Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Feb 2024

Fish Migration and Barriers to Migration: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

I have received apologies from Senators Pauline O'Reilly and Alice-Mary Higgins and Deputies Richard Bruton and Alan Farrell.

The purpose of today's meeting is to have a discussion on the challenges relating to fish migration, spawning, habitat loss, barriers to migration and so on. We have been planning on having this session for quite a long time. This will be the first of two public sessions. We are very happy to welcome: Mr. Francis O'Donnell, chief executive officer, and Dr. Cathal Gallagher, head of research, Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI; Mr. Mark Horton, all-island director, the Rivers Trust; Mr. Kris Murphy, the Slaney River Trust; and Professor Ken Whelan, vice president, the Atlantic Salmon Trust.

Before we begin, I will as usual read out the note on privilege to remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks, and it is imperative he comply with any such direction. I do not believe we have any witnesses who are attending remotely thus morning. There are, therefore, no issues around parliamentary privilege in that regard.

Members of the committee are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the committee that they are only allowed to participate in this meeting if they are physically located in the Leinster House complex. In that regard, I ask those members who are joining us online to confirm that they are indeed on the grounds of Leinster House prior to making their contributions to the meeting.

I will go first to Mr. O'Donnell for his opening statement.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

I thank the Chairman. I wish Deputies and Senators a good morning. I will start by offering my sincere condolences on behalf of the board and the executive of IFI to Deputy Richard Bruton, who is a member of the committee.

I thank members for inviting us this morning to discuss barriers to fish passage in Ireland and the mitigation of same. I am accompanied by Dr. Gallagher.

Riverine connectivity is critical in protecting our freshwater fish and the habitats in which they reside. Migratory species such as Atlantic salmon, sea trout, sea lamprey, river lamprey, twaite shad and allis shad and European eel all make long migratory journeys in order to reproduce. A range of other fish, however, such as pike, brown trout and bream, live entirely in fresh water but make extended movements along the river system for feeding or to access spawning and nursery areas. Any restrictions to fish migrations may have negative consequences for their habitat use and reproductive or feeding capacity and could lead to long-term declines in their populations. Fish movements and migrations can be affected by different man-made structures in rivers. These may include small structures such as bridge floors, culverts and sluices to larger structures such as weirs and dams. Barriers also impact on the natural river process, which becomes disconnected. Temperature regimes are altered and flow rates change with an interruption in sediment transport between upstream and downstream of structures. In many instances, large structures change river habitat into lake habitat with the creation of large impoundments.

Hydromorphology is identified as the second most common pressure on water quality in Ireland. To support mitigation of this pressure, IFI has led the development of a river barrier assessment tool and is currently mapping the extent of barriers nationwide through its national barriers programme. There are currently over 73,377 potential barriers that have identified, with 31,170 assessed to date. Of those assessed as problematic, 233 have been the subject of follow-up surveys, known as SNIFFERs. These are required before any mitigation work can be carried out.

The mitigation of barriers and the restoration of free-flowing rivers can enable the protection and restoration of natural biodiversity in our catchments. With the support of the Departments of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Environment, Climate and Communications, IFI has developed a national barriers mitigation programme to run from 2024 to 2027 to meet the commitments made to address water quality pressures.

The national barriers programme, funded to date by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, which has policy responsibility for the water framework directive, has estimated the number of structures that are, or have a high probability of being, a barrier to fish passage in the Irish river network. The national barriers plan has estimated that there are potentially 8,500 culverts-bridges, 1,500 weirs and 160 other structures in Irish rivers that represent a barrier to fish passage. Over the life of the NBP 2024-2027, which is to be supported by the establishment of a new capital and operational mitigation programme, it is expected that 257 barriers will be mitigated. The plan includes four pilot barrier mitigation projects that are being progressed to trial methods for dealing with different implementation challenges. Carrying out barrier mitigation projects on man-made structures in river systems can be a complex process involving a lot of planning, title research, surveys and studies, design, budgeting, consultation and innovation to identify the most appropriate management technique to adapt.

