 2007. The Department faces substantial complexities and challenges in that regard. The Chairman is aware that a wide range of advice is available in this area, whereas few certainties have been illuminated today.

It is timely that today's meeting has been devoted to salmon because the Department is in the middle of a consultation period. The political minds in the Department are considering the issues relating to 2005 and the two years leading up to 2007. We need to address certain issues and uncertainties to get to 2007. We will communicate to the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, in detail everything that has been addressed today. He will be glad to receive such information.

Three related aspects of this issue were discussed today. The first aspect to be considered was the possibility of a buy-out or set-aside, the second aspect related to issues of public good and the third aspect related to the tourism value of salmon fishing. We heard a number of variations on the themes of buy-out and set-aside. Some of the proposals which were made, which related to how set-aside and buy-out might be addressed and whether such schemes should be temporary or permanent, may be put to the Department in the near future.

We heard a great deal of discussion on the rationale for the proposals, their potential achievements, value and the possible public good to be delivered. We have heard different views on the acceptability of a set-aside-buy out, costs and whether the State, users or beneficiaries should finance it. I will address the specific issue of the divergence of views between us and others who have made submissions to the committee. The Minister of State has mentioned the issues involved on a number of occasions, including this morning's session, and in reply to parliamentary questions.

Deputy Eamon Ryan raised the important question of whether it is compatible to have a well-managed, multi-stocked fishery while aspiring to a position on conservation limits, which acted as a paean during much of today's meeting. It is an issue we must consider. The Department will take from the meeting a knowledge of the concerns on whether a multi-stocked fishery is compatible with long-term conservation of salmon stocks and sustainable as a position to adopt. We noted the views of scientists in response to a direct question on that by Deputy Eamon Ryan. We noted also the readiness of parties in response to probing by committee members to engage on the issue of set-aside buy out and a possible market in that context.

There are a number of certainties in the position of the Department. The Department's commitment without qualification to the scientific advice has been questioned to an extent during the day, but our position is unchanged. The Minister of State made very clear this morning our strong public policy commitment to adopt by 2007 the scientific recommendations on conservation limits. The Minister of State explained the reason for the two-year postponement of alignment with the scientific advice and as the matter was explored sufficiently during the day's proceedings, I will not go into further detail. To reply to Deputy Eamon Ryan, the scientists indicated that if the methodology had not been changed we would by this year have been in compliance with the original scientific advice. It was an important clarification in response to criticism of the Department on the 2007 as opposed to 2005 target.

Despite the fact that the Minister of State has made no commitment to a buy-out, he and the Department have been criticised during today's proceedings for failing to engage in a ring-master's role to bring interested parties together. Our long experience in the public sector has been that once one invites parties to discuss matters, one ends up being required to make a contribution. We do not believe a buy-out or set-aside compensation is necessarily an Exchequer matter involving the Department. To respond to other criticisms of the Department, the Minister of State has invited submissions on the public good which might be purchased through a buy-out by releasing more fish into rivers. Our views on the financing of a buy-out or set-aside are that, to an extent, the question involves a dialogue of the deaf.

The Minister of State indicated this morning that the Department would progress a number of initiatives over the next two years which are crucial to the future of salmon. We intend to remove much of the uncertainty which has bedevilled today's discussions. As the Minister of State said, it is intended to establish the value to tourism of a change in the structure of the salmon fishery. The Minister of State wishes to obtain a definitive view from the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism and those with professional experience in tourism on tourism potential and its value in Ireland generally. Such views would inform a debate on the possible market for purchasing fish through whatever means might be put in place. Given the difficulty inherent in the lower scientific advice, the pressures being brought to bear and the need to reconcile the differences of which we have heard today, the Minister of State will ask the reconvened National Salmon Commission to address how to implement by 2007, without fail, the recommendations of the scientific advice.

The Minister of State indicated this morning that he is open to all sorts of ideas. Many of the ideas expressed on all sides during today's meeting are ones we hope will emerge in the process overseen by the commission to establish a means of implementing the scientific advice by 2007. Having said that, the Minister of State will begin with the assumption that a properly controlled and managed, multi-stocked fishery is compatible with long-term conservation. As he mentioned this morning, however, the position does not mean he is closed to different ideas.

