I am the fishery development manager with Bord Iascaigh Mhara. However, for the past few months I have been secretary to the independent salmon group.
The terms of reference of the group are set out in the first PowerPoint slide. The slide does not show the complete terms of reference, merely the key points relating to the work of the group. The list includes: the implications of fully aligning with the scientific advice; addressing the scale of financial loss and the financial hardship that emerges; and determining who the main economic beneficiaries are and how they should contribute, whether in cash or in kind, to any scheme and the implications for the angling sector. It is clear from the terms of reference that it was not the task of the group to determine the nature of the science per se but to start with the science as presented and look at the implications. Therefore, the available scientific data at the time the group was established relate to this year’s report which captures the situation at the end of 2005. During the course of the work of the group, the information on the current year and looking forward to 2007 became available in preliminary form and that influenced the final outcome. The final report on that period will be available to the Minister shortly.
There are four key recommendations in the 2006 report which are worth bringing to the attention of the committee. First, in most districts an immediate decrease in the exploitation of wild salmon is required. Second, mixed stock fisheries present a particular threat to the status of individual stocks. Third, the most precautionary way to meet the objectives is to operate fisheries based on individual river stocks that are exceeding their conservation limits. The conservation limit has been defined by the scientific community as the level of spawning stock that will produce the maximum sustainable yield, on average. This can be expressed in numbers of salmon. Fourth, fisheries in estuaries and rivers are more likely to fulfil these requirements.
The term "mixed stock fishing" has become very prominent in this debate and it is worth spending a moment to look at what a mixed stock fishery is. The group spent considerable time on this issue. NASCO has provided a definition. It states "any fishery exploiting a significant number of salmon from two or more river stocks is defined as a mixed stock fishery". This is somewhat different from the definition commonly used in some quarters until now which considers that one only finds a mixed stock fishery at sea. The new definition clearly indicates that there can be a mixed stock fishery in rivers and estuaries, as well as at sea. Specifically, where two rivers meet, the individual stocks destined for them, downstream of that meeting point, constitute a mixed stock fishery. The group has adopted the NASCO definition.
With regard to the scientific advice, three critical areas were looked at. These are: the current catastrophic decline in salmon stocks evident since the mid-1970s; the EU habitats directive; and Ireland's position vis-à-vis the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. The next slide clearly addresses the catastrophic decline in salmon stocks which is particularly evident in the trend shown in red on the slide. The current position, as of the end of 2005, is shown on the extreme right of the slide. With regard to the habitats directive, the Commission has clearly stated that to avoid further infringement cases Ireland must comply with the directive and eschew drift-net fishing. The slide uses the term “mixed stock fishing” but it is clear that drift-net fishing is referred to. Regarding the third area, at successive meetings of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation Ireland has come under increased pressure to comply with international best practice and eliminate indiscriminate mixed stock fishing at sea. In this regard, certain commitments were given at the 2006 meeting of NASCO.
Chapter 3 of the report deals with the implications of the precautionary advice for 2007. The presentation gives a summary of some of the key implications. We have not included every point. The most fundamental outcome of this advice is that management would move from the current district-based approach of managing a number of rivers in a given district to one based on a single river. Each river would be managed in its own right.
The next basic principle is that harvesting by whatever means should only take place on rivers which meet their conservation limits and must not exceed the surplus available on a given river. Furthermore, there can be no mixed stock fishing, which in this case means drift-net fishing, from 2007. To turn this into specific advice, it appears, based on the preliminary outcome of this year's scientific work, that 34 rivers will meet their conservation limits to allow harvesting, while 32 will not. On the basis of the precautionary approach, harvesting will not be allowed on a further 76 rivers for which there are insufficient scientific data or on which the total salmon catch was fewer than ten fish. To contextualise the advice, the rivers set out in red on the graph do not meet their conservation limits this year, while the rivers in green do. The rivers in yellow are the ones for which there are insufficient scientific data or the total salmon catch is fewer than ten fish. There are a further seven rivers which have complex returning fish populations comprising a strong element of multi-sea winter fish. The scientific status of these seven rivers will be clarified in the report of the standing scientific committee when it emerges in the next few weeks.
In the event that mixed stock fishing does not take place next year, approximately 68,000 fish will be available for redistribution back to rivers. While salmon only return to their rivers of origin, it is not the case that all the rivers marked red this year will automatically be marked green next year. The scientific data have identified ten rivers where the new surplus will be sufficient for them to meet their conservation limits, which means the total number of rivers meeting their conservation limits next year will jump from 24 to 34. The total number failing to meet their conservation limits will fall from 42 to 32. At least ten rivers will exceed their conservation limits next year, which would otherwise have failed to do so.