In tracking this issue, Inland Fisheries Ireland is working on a number of medium and large-scale barrier mitigation projects, improving fish passage on weirs, bridges and culverts. IFI is currently working on mitigation to passage at: Bretts Weir, River Nore, County Kilkenny; Bakery Weir, River Suir, Cahir; Pallas Weir, River Bann; Dalligan Weir, River Dalligan; Annacotty Weir, County Limerick; Templederry Bridge, County Tipperary; Castlecor Weir, Fish Passage; Askeaton Weir, County Limerick; and Bishops Stream barrier removal, County Roscommon. This list is not exhaustive and covers 2024 and 2025 only.

We also supply expert advice to various agencies and local authorities in terms of barrier mitigation on rivers, such as the Ward River, the Kells Blackwater and the Dodder. Moreover, IFI has agreed to work with larger actors, such as the ESB, to understand the impacts of hydroelectricity on migrating salmon and eels. Large barriers on the Erne, Liffey and Shannon systems have brought those populations to near extinction. Without immediate and proper mitigation, these genetic strains, which are unique, will be lost forever.

There has been significant introgression or mixing of genetics on these systems, which we now know to be very harmful. This relates to Atlantic salmon. One must consider and understand the physical impacts of turbines on salmon and eels as they migrate to sea long after they have left the Irish coast. Physical injuries causing death may only become apparent months later and much research is needed in this area via tracking.

Climate change has been identified by Inland Fisheries Ireland as one of the greatest threats facing fish populations and the wider aquatic environment in the medium to long term. Average air temperatures in Ireland have already increased by nearly 1% since 1900 and changes are projected to increase over the coming decades. Climate change will have widespread effects on Ireland’s environment, including impacts on aquatic habitat and the biota within. It is now necessary to improve resilience to climate change impacts from associated increased hydrological extremes of drought and flood risk. Given the projected trajectory of climate change, actions are needed to limit river water warming. Management strategies to limit temperature increase should carefully consider restoring the thermal regime of rivers through weir removals and a return to more natural hydromorphology conditions, combined where possible with riparian tree planting as an additional mitigation measure.

Unfortunately, the European eel numbers across Europe have been decimated and Atlantic salmon numbers returning to Ireland compared to the 1970s have been reduced by 80%. The trend is getting worse and there is now a need to really deal with barriers and find solutions if we are going to save two wonders of nature that undertake what is a most amazing migratory journey in the natural world.

Mr. Mark Horton

Good morning Chairman, Deputies and Senators. I am the all-Ireland director of The Rivers Trust. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Kris Murphy, from the Slaney River Trust. I am delighted to address this esteemed Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action to provide insight into the important barriers to fish migration within Ireland's freshwater landscapes.

The soft science tells us that any physical barrier in a river significantly impedes the migratory fish's ability to complete its natural life cycle.

Such obstruction inevitably leads to a decline in fish species numbers due to disrupted reproduction patterns, which impacts negatively on dependant species, such as otters and kingfishers. Hard science shows us that, with over 73,000 barriers dotting Ireland's river network, the impediment to migrating fish is clear. These obstructions disrupt the natural life cycle of crucial species like salmon and undermine their future existence. The most recent alarming estimates from Inland Fisheries Ireland indicate that wild salmon numbers have dropped by 70% in the past 30 years. In the mid-1970s, approximately 1.7 million salmon returned to Ireland. Today, it is just 150,000. While there are many intertwined and complex pressures on salmon, barriers to successful migration to the sea and subsequently accessing vital spawning habitats on their homeward journey is a significant contributing factor in its decline.

Please take a moment to consider an Ireland without the mighty salmon. This key species is central in centuries of historical and cultural significance. The loss of the Irish salmon would not only diminish our natural heritage, but also rob us of the enduring spirit they symbolise, as well as have a serious detrimental effect on the Irish economy.

Before going into the details of the barriers to fish migration, I will briefly explain what The Rivers Trust is and give the committee an insight into why this subject is important to us. The Rivers Trust is the umbrella body of over 60 independent, community-led, catchment-scale rivers trusts across Ireland, Northern Ireland and Britain, with 21 of those rivers trusts on the island of Ireland. We are one of only a handful of environmental charities operating on an all-Ireland basis in recognition of the fact that our rivers and their wildlife recognise only natural boundaries. That is why The Rivers Trust is heavily invested in finding solutions to encourage and facilitate the removal or, if not feasible, at least the easement of barriers to fish migration and the restoration of free-flowing rivers in Ireland. We are part of Dam Removal Europe, a pan-European barrier removal coalition, and we work with the World Fish Migration Foundation.