By 24 April, the Minister of State will decide on the quota for 2005 on the basis of consultation. Today's proceedings will inform to a significant extent the decision he must take in signing the regulations and the policy to be adopted for the next two years.

Chairman

Will you inquire of Dr. Beamish and his officials where is the report on aquaculture? We made a number of proposals at the meeting in November 2003 and a public advertisement inviting submissions was published. It is important that the committee is informed through the clerk of what the position is. Will you further note to the Minister and other officials that members are deeply concerned at the differences which emerged today among the different fisheries boards, especially the central and regional fisheries boards? It is not the first time we have seen this. The same differences were evident, though perhaps for other reasons, when the boards appeared before the committee two years ago. It is not good enough to have State agencies behave the way they did today and exhibit differences of opinion. Their representatives should have attended today to put a view common to all groups.

Mr. Guilfoyle

Certainly.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I thank Mr. Guilfoyle and his officials for staying with us through the day's proceedings, which have proved very interesting. As we have asked enough questions of Mr. Guilfoyle, I will offer a few reflections on some of the points he made and the structure of what we have discovered. The exercise has been extremely useful and reminiscent of the one we carried out on aquaculture two years ago which was beneficial for all involved, allowing them to hear the opinions of others. If we have done nothing else today, at least we have brought people together who will recognise each other at the next stage in the process. We will, hopefully, be able to refer back to today's meeting as a starting point.

Mr. Guilfoyle said three issues had been considered today, which I would characterise as three categories of issue. We considered the science, the question of who are the interested parties and the issue of management. I agree with Mr. Guilfoyle about the science. One of the most useful aspects of today's proceedings was having Dr. Niall Ó Maoiléidigh and our scientific advisers present some of the same material presented to the National Salmon Commission. It was the first time we had seen it. It was demonstrative of the great deal of good work we have progressed since the ideas were set out in 1996 and the salmon task force was established. The first thing we needed was proper information and control systems.

While we have a long way to go, the information the advisers provided today stood up. Given that approximately 200,000 fish are being tagged, the data we are getting can be considered to be robust. In that context, the long-term trend is even more frightening as it shows a dramatic collapse in salmon stock from 3.5 million fish 20 or 30 years ago to 500,000 in the summer run and a slightly smaller reduction in the spring run. This crisis frames our entire discussion.

Aspersions have been cast on the scientific advice. There is a vague sense that science cannot be certain and the sub-committee heard anecdotal evidence about good runs in certain rivers last year and so forth. Nevertheless, no one disputed or refuted the scientific advice.

I accept Mr. Guilfoyle's point that one could argue that it is possible to manage a multi-modal, multi-stock system on the basis of the current all-island system while working towards a conservation process. A multi-stock method cannot work if one does not accept scientific advice.

The Chairman is correct that members have heard different things from different State officials. One of the telling and dramatic moments today was when Dr. Whelan stated we cannot defer a decision and must listen to the scientific advice now given the urgency of the situation. The other telling comment was Dr. Whitaker's remark that we could take the Augustinian approach. When I asked what this meant he said it was the approach by which one asked the Lord to make one virtuous but at some point in the future. He put his finger on the problem when he stated we could not wait until 2007 to address the current crisis. The additional 40,000 fish which will be caught this year if we choose not to listen to the scientific advice will be the spawning fish which will produce the fish of 2007 and beyond. I hope the Minister of State keeps to his commitment to listen to Dr. Whitaker, Mr. Whelan, the scientific advice and those who participate in the public consultation process before 13 April. He must start acting on the scientific advice because to delay would not be in the interests of fishermen or anglers.

The creatures most maligned during today's deliberations were the poor common and grey seals. I will submit to the clerk a policy statement from the Irish Seal Sanctuary on seal culling which argues convincingly that there is no scientific advice to indicate a high level of predation by seals on salmon stocks. Deputy Ferris may have been unlucky with a particular net off the west coast of Kerry on a particular day some years ago but arguments must be backed up by scientific analysis. My understanding is that no such scientific evidence is available. If seals are to become an issue, their role should be based on scientific discussion rather than hearsay.

