I remind the House that the rules governing these questions are an overall six minutes, two minutes for the Minister's reply and a maximum of one minute for the supplementary question and the answer to the supplementary question.
Fisheries Protection.
Questions (15)
Oral answers (10 contributions)
Pat Breen
Question:68 Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the likely implications of an increase in salmon conservation measures on angling tourism in 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3668/05]
View answer
According to Fáilte Ireland data, there were 83,000 visits to Ireland in 2003, where those visits were determined by angling. This compares with 56,000 in 2002 and 95,000 in 2001. I understand that salmon anglers may represent some 21% of these visitors. In the same period, I am advised that the number of salmon angling licences sold in 2003 was 31,827, a decrease of 9% compared to 35,024 in 2002. In 2001, 32,814 licences were sold. I am advised by the Central Fisheries Board that the latest wild salmon statistics for catch by rod and line relate to 2003 and indicate that the number of salmon and sea trout caught over the same period by anglers has increased by 18% from 27,184 in 2001 to 30,872 in 2002 and 32,017 in 2003. Consequently the catch per unit effort has increased and so the effect of salmon conservation measures introduced in recent years do not appear to have adversely impacted on the prospects for salmon anglers, whether domestic or tourist.
The Central and Regional Fisheries Boards devote considerable effort and resources, in collaboration with Tourism Ireland, to the promotion of angling abroad. I am advised, however, that the overall decline in angling tourism is not unique to Ireland but reflects a trend which is widespread in Europe. The report of the tourism policy review group to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism in September 2003 observes a decline in activity holidays which is not confined to angling but includes cycling and hill walking.
Since 2002, the Government has implemented a strategy to ensure, through progressive reductions in the commercial catch, that the conservation limits specified by the Standing Scientific Committee of the National Salmon Commission are being reached. This policy of promoting the application of quotas on commercial fishing and bag limits on angling has delivered significant overall catch reductions aimed at achieving the objective of restoration of salmon stocks.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In September last year, my predecessor accepted the advice that immediate measures were necessary to reduce angling exploitation so as to ensure an increased survival level for spawning purposes during the remainder of the year. Measures governing the operation of salmon angling for the remainder of the 2004 season reduced the daily permissible catch limit from 1 September.
This proposal by the National Salmon Commission delivered a practical mechanism to effect the protection of salmon stocks while acknowledging the important role angling plays in attracting tourists to Ireland. The recommendation made by the salmon commission was also aimed at affording the continuation of the season for tourism angling into September but at the same time minimising the impact on our valuable wild salmon stocks. The relevant State agencies were asked to closely monitor the salmon stocks in the intervening months. The previous Minister also directed the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards, the Marine Institute and BIM to liaise with the National Salmon Commission in completing a full review of the 2004 season so as to allow the necessary adjustment to planning for the regulation of the 2005 season.
While I await their recommendations and the views of the National Salmon Commission, I am sure they will take cognisance of the likely impact of measures on angling tourism and aim to minimise their impact for the coming season.
In light of the loss of income from salmon fishing and the significant debate which is currently taking place on the significance to the economy of drift net fishing and salmon caught on the rod and the fact that the tourism sector is going through a decline in the west, will the Minister of State agree that something needs to be done to increase the opportunities for people involved in the tourism sector, particularly in the area of salmon fishing and the option of a buy-out of drift net fishing?
The Deputy will recall that a few years ago the National Salmon Commission was established to advise the Minister. The commission includes representatives of all the stakeholders, including those involved in angling tourism, drift net, draft net or snap fishing. As far as salmon fishing is concerned, we have a duty to conserve, protect and exploit this fishery in a sustainable manner. This is the balance we are trying to find. The salmon commission recommended over a number of years that there would be a step down reduction in the landings, TACs and quotas of salmon, which would benefit the angling and tourism sectors.
In the coming weeks, the salmon commission will advise me on the scientific recommendations, and the management will feed into that, taking into account the socio-economic factors. The Deputy will recall that last year the quota for commercial fishing was in the region of 163,000. Within the licensing period, approximately 142,000 were landed, therefore there was a reduction in this area. In regard to the question of a buy-out, I made it abundantly clear after discussions with the Minister that there would be no buy-out during the lifetime of the Government. It would be a transfer of a national asset from one sector to the other. I am prepared to listen to those who are recommending a buy-out. I am also anxious to know who would be prepared to put forward the €70 million to €100 million that might be required. That type of money could be better invested in research and development, and we have a state-of-the-art research facility in Mayo. My mind is not closed on this matter.