Where barrier removal is taking place, we take a strategic approach to maximise positive environmental results and consult all stakeholders, including local communities. We balance the benefits to the environment and society, taking into account the function and value that some barriers provide. Many rivers trusts in Britain are already delivering in-river barrier removal. In the past three years alone, they have removed more than 100 migratory barriers and delivered easements, such as nature-like bypasses and technical fish passes, to at least a further 200 barriers. This has opened up more than 10,000 km of river to migratory fish, improving habitats and increasing connectivity for wider biodiversity gain.

So far, we have been unable to carry out this vital work in Ireland due to the current challenges surrounding regulation and the availability of funding for barrier removal. There is a great deal of work to be done. Across Europe, there are thought to be over 1 million barriers fragmenting rivers, of which at least 100,000 are considered obsolete. Over the past 200 years in Ireland, our rivers have been severely impacted by human activity for land drainage, navigation and stream power for mills and, in more recent decades, hydroelectric power. As a result, Irish rivers are heavily fragmented by weirs, dams, sluices, culverts, bridges and other artificial barriers.

Ireland’s national barriers mitigation programme has identified approximately 73,077 potential barriers on Irish rivers that break up the continuity of flow and habitat from source to sea. Barriers detrimentally impact river ecosystems by inducing habitat loss, amplifying the impacts of pollution, altering sediment and nutrient movement, and changing water levels. It is not just fish that are impacted. Changes in hydrological flow can also increase sedimentation rates and alter the composition of river and lake substrates, which in turn can affect bottom-dwelling organisms, for example, the critically endangered freshwater pearl mussel in Irish rivers. For freshwater fish specifically, in-channel barriers result in swathes of disconnected habitats, disrupting migratory patterns and rendering otherwise good fisheries habitats inaccessible to fish species, both migratory and non-migratory.

Having to pass multiple barriers in a river system has a cumulative impact on migratory fish, using up valuable energy reserves to pass each one. Fish can often suffer significant injury or direct mortality as they continually throw themselves at these human-made barriers to fulfil their natural migratory instinct. Barriers can also cause indirect mortality, as fish become easy targets for predators exploiting the obstacles hindering their migration, and the spread of disease and pathogens can increase as fish are held up around them.

The impact of barriers to migration is considered a factor in the critical drop in fish numbers in Irish rivers. The Irish Red List 2023, supported by IFI, conducted a comprehensive review of freshwater fish species and certain trout ecotypes in Ireland. Using the latest international guidelines, IFI found that 43% of fish species are threatened, with the European eel classified as critically endangered and the pollan assessed as endangered. Nine species were classified as vulnerable.

What can be done? In practical terms and depending on conditions, various techniques can be used. If delivered in partnerships, costs need not be prohibitive. These include complete removal of a structure, modification, and replacement with alternatives like rock ramps or technical fish passes. The benefits of these interventions are substantial. Direct benefits accrue to various aquatic organisms, including salmonids, eels and coarse fish, by facilitating free movement within the water body. Indirect benefits extend to plants and other aquatic organisms through the naturalisation of in-channel habitats and the restoration of natural processes. Implementing these techniques enhances the aesthetic and recreational value of watercourses. Thus, investing in such measures not only supports biodiversity conservation but also fosters sustainable water management practices for the benefit of present and future generations.

To effectively address barriers to fish migration in Ireland, Government policies must also prioritise holistic approaches that integrate environmental considerations into decision-making processes. Several key policy measures can facilitate the removal of barriers to fish migration including legislation and regulation, funding and incentives, collaborative working, monitoring and enforcement and public education. By implementing these policy measures, the Government can play a central role in facilitating the removal of barriers to fish migration in Ireland. With effective partnership working, these projects could be delivered at scale and in a cost-effective manner. These efforts are essential for restoring and preserving the health of freshwater ecosystems, protecting biodiversity, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of Ireland's aquatic resources.

Restoring and preserving fish migration pathways are paramount to the health and sustainability of Ireland's freshwater ecosystems. The existing legislation concerning fish passage in Ireland needs to be revised. Therefore, it is imperative to re-evaluate the current legislative framework, which is outdated and incongruent with several EU directives. By not adequately addressing barriers to fish migration, Ireland risks violating its obligations under these directives and undermining efforts to protect freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity. The Rivers Trust advocates for a comprehensive review to pinpoint deficiencies and reconcile conflicting policies, prioritising amendments that enshrine the preservation of migrating fish and their habitats over the persistence of river barriers.

