Vol. 551 No. 2
33 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources when the recommendations of the National Salmon Commission, which he announced on 7 March 2002, will be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9895/02]
46 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the number of delegations he has met regarding the restriction on the activities of commercial salmon fishermen; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4146/02]
50 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources his views on whether it is realistic to expect commercial net salmon fishermen to make a living under the terms of the new regulations introduced, which will curtail their maximum catch dramatically; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10013/02]
59 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources if he has received representations from the North West Salmon Netsmen Association regarding the restrictions imposed by him on commercial salmon fishermen; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4145/02]
64 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the criteria he has used regarding the introduction of quotas for salmon drift net fishing; the reason all areas have not applied; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9061/02]
72 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the reason he has not introduced a buy-out scheme for salmon drift-net licences in view of the fact that most other countries have done so, there is a substantial interest on the part of fishermen in such a scheme, and money is available from the North Atlantic Salmon Fund to support such a scheme. [9918/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 33, 46, 50, 59, 64 and 72 together.
As three of these questions are for oral answer, not more than 18 minutes is allotted.
Since coming into office in January 2000 I have received many representations from, and met, delegations of salmon fishermen, both commercial and recreational anglers. These have included the North West Salmon Netsmen Association. The topics which have been covered in these contacts have included the current effort limitation regime in regard to commercial salmon fishing, the other restrictions related to the angling sector and the proposed introduction in 2002 and beyond of fishery district quotas for taking salmon by commercial fishing engines. These ongoing contacts have served to reinforce my commitment to the future development of both the commercial fishery and the recreational fishery for salmon. They have also allowed me to explain to the commercial fishermen the need to have increasing regard to the position of salmon stocks.
I wish to see a sustainable fishery based on quality and value rather than volume in the commercial sector while for the angling sector I wish to see investment in the ongoing development of angling as a valued pastime and as an important tourism product.
The Marine Institute advises me that average salmon spawning escapement is below the conservation limit in nine of the 17 fishery districts in the State. This means that in those nine districts the stock levels have dropped below the optimum carrying capacity of the catchment within those districts and, in others, to levels where the viability of the river catchments is threatened. Accordingly, on the basis of the best scientific and fisheries management advice available, I have decided to act now with the objective of improving spawning escapement which will I hope, lead to a restoration of adult salmon returns to the Irish coast in the years ahead.
Taking into account socio-economic factors affecting coastal communities, it is proposed to moderate the proposed reductions in commercial catches from the scientific recommendation of approximately 34%. In formulating these proposals I have considered the arguments of those groups, at home and abroad, who propose a buy-out of commercial fishing licences. The focus on this issue has been an unhelpful distraction, it has raised expectations about bonanzas and has not served the interests of the sector or the resource. Accordingly, I have ruled out buy-out as the way forward. However, subject to Exchequer funding I will continue to support local catchment based set-aside proposals with matching funding.
The chairman of the National Salmon Commission has informed me that, following its meeting yesterday, the commission will advise me to publish draft regulations for the implementation of the new quota regime for the coming season. I have requested the chief executives of the fisheries boards and the scientific advisers, with the assistance of the BIM inshore development officers, to engage in a comprehensive round of consultations at national and regional level with the commercial fishermen. My purpose in doing so is to ensure the scientific advice is available and explained at first hand to all fishermen and to ensure that the practical arrangements for the administration of the district quotas are reasonable, workable and reflect the needs of the fishermen. Following this round of consultations and further consideration by the National Salmon Commission, and at the end of the 30 day public consultation period, I propose to sign the necessary regulations to provide for the fishery district quotas to be put into operation through the tagging scheme.
I emphasise that I acknowledge the fears and concerns of those in coastal communities who depend on the annual salmon run for a much needed source of income as well as for the continuation of traditions passed down the generations. I will ensure, in so far as is possible, that these fears and concerns are fairly addressed. However, the scientific evidence points to a decline in the salmon stock over recent years, which is irrefutably endorsed by emerging robust scientific data generated as a result of the work of the Marine Institute. The data and advice available to me is that, unless action is taken now, salmon stocks will slip to the point where they may be no longer capable of supporting a commercial fishery or a thriving angling sector. In the face of that advice I am sure the House will accept that doing nothing is not an option.
I hope that, if we act collectively in a responsible manner to protect the salmon resource over the short term, we will enhance its availability over the medium to long term to the benefit of all who depend on it. I would urge all to support this first step in a new direction, based on the science and socio-economic needs of the commercial sector, aimed at giving salmon the fighting chance it deserves.
I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. When will Members be given copies of the salmon commission's recommendations? What criteria were used to set quotas? Is there a reason the quotas announced by the Minister and reported in newspapers are substantially greater in the west than in the east and south east? On what basis did the salmon commission make its recommendations on quotas? How will the Minister implement them?