Chairman

Will the Deputy submit the document?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Yes. Dr. Whelan's work on the reason salmon are suffering so much at sea is significant and I hope it will feed back quickly into our position on the general fisheries discussions. We received a massive increase in our blue whiting quota allocation and mackerel quotas are under pressure. We need to start linking up and adopt an ecosystem approach towards marine conservation and development, as it is constantly described in the European Union. If there is a problem at sea, we need to identify and address the reasons for it.

On the question as to who has an interest in this issue a range of different interests can be identified. The drift netting, draft netting, angling and tourism sectors all have divergent but direct economic interests. It was claimed that insults were hurled here today. I did not hear many people having a go at each other and name calling did not feature in the proceedings to the degree we might have expected. Everyone should be willing to work together on a common basis.

To return to comments made by Dr. Whitaker and Mr. Neylon as well as Mr. Whelan from the ESRI, one of the strongest points made on the issue of those with an interest in this issue was that there is also a public interest involved in ensuring the salmon is protected. The issue extends beyond those with a financial interest in salmon. If, as Mr. Whelan and Dr. Whitaker asserted, salmon have reached the point of extinction in some of our crucial rivers, the primary focus of policy should not be on valuations or to whom the Department should allocate €1 million here or €2 million there but on the priceless value of protecting a creature with a particular genetic imprint, which is specifically suited to particular rivers.

Ireland is unique in the Atlantic in that there are effectively no fished salmon left in French, Spanish and other waters. The species has been almost wiped out throughout the whole north-western Atlantic seaboard. Uniquely, Ireland has stock left and has, therefore, a unique obligation to try to protect it for the public good. We should not focus on particular interests.

Management must be primarily concentrated on determining the type of management system one wants to introduce. The scientific advice backs my view that single stock management would work better as a system and in tackling other issues such as poaching, planning problems, pollution, drainage, river dredging. It is much more likely that a proper assessment will be done and local interest in a river generated if the blame cannot be apportioned to others 200 miles away who are catching salmon at sea. We can only start tackling some of the key conservation issues under a single stock management system which would allow all of us to identify with our river catchment. For example, I would come to regard myself as a Liffey man rather than a Dubliner and look after my river. Moving from a mixed stock to a single stock management system is more important than how much we pay for buy-outs or set-aside.

Chairman

Before I conclude, the sub-committee will consider the written and oral submissions made today and make a number of recommendations in a report on drift and draft net salmon fishing for consideration by the Minister and his Department. I thank our consultant, Mr. John Browne, for assisting the sub-committee, the Clerk, Mr. Ronan Lenihan, and his officials for spending so much time preparing the documentation and organising the meetings, the editorial staff for staying throughout the day and the sound engineers, broadcasting unit, ushers and other staff who assisted the sub-committee during its long meeting. I also thank members of the joint committee for volunteering to serve as members of the sub-committee and investing so much effort and time into today's proceedings. I thank all the groups which appeared before us and all those who made written and verbal submissions. We deeply appreciate their support and the attendance of those who give up time to make presentations.

The sub-committee adjourned at 6.20 p.m. sine die.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (Sub-Committee on Salmon Drift Netting, Draft Netting and Angling) debate - Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005

Salmon Drift Netting, Draft Netting and Angling: Presentations.

Dr. Niall Ó Maoiléidigh

Mr. Brendan Whelan

Mr. Michael Neylon

Mr. Neylon

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Mr. Neylon

Mr. Neylon

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Dr. Ó Maoiléidigh

Dr. T. K. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Dr. Whitaker

Mr. John O’Connor

Mr. O’Connor

Mr. O’Connor

Dr. Ken Whelan

Dr. Whelan

Dr. Whelan

Mr. Aidan Barry

Mr. Barry

Mr. Barry

Mr. Barry

Mr. O’Connor

Mr. O’Connor

Mr. O’Connor

Mr. Barry

Mr. Barry

Mr. Barry

Mr. Barry

Mr. Harry Lloyd

Mr. Derick Anderson

Mr. Vincent Roche

Mr. Roche

Mr. Roche

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (Sub-Committee on Salmon Drift Netting, Draft Netting and Angling) debate -
Tuesday, 5 Apr 2005