As stewards of our natural environment, it is incumbent upon us to recognise the importance of fish migration, identify and mitigate barriers and forge a path towards a future where Irish rivers and streams remain vibrant, interconnected, and teeming with life. This requires practical intervention and policies backed by funding which support the removal of barriers in Irish rivers. With this committee's obvious interest and investment, I am optimistic that we can unite our efforts to dismantle the barriers hindering barrier removal, paving the way for a brighter future where Irish rivers flow freely and our fish thrive abundantly. Let us work together to remove the barriers to barrier removal in Ireland. Go raibh maith agaibh. Thank you for your attention.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Horton and invite Professor Whelan to make his opening statement.

Professor Ken Whelan

I am grateful to the Cathaoirleach, Deputies and Senators for inviting me to speak on behalf of the Atlantic Salmon Trust. Since the industrial revolution, which began in 18th century, man-made barriers have become a major feature of rivers across Europe and North America. Waterways provided a readily available source of power generation and transportation and were fundamental to the growth of many major industries since that time. As the committee has heard, barriers come in the form of dams, weirs, rock barriers, abstraction and discharge points. They can result in the fragmentation of waterways and cause severe disruption to fish passage and to the natural life cycle of many freshwater and estuarine fish species.

In the past, rivers were seen as water channels and there was a complete disregard of the fact that, in their natural state, they are living entities which support complex, interacting aquatic food webs.

The effects of such barriers on large migratory fish species such as Atlantic salmon, European eels and even sturgeon originally in Irish rivers were very obvious, but the more subtle and, at times, far more complex impacts on the physical flowing water environment were little understood.

Facing into the full impacts of climate change over the years to come, it may well be that the impacts of barriers on flow and river discharge patterns, sedimentation and water temperature will come to fore. Barriers cause a wide range of issues for migrating fish, including: blockages and delays to migration, leading to mortality or the disruption of life-cycle phenomena such as spawning time and juvenile migration, which we call phenology; mortality of migrants due to fish passage issues and increased predation at so-called pinch points; water temperature impacts, particularly during prolonged and intense droughts; difficulty in traversing large reservoirs and failure of the fish’s flow-based migration systems, which we call rheotaxis; unnatural changes in water discharge patterns and in the variation of the strength of flow; and changes in sediment transport patterns and the build-up of sediment loads in reservoirs and slow-flowing reaches of impounded river systems can also be a problem.

Over the past two decades there has been a growing awareness of the need to tackle the issues relating to barriers and fish migration. Recognising that in Europe an increasing number of aging dams were approaching the end of their economic and technical lifespan, which is typically about 70 to 100 years, the European Commission developed guidance to assist EU member states in identifying and prioritising barriers for removal. The removal or mitigation of such barriers presents a unique opportunity for rejuvenating rivers and restoring ecological free passage for migrating fish. These efforts align with the European biodiversity strategy, which aims to restore 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers in the EU by 2030. A similar programme of barrier removal and mitigation is actively ongoing in North America. In 2022, some 60 dams were removed across the United States, reconnecting more than 430 upstream river miles, or 690 km, in 20 states. This effort aims to break down river barriers and restore natural flow patterns. The stated goal is to eventually see dam removals in all 50 states.

To identify and quantify the extent of the barrier issues involved in Europe, a major research programme was funded in recent years. The EU's adaptive management of barriers in European rivers, AMBER, project focused on fish passage in European rivers. Through IFI, Ireland has been actively involved in assessing the barriers present across the country, as members heard earlier. A major barrier and fish passage conference, hosted by the AMBER project, was held in 2021. This conference covered topics such as fish migration routes, fish behaviour, downstream migration, socioeconomic considerations, tidal barriers, fishway solutions, policy improvements and monitoring technology. It also explored nature-based solutions, climate change and dam removal options. Community involvement is essential to finding solutions to fish barrier issues. A co-operative, multidisciplinary approach has been found to be very effective in both Europe and North America. There are many examples showing just how effective such an approach can be.