We have not reached a conclusion in respect of the quotas. There have been ongoing discussions with the fisheries boards and the salmon fishermen. The salmon commission has considered submissions and made recommendations but I have not made a final decision on what the quotas should be. We have agreed what the tax reduction should be. It is not correct to say that the quotas in the west are greater than in other areas. There are four districts with a need for greater quota reductions – Ballyshannon, Bangor, Galway and Waterford.
Will the Minister indicate to the House the final decision on the quotas and how they will be achieved and implemented?
As Deputy Sheehan pointed out, many salmon fishermen are not happy with the proposals but we are trying to reach a balance between the scientific and management advice to ensure there are cuts in the number of commercial salmon being taken while recognising the socio-economic impact of those cuts on small salmon fishermen.
Will the Minister publish the scientific data upon which the Salmon Commission based its recommendations and the data available to the Marine Institute? I raised this issue last week during the debate on the Estimates. Did the Minister have an opportunity to decide how he will approach this issue? Will he set out in detail the reasons he has refused to accept a buy-out scheme? He referred to raising false expectations. We are aware that suggestions were discussed by a person who did not have a ministerial mandate. Will the Minister indicate why, when there is such a strong view in other countries on the success of buy-out schemes, he has so strongly set his face against them?
I will make the scientific figures available. We decided not to proceed with a buy-out scheme for two reasons. The only salmon fishermen interested in selling their licences were those who were catching the least amount of salmon. As a salmon conservation measure, a buy-out would not have any major impact other than costing a significant amount of money. The expectation of the serious salmon fishermen was that they should receive a much higher price for their licences than we would be prepared to consider. With scarce State resources, it is not a good investment to get into the business of buying out licences. Also, it is wrong to say that international experience of the licence buy-out is positive. The Canadian Government bought out all drift net licences five years ago but scientific evidence has not indicated an increase in salmon going up the rivers in Canada. Apart from one or two lobbyists, no one suggests a complete buy-out will have an impact on salmon stocks. From the advice available to me, I am satisfied the approach being taken now is the most effective, whereby we reduce the level of salmon being taken commercially and by angling, and allow a greater spawning escapement so the potential of the spawning rivers can be increased and the stock re-grown.
Salmon fishermen in the south east tell me they have not ever seen such a run of salmon upstream in the autumn as has been the case in the past two seasons but now they will not be allowed to catch any. It is common sense to introduce a set aside scheme, a buy-out as Deputy Dukes refers to it. In agriculture, set aside was brought in because of over production. Now the salmon catch is being curtailed to such an extent that it should be introduced because fishermen cannot make a living. It is in the interests of common justice to introduce a set aside scheme to leave those people some income – they have none under the scheme the Minister has detailed today because it is too limited. Has the Minister asked the European Commission if it would fund a set aside scheme for salmon fishermen?
The one common denominator since I became Minister is that I have yet to meet a group of fishermen who did not tell me that there were more fish than they had ever seen before in all sectors. I am not surprised Deputy Deasy has been told that they have not ever seen so many salmon.
That is not true. We know white fish numbers are depleted.
Scientific advice says otherwise. Salmon stocks are in serious difficulty. There will not be drastic cuts. Once we agree the total annual catch, because there has been under-reporting over the years, the range of cuts will be from a cap in some areas to a maximum of 15%. That is not a severe cut.
If that is the case it is hardly going to improve stocks.
Does Fine Gael want a conservation programme or does it want more salmon caught?
The Minister is implementing the policy.
Some Opposition Deputies want more salmon caught while others want the opposite.
The Minister should not go on with that old clap-trap. He cannot say 15% is a major conservation measure.
It is a significant start. If some Fine Gael Deputies were not driving small fishermen to demand a lesser cut, I might be able to implement it.
What do Fianna Fáil supporting fishermen say to Government Deputies before they go to protest meetings?
The Deputy does not like to see courageous decisions being taken.
I would love to see a courageous decision being taken but a 15% cut is not it.
This is a courageous decision.
It is a half baked compromise.
It is not a half baked compromise.
The Minister should not respond to interruptions.
It is the first time a serious attempt has been made to conserve and manage wild salmon and the Deputy should support this initiative rather than taking pot shots at it.
There is a difference between buy-out and set aside and we are happy to encourage and finance set aside. Set aside means the nets would not be used for one, two or three years, whereas a buy-out involves the total buying out of the licence. I am trying to encourage set aside where local net men, anglers and fishery owners reach agreement, as they have successfully done in some of the Munster rivers. I am prepared to fund 50% of the set aside up to certain limits.
I do not agree with the quotas. Labour Party policy is to eliminate drift net and draft net fishing in its entirety.
The Labour Party is consistent and I hope the Labour Party Deputies in coastal areas will be clear with the small fishermen because some of them have been told a different story. However, if Deputy Dukes is not satisfied with 15%, perhaps he would suggest what increase he would like.
