Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995

Vol. 449 No. 5

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sea Front Research.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

20 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for the Marine if he has received the sea trout working group's assessment; the outcome of the 1994 sea trout research programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4014/95]

Michael McDowell

Ceist:

24 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for the Marine the reason for the delay in publishing the supplement to the sea trout working group 1993 report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4008/95]

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

31 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for the Marine if he will publish, in full, the supplement of the 1993 report of the sea trout working group which is understood to have been completed by his Department in March 1994. [2496/95]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 20, 24 and 31 together.

I intend to publish the supplement to last year's scientific sea trout working group report as part of the 1994 report which will be available within the next few weeks.

The working group has been in session over recent weeks to evaluate the results of the 1994 sea trout research programme. Its work is being completed next week and I expect to receive an agreed report from the group shortly thereafter.

The working group will advise on its assessment of the results of the sea trout research effort last year. Its report will also review, re-evaluate and update all relevant scientific papers and emerging data. In that context, the analysis and conclusions contained in a supplement prepared last March to the group's 1993 report are also being evaluated alongside latest findings and in light of further statistical work on sea lice parameters carried out in the meantime.

The supplementary report and the group's current evaluation of its data and findings will be incorporated in the 1994 report which, as I said, will be published within the next few weeks.

In line with agreed practice, the 1994 scientific findinngs will be forwarded for consideration by the sea trout monitoring and advisory group which was set up to ensure implementation of the practical framework for action recommended by the sea trout task force.

While the importance of ongoing research on all aspects of the sea trout problem is acknowledged, the key priority continues to be implementing the practical framework for action recommended by the task force, notably to ensure the effectiveness of measures to control sea lice levels. Ongoing results from monitoring programmes show that lice levels are being maintained at very low levels on salmon farms. The monitoring group will continue to closely oversea these programmes and I have asked for regular progress reports from the chairman. I acknowledge that there have been problems recently with participation on the group by fishery owners and fish farmers.I am very anxious that these are overcome and that the work can continue with the full involvement of all interests. A consensus approach is the most constructive way forward in our search for solutions.

For my part, I am fully committed to continuing my dialogue with fishery owners and fish farmers alike on all matters of concern.

Will the Minister inform the House why his Department has refused, up to now, to publish the supplement to the sea trout working group report as he indicated that it has been available since March 1994? Is it true, as reported by the "save our sea trout" campaigners, that this supplement showed there was some connection between the attack of sea trout by lice and the proximity of salmon farms? The Minister will be aware that this has become a contentious issue between salmon farm promoters and sea anglers. In view of the fact that the State promotes and fully supports the development of salmon farming — we all do and hope it can be done in a way in which no damage will be caused to other fisheries — will the Minister give some assurance to the House as to the findings contained in the supplement? Is it now a requirement following the recommendations in that supplement that licences for salmon farms will not be given where the proposed location is within 20 kilometres of a sea trout fishery?

As I said in my reply I intend to publish the report in full.

Why the delay? Is it the change of Minister or a change of policy?

No, there were a number of difficulties as I am sure the Deputy will be aware. There was a difference of views within the working group in relation to the methodology used in the assembly of material for that report. The analysis and findings of the supplement have been widely disseminated, although not formally published, up to now. I understand publication was held over pending further analytical work which was acknowledged in the supplementary report as being necessary and a clear review of the research findings on which it was based. That further evaluation is nearing completion.I emphasise I am anxious for the report to be published and made available with the more recent findings. I am particularly anxious that the question of the decline in sea trout stocks is addressed. I am also concerned about the problems on the monitoring group with regard to participation. I hope, as a result of some recent approaches, that those difficulties may be resolved. The general approach has to be the implementation of the recommendations contained in the task force report, chaired by Dr. Ken Whitaker. I have asked the chairman of the monitoring group to prepare a progress report on the implementation of those recommendations. I have met the chairman of the "save our sea trout" group. During this weekend I will be meeting representatives of the salmon growers' associations and fishery and angling interests and I hope to get a more co-operative approach to dealing with the problem.

The Minister did not answer my question about the 20 kilometre limit. Will the Minister indicate what main recommendations of the working group have been implemented in regard to the location of salmon farms?

The Deputy is correct that there was a reference in the supplementary report to a 20 kilometre limit. That will be considered in the context of the work being done by the group. I expect its work to be completed next week when we will have up-to-date information. A range of recommendations made by the task force have been implemented. They deal with the control of lice and the general management of fish farms. As I said earlier I asked the chairman of the monitoring committee — which is monitoring the implementation of the task force recommendations — to produce a progress report. It is my intention to have regular progress reports on the implementation of the task force recommendations until we are all satisfied that the problem has been adequately addressed and resolved.

Perhaps we could have a concluding question from Deputy Molloy.

I welcome the Minister's decision to visit many of these areas during the coming weeks. Is he aware of the importance to the economy of the locations of salmon farms and the valuable sea trout fisheries? Is he aware that the development of salmon farming has resulted in employment and many other benefits to the economy and that the tourist revenue is enormous from sea trout fishing which has been affected? There is an urgent necessity to ensure a coming together of both sides. I appeal to the Minister to take every step possible to reconcile the differences, where different views are held by both sides, and to try to find a solution whereby salmon farming can be supported and developed and brought to its maximum potential in view of the huge revenue potential to the State and the employment provided in remote areas and that the valuable trout angling——

That should be adequate.

——based on sea trout fishing, can develop side by side. There is an urgent necessity for a Minister to bring both sides together, resolve all the differences with a view to achieving progress.

I agree with Deputy Molloy. A balanced approach must be taken on this issue. Salmon farming is important economically and in terms of employment, particularly in parts of the country where there is little or no alternative employment. I recognise that and it is my intention to support it.

Equally, the fisheries interest is very important economically in those areas. I am conscious that to some extent dogmatic positions have been adopted by both sides on this issue. I am anxious that a commonsense approach is adopted in resolving it. I am very keen that fish farmers and fishery owners get around the table again and I very much regretted that legal action has been threatened. I hope the issue can be resolved in a commonsense approach. I have had a number of meetings with various interests and I intend to avail of the Salmon Growers' Association conference in Clifden this weekend to visit farms and talk to fisheries and angling interests as well as the Western Regional Fisheries Board with a view to making progress on the issue. That will be backed up by the arrival next week of the latest information from the working group and the publication of its——

When will its report be published?

Within a few weeks. It will be ready next week and, as is normal procedure, it must then go to the monitoring committee. As soon as possible thereafter it will be published.

Barr
Roinn