Dam removal has been successfully achieved in France and the US. On the Sélune River in Normandy, the 36 m Vezins Dam was breached in 2019, marking the beginning of the largest dam removal project in Europe. The removal of this dam is part of a long-term effort to ensure that the Sélune River regains the status of a naturally free-flowing waterway. In addition, the 16 m high La Roche-qui-boit Dam was successfully removed in June 2022. The overall Sélune project aims to benefit wildlife, including Atlantic salmon and eels, and enhance water quality along the river. The Sélune River flows into the famous Mont Saint-Michel Bay, a UNESCO World Heritage site and a major tourist attraction.

In the US, major dam removal projects have been successfully achieved though co-operative ventures on the Penobscot and Kennebeck rivers. The Penobscot river faced significant challenges, including a dwindling population of wild Atlantic salmon and a drastic decline in alewife, which is a type of river herring.

By 2009, wild Atlantic salmon were added to the endangered species list in the US. The river’s health was in crisis, with only two alewives counted at the Veazie Dam in 2010, while historically, the river held millions of individuals of this species. The Penobscot Nation and the other organizations formed the Penobscot River Restoration Trust. Through their efforts two major dams: the Veazie Dam and the Great Works Dam were removed. In recent years, as many as 590,000 alewives (also known as river herring) were recorded moving upstream in the Penobscot River. This represents a 45-fold increase from the 2013 estimates of annual upstream migration!

By 2009, wild Atlantic salmon was added to the endangered species list in the US. The river’s health was in crisis, with only two alewives counted at the Veazie Dam in 2010, though historically the river held millions of individuals of this species. The Penobscot Nation and other organisations formed the Penobscot River Restoration Trust. Through their efforts, two major dams: the Veazie Dam and the Great Works Dam, were removed. In recent years, as many as 590,000 alewives, which are also known as river herring, were recorded moving upstream in the Penobscot River. This represents a 45-fold increase from the 2013 estimates of annual upstream migration.

In Europe, the European Rivers Network, ERN, has been involved in the removal and the mitigation of a wide range of barriers. The ERN was actively involved for many years in concluding an agreement with the French Electricity company Électricité de France, EDF, for the mitigation of the Poutès Dam on the upper Allier system, a key salmon-spawning tributary of the Loire River in France. The Poutès Dam was constructed during the Second World War for electricity production, without authorisation. Since the late 1980s, environmental NGOs have been concerned about its impact on the environment, particularly the near extinction of the Loire strain of Atlantic salmon. Following many years of negotiation between NGOs, local representatives and EDF, a compromise solution emerged. The dam would be maintained, but significantly modified to allow for the free passage of both juvenile and adult migratory fish, particularly Atlantic salmon, over their key migration periods. Construction of the fundamentally redesigned dam was completed in 2022, but the great achievement of this design is that it allows EDF to utilise some 70% of the river's original capacity to generate electricity, while guaranteeing a completely free-flowing passage for migratory fish at key times in their life cycle.

Decided recently, in December 2023, the designation of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN, of the global status of Atlantic salmon as near threatened, and in the UK as endangered, is a reminder to us that time is not on our side in tackling the issues which are impacting our migratory fish species. According to the IUCN's red list of threatened species, the status of the Atlantic salmon has changed quite significantly. In terms of its global classification, previously the Atlantic salmon were categorised as of "least concern” on the IUCN red list. However, due to multiple threats during their long-distance migrations between freshwater and marine habitats, global Atlantic salmon populations have declined by 23% since 2006. As a result, their global status has now been reclassified by IUCN from of "least concern” to "near threatened".

The UK populations of Atlantic salmon have faced even greater challenges. Since 2006, British populations have declined by 30% to 50%. Projections indicate a further decline between the years 2010 and 2025. Consequently, the UK population of Atlantic salmon has been reclassified as "endangered".

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Professor Whelan for his opening statement. I ask members to indicate if they want to come in to ask questions. I will lead off with a few of my own. I found the opening statements incredibly educational and I am certainly a lay person when it comes to this issue. They were so thorough, informative, and truly enlightening. I say that as somebody who has vast experience of boating on the Shannon River in Limerick city and upriver and I would be very familiar with the Mulcair River and the Ardnacrusha power station, which is huge barrier on our biggest river. The message coming through is that we have seen a catastrophic decline and we are in a very perilous situation, but there are also very clear actions that can be taken. Therefore, there is hope. I would like to think that this committee and the work it does will highlight what is realistic and what can be done with the right policies, the right investment and the targeted approach.