Among the implications we face are, first and foremost, an end to mixed stock fishing at sea, that is, drift-netting. Mixed stock fishing for salmon in rivers or estuaries will also be prohibited where any component of the mixed stock fails to meet the conservation limit. In estuaries fed by more than one river fishing will be prohibited downstream of the point at which any river failing to meet its conservation limit joins an estuary. There are further implications for managers and their management of the process, foremost among which is a need for real-time monitoring and management of harvesting. There is also a requirement to establish a central database to manage distribution and monitor angling licences and tags. Stock rebuilding programmes will be required, while the displacement impact on other fisheries arising from the ban on drift-netting must be considered. There are also implications for other aspects of salmon management, especially water quality and river pollution management and the protection and enhancement of river habitats. All of these and more have been set out clearly in chapter 3 of the report.
It is clear that full alignment with the scientific advice will affect the drift-net fishery. While the compulsory buy-out will impact on the current 877 drift-net licence holders, the degree of hardship experienced by each will vary greatly. We can address that matter. Other commercial netsmen, including draft-net, bag-net, snap-net, loop-net and head-weir trap fishermen, will be subject to a voluntary rather than a compulsory buy-out. These fishermen represent about 44% of commercial netsmen. Only a small number, approximately 30, of those fishermen caught more than 100 fish in 2005.
The next slide may contain too much detail, but I will try to interpret it for the committee. The key point relates to the red line which represents the trajectory of the percentage catch taken in the drift-net fishery dating back to the 1960s. It is clear that prior to the 1960s, drift-net fishing was conducted with traditional cotton nets which were ineffective compared to modern nets. The monofilament net emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, from which point the fishery expanded. The yellow line in the diagram which starts at 30% represents the draft-net fishery which has declined from its position as the dominant catcher of fish in the commercial fishery, including angling. Prior to the 1960s, the dominant method used to catch salmon was draft-netting which has declined as the drift-net fishery moved towards the monofilament net and expanded to reach approximately 80% of the total catch.
On a graph which depicts the same scenario differently, the yellow triangles represent the draft-net fishery, while the drift-net fishery is represented by red lines with black circles. The graph demonstrates that the drift-net fishery was relatively minor, accounting for less than 20% of the total catch prior to the 1960s. From the mid-1960s an increase in the number of licences from less than 400 to more than 1,000 and the introduction of the monofilament net saw the catch taken expand significantly to a high in the mid-1970s which was followed by a strong, sharp decline clearly evident on the extreme right of the diagram.
The hardship scheme has two elements. The direct payments scheme is based on average net income over the five-year period 2001-05. Having calculated the average number of salmon caught by a given individual, the group considered the average net value of the salmon caught during the period. I stress that it is the net value of the salmon which was considered having substracted the cost of catching the fish, including the expense of operating a drift-net vessel at sea. This expense includes the cost of fuel oil, lubricating oil, wear and tear, the purchase of nets, etc. The net income per salmon has been calculated at €23, which equates to a gross value over the period in question of €29. The overheads have been calculated at 20%, which figure is comparable to that in independent studies carried out in, for example, Northern Ireland. It is worth noting at this point that in 2001 the average price of salmon per kilo varied between €5 and €5.50 but had risen to at least €15 per kilo by 2006. The price has increased significantly since 2001 as the number of salmon being taken has fallen, almost in inverse proportion. As the direct hardship scheme is based on average net income from 2001 to 2005, average catch and price with a multiplier of six, the average catch during the period multiplied by €23 multiplied by six will give the payment. The report proposes a single payment in a process that would involve the verifiable decommissioning of nets. The assumed after-cost value would be €23 net or €29 gross, with an estimated total cost of €25 million.
The next slide shows average income forgone by the drift-net fishery. There are 877 drift-net licences this year, but I will show the Central Fisheries Board's figures for 2005. Last year 445 licenceholders caught fewer than 50 salmon each. The data are available on page 32 of the report. I cannot read the details from the slide. In the period 2001-05 the figure mentioned equated to an average income of approximately €465 per individual. At the other extreme, three individuals caught more than 1,000 fish, equating to an average income of €26,285. In 2005, the last year for which we have full data and when the price was significantly higher, the income of the three fishermen concerned may have been in excess of €52,000. Another point emerging from the data is that approximately 13% of drift-net fishermen caught more than 50% of the total catch.
The next table appears on page 33 of the report and provides similar data for the draft-net fishery, in respect of which there will be a voluntary rather than a compulsory scheme. Of the 518 licenceholders, one individual caught more than 1,000 fish, while another caught more than 500. Three fishermen caught more than 250 fish each. Some 83% of draft-net licenceholders caught fewer than 50 fish in 2005.