In terms of the allocation of funds from the Department to the Central Fisheries Board, when administration costs are taken into account as well as the archaic system of operation of the seven fishery boards, considerable money can be wasted in the duplication of services, similar to that which prevailed in the health boards. Has the Minister of State an immediate plan to examine the overall management of the fisheries area? The existing position is not the fault of the Central Fisheries Board. The level of Exchequer funding available for the restocking of rivers and lakes is quite minimal. If we hope to promote the industry, will the Minister of State agree it is time to invest in it? Such investment would be justified.
Is the Minister of State saying he agrees with what Mr. Joey Murrin is reported as saying in The Irish Times today? Does this mean the salmon commission is recommending this proposal for all the reasons given by the Minister of State? We have not seen any costings for it. The Minister of State mentioned €70 million and €80 million for the cost of a buy-out.
In the past three or four months anglers throughout the country, including in Donegal from where the Minister of State comes and also in Killarney, seem to be on the verge of rebellion. The mood is reminiscent of that which prevailed at the time of licence dispute a few years ago, given the types of restrictions imposed on them in regard to catches. Perhaps they are being imposed on the worthy basis of conservation but such conservation measures are being imposed because of the Minister of State's failure to bite the bullet and address the main issue of a buyout.
I am sure the Minister of State will be aware of the evidence presented to the salmon commission that shows the salmon stock in the great salmon rivers on the east coast — the senior Minister will be interested in stock levels in the River Boyne and River Liffey — is down to a few hundred salmon. The last of those surviving genetic stock unique to those two rivers will head off this summer and the odds are that they will be caught in nets used indiscriminately off the west coast of Donegal, Kerry and Cork.
While I accept the argument that this proposal will incur a cost, can the Minister of State explain to his senior Minister why he is putting in place a system that may eradicate and make extinct the Boyne or Liffey salmon? That is the point we are at according to scientific evidence presented to the commission, to which the Minister of State referred.
In regard to Deputy Perry's question, I met representatives of all the regional boards shortly after my appointment and I met the chief executive and the manager of the Central Fisheries Board on a number of occasions. I am anxious to assist them because I am cognisant that small investments could be beneficial in areas where there is no alternative source of employment.
In regard to the overall position, the Deputy will be aware that my predecessor established a review of our fisheries. We expect a report from Farrell Grant Sparks, the consultants commissioned, in the near future. It will deal with the overall position. I do not want to second guess what they may suggest in that review. As soon as it is available, a copy will be available to the spokespersons and subsequently to the House.
I did not read Joey Murrin's article in one of today's newspapers, but he would be the first to tell Deputy Broughan that over the years we have not always sung from the same hymn sheet. I have committed to there being no buyout in the lifetime of the Government. The Deputy asked where I got my figures. I have noted costings in this area in respect of the north-east coast of England. I need to have some benchmark. The cost of such a proposal would range between €70 million and €90 million. However, I have to ask if that type of funding was available whether it should invested in a buyout. Perhaps there are other ways such funding could be invested in the fishing industry or in the inland fisheries. The popular option might be to proceed with such a proposal, but the popular option is not always the right one. I have to do what is in the best interests of the industry and of the country.
With regard to stock levels in the River Boyne and the River Liffey, I took the opportunity not more than two weeks ago to meet representatives of the east coast fisheries. While I am aware of their concerns, I draw to the attention of the House that when we talk about the net off the west coast it does not stretch from Donegal to the east coast of the United States. Members will recall that previously the limits were reduced from 12 miles to six miles, which was a major contribution. In addition, we have a four-day week over two months, which gives 30 weeks, and we have all daylight fishing.
We should not overlook other factors that pose a threat to fish swimming in the middle of the Atlantic. There is the question of their mortality and the threat to them posed by seals, an issue on which we have to bite the bullet. I am told that the number of salmon killed by seals is much greater than the total allowable catch for the country. Global warming is also a factor. It is from that basis that we should start to deal with this issue.
I will work with the industry with a view to ensuring we continue to have a viable industry and that there will be protection, conservation and exploitation of this resource in a sustainable manner in the best interests of those who depend on commercial salmon fishing for their income and in the best interests of tourism. I am the first to acknowledge the importance of angling and of salmon to the tourism industry. Even though the stock numbers are dropping, that is not pertinent only to Ireland, it is a factor across other countries in Europe.
May I ask——
We are way over the time allocated for this question. We must move on to Question No. 69.
Natural Gas Grid.
Questions (16)
Breeda Moynihan-Cronin
Question:69 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the recent comments from the director of a publication (details supplied) that the proposed gas field on the River Corrib should be built offshore; if he anticipates any re-evaluation of the development options for the gas field; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3589/05]
View answerOral answers (5 contributions)
I have not been made aware of the comments to which the Deputy refers in her question.
The development of the Corrib gas field, which is situated some 70 kilometres off the coast of County Mayo, has received the necessary statutory approvals, consents and licences for the development of the field and work on the project has commenced. The developers expect that first gas will flow in early 2007. I do not, therefore, envisage any change to the content of these approvals which have been granted on the basis of independent advice in all cases.
The Deputy will be aware that An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for the terminal in its current location in October 2004. This decision is at present subject to two claims for judicial review.
In January 2001, the developers submitted to my Department a plan of development for the Corrib gas field. It states that, in terms of facilities engineering, the area in which Corrib is located is characterised by a harsh marine environment, being directly exposed to the Atlantic fetch, a lack of existing hydrocarbon production infrastructure and the presence of active fishery industry interests.
Section 4 of the plan of development sets out the proposed concept — an onshore terminal — and the alternative offshore concepts considered. The alternative offshore concepts were considered and eliminated in the plan of development due to a number of considerations, including the following: the water depth and hostile nature of the environment at Corrib do not favour the use of a fixed steel jacket or guyed tower — the latter has not been used outside the benign environment of the Gulf of Mexico; the floating production concepts are similarly not ideally suited to extended field life in the prevailing harsh environment, with large bore high pressure gas export risers being a particular design issue; and remote control buoy technology has not been developed for the extreme environmental conditions experienced at Corrib and development of an acceptable, reliable system could not be guaranteed within the proposed project timescale. These considerations also include that all the proposed manned facilities options incur high operational expenditure and have increased adverse safety implications, particularly with respect to offshore transfer of personnel; the high capital cost of all the floating or fixed platform options combined with the requirement for extensive gas transport infrastructure rendered the options sub-economic with predicted Corrib reserves and envisaged gas sale prices; and the relatively dry nature of the Corrib gas, eliminating the need for offshore processing, and high reservoir productivity, reducing the number of wells, allow the use of much simplified production facilities with high reliability. This permits the practical adoption of sub-sea production technology for Corrib.
In December 2000, my Department requested from the developers the results of its alternative concept studies. These were examined and reviewed in January 2001 by the consultant petroleum engineer advising my Department. He advised the Department that the developers of the Corrib gas field should not be required to change or consider changing the Corrib development scheme.
The House will appreciate that, given that the Corrib gas field development scheme has received all appropriate consents, I am not in a position, nor would it be appropriate, to initiate a process aimed at the fundamental change to the concept envisaged in the Deputy's question.
Some gremlins got into our question and it did not come out exactly as we submitted it. Does the Minister share the concerns about the fragile ecosystem of the north-west Mayo area around Erris? Does he believe that a proper evaluation should be considered by the Government? For the past 20 years, Shell has faced the least regulation of oil and gas companies in the world in this area. Could Shell and its partners be made to re-examine this?
The Minister expects gas flows from early 2007. What percentage of our gas usage will come from the Corrib field by 2010? What prospects are there for other significant finds in that coastal area?
This has been the subject of exhaustive evaluation. Approvals were granted by the Department. Under the Petroleum and other Minerals Development Act, as amended, there was a lease demising the petroleum in the leasehold area. There was a plan of development under the Gas Act. Pipeline consent was given, with 32 compulsory acquisitions of rights over land and one compulsory acquisition of land later in 2002. Under the Continental Shelf Act, as amended, there was consent to construct a structure on the continental shelf. Under the Foreshore Act, a licence was issued in May 2002 and An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for the terminal. The development concepts that I mentioned were looked at in great detail and the prevailing view, because of its location in the Atlantic Ocean, was to grant consent to those proposals that were accepted.
I have no information that anything more will be available in that area but have been told anecdotally that once there has been a find in a particular area, there may be something more.
Does the Minister agree that in all the evaluations listed, nowhere has proof been presented that an on-shore pipeline for untreated gas is safe floating in a bog, which will be the position with the nine kilometre pipeline? Why does the Department allow a situation where houses are within 70 metres of that pipeline? That would be the standard if this was a refined gas pipeline but, given that barometric pressure can be four times that in a refined gas pipeline, the distance to any house from that potentially unsafe pipeline should be at least 250 metres. Can anyone show me proof that such a pipeline floating in a bog is safe?
We established independent bodies to judge these matters from a planning point of view. The Deputy might know more about on-shore production of oil and gas but I presume that An Bord Pleanála employed all the experts needed to find out if this is safe and decided it is safe on that basis.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.