It is my hope that we are at a turning point and that in the next few years, we will see a positive change. The reference to the river in the United States was quite interesting; there was a 45-fold increase in the population of alewives. I think that only two were found in 2013, but ten years later, the numbers have gone up to 590,000, which is more than a 45-fold increase. It is staggering how when actions are taken recovery happens, and that is what I am hearing from the representatives.

I would like to speak about Ardnacrusha, which I know well. It is a major barrier on our biggest river. When I was young, I remember meeting very elderly people who remembered when the River Shannon was teeming with salmon. They would look down from the bridges in Limerick city and all they could see were the backs of the salmon flowing up the river. At the same time, when I was rowing on the river in the 1990s and 2000s, that was a rare enough sight. It is an even rarer sight now to see these fish. One of the reasons we are having this session today is we are conscious that the ESB is producing a policy that is relevant to this discussion, and we would like to influence that policy. As a committee, we have jurisdiction over the ESB, just as we do over Inland Fisheries Ireland. In these sessions, I would for us to come up with recommendations and a report. I think members will be co-operative in producing a report quickly with a view to influencing that ESB policy. I would like to hear from the stakeholders about what they would like to see in that policy. It is not just a matter of the River Shannon, of course, but of the River Lee, the River Liffey and the many rivers across the country that have significant hydroelectric dams.

In Limerick, we are generally very proud of the ESB and Ardnacrusha and what they did. It was a huge project that helped to build the nation. However, we have to acknowledge that it fundamentally altered how the river works, as well as the fish population, the biodiversity of it, and the complex systems that were existing in it.

I would like to hear from our witnesses. What do they think should be in the ESB policy? What is critical there? I do not think any reference was made to the Office of Public Works, OPW, in any of the statements, but it has a very critical role as well. Perhaps our guests could therefore speak about the role of the OPW, as well as what we should be saying to that particular State agency with respect to the challenge we face. Dr. Gallagher may want to go first.

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

The Cathaoirleach’s memory of the River Shannon is fascinating. When I joined Inland Fisheries Ireland, I was privileged to understand some of the history of the fish before the stations went in. There are some scales and records from those days, not only relating to the salmon. The size of the fish that came into those catchments was astronomical.

Much work has been done, particularly in the Shannon, over the years to look at the populations of salmon. Just so everyone is on the same page, there is a unique population going to all of these catchments and they have been tied to those catchments since the Ice Age. These are individual genetic populations. If one were to transfer populations from one river to the other, one would see that they do not do as well. Therefore, the idea of hatcheries, etc., is difficult. One needs to maintain that population all the time because they find it hard to sustain. The natural population in those catchments is critical.

The starting point is to see if we have any genetic material left in those catchments and if we can encourage the restoration using that genetic material. Specifically in relation to the River Shannon, there is part of the EU water framework directive plan. The third cycle of the plan is under consultation at the moment and deals directly with developing a bypass channel in order to allow free access of fish back into the Shannon catchment. That programme is currently under way. A core group is involved with that programme, including the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the ESB, Uisce Éireann, an independent chair and IFI. There is a whole consultation group. There is a governance structure in place for that big project and it is well advanced. Much work has been done with fish passage experts to look at what sort of solution might be implemented. The study continues and we hope to move ahead with a bypass.

It will not be a nature-like solution because of the evaluation that is done. A vertical slot fish pass will be put in. We are looking at important things such as making sure there is environmental flow so that populations can be maintained when the water is passing down through the old River Shannon. There is diversion work to be done at the tailrace to look at diverting fish. There is quite an amount of work to be done in the Shannon. Similar work in respect of those other catchments that are impounded by hydro stations would be of benefit to fish populations.

One point I would make before I move on to the OPW is that while we are here talking, members will hear much about fish and we are the freshwater fish organisation. The first solution always has to be, if possible, to remove barriers. The impact on water quality and biodiversity will still be there because rivers have a natural process. Rivers flow with gravels and offer migration paths and natural nutrient flow. All of those natural processes are interrupted when there is a barrier. The fish passage might let fish come up a river. Sometimes it is very difficult to achieve the downward