The next slide addresses the scale of payment. The table on page 36 of the report shows how payments accrue to the fishermen affected. For example, a drift-net fisherman with an average catch of 750 salmon between 2001 and 2005 would expect a payment of €105,522. This figure is calculated by multiplying 750 by six and the reference amount of €23, providing a figure of €103,500, to which six times the current licence fee is added, namely, €2,022. At the other end, an individual catching as few as 50 salmon would expect a payment of €8,922, with six times the licence fee added. The figures for draft-net fishermen vary in so far as their licence costs less than the drift-net licence. The payment per fish and the method of calculating the payment remain the same. The licence fees for drift-net and draft-net fishermen are €337 and €190, respectively.
The scheme's other element is the community support component which is similar to that in other schemes such as the proposed European fisheries fund, schemes run by Pobal or under the Leader programme and so on. It crosses various Departments and agencies and provides up to €5 million in grant aid for projects that support communities affected by the report's outcome, including those involved in ancillary industries such as processing, transport and so on. It will be complementary to other schemes.
On whether the buy-out in respect of drift-netting should be voluntary or compulsory, the opinion of our group on the three aspects noted — the scientific advice, the habitats directive and NASCO — is unequivocal. The scientific advice is that there should not be an indiscriminate mixed stock fishery. My colleague, Dr. Ó Maoileidigh, the chairman of the standing scientific committee, is better able to answer questions in this regard, but the group's terms of reference start from that point. Having discussed the matter with the standing scientific committee and the national fisheries management executive at the group's earliest meetings, it was left in no doubt concerning the scientific community's view on what the position would be from 2007 onwards. The Minister of State has made it clear that the European Commission is unequivocal in its intention to proceed in accordance with the EU habitats directive should there be no movement on drift-netting. Considerable commitments have been given to NASCO regarding this problem. The opinion on an indiscriminate mixed stock fishery is unequivocal.
At the outset of the debate there was a notion that mixed stock fishing only took place at sea. Recalling the NASCO definition adopted by the group, it is important to realise that this approach is taken for everyone. Regardless of which harvesting method is used, be it recreational angling, drift-netting or draft-netting, the same advice is given — when a river fails to meet the conservation limit and does not have a surplus, there should be no harvesting. In a river with a surplus, harvesting can take place by any means. Downstream of where two rivers meet, including the sea, is a mixed stock fishery. If any component of that fishery falls below its conservation limit, harvesting cannot take place. A precautionary lowest common denominator approach is required if one is to secure sustainable harvesting of salmon.
Regarding income streams, recreational fishermen and their associations have clearly indicated their willingness to bear some of the cost of addressing hardship issues, the details of which are contained in the report. It is proposed to introduce an environmental stamp for angling. This would involve a doubling of the licence fee. It is possible that private fisheries' rates will increase, while another option is to sell the surplus.
The new surplus is important. I mentioned at the outset that if one foregoes the drift-net fishery next year, in the order of — the numbers come from the scientific committee rather than the group — 68,000 fish will be available in 2007 from what would have been a drift-net fishery. Something in the order of 28,000 of those will return to rivers that are currently below their conservation limit. Therefore, they will not constitute a surplus. However, the remaining 40,000 fish, a number that will vary from year to year, will constitute fish returning to rivers that meet their conservation limit. Hence, this 40,000 fish will be a surplus capable of being harvested.
This is a new surplus and the report is quite clear there can be no a priori claim to these fish. Their distribution is addressed in section 3.2 of the report, which clearly outlines some of the key principles that should be taken into account when considering how that surplus might be made available to harvesters. Any model for the allocation of this surplus should be predicated on the basis that it is a public good. It should recognise the case of groups such as processors, restaurateurs and retailers and accommodate the interests of the tourism sector.
Some additional issues raised in section 3.2 should be highlighted. One is the suggested change to the current legislation that would permit the sale of rod caught fish, thus making available to the processing sector some of the new surplus. There is a clear indication from the group that the beneficiaries should make a proportionate payment. For clarity, the various beneficiaries have been indicated in the report and include, recreational anglers, the tourism sector, both domestic and foreign, the processing sector and netsmen. Those netsmen who remain as harvesters, draft-net, snap-net, loop-net, bag-net and head ware fishermen, namely, some 44% of current netsmen, have the option of remaining and can, in principle, access some of this new surplus. However, the group has suggested the distribution should be made on the basis of it being a public good and should be considered at a national or regional level.
The income the State derives from payments for this new surplus could be used to enhance management and development of the salmon resource at an individual river level. It constitutes another form of income, alongside the income derived from any environmental stamp introduced on the angling licence or any increase in the rates derived from the private fishery owners.
The group points to a better future for salmon. The report seeks to address the historic decline evident in the data coming from the standing scientific committee. In addition, it will mean that Ireland is in compliance with its international obligations and that we will increasingly see more rivers meeting their conservation limit and thus reopening to all forms of harvesting where a surplus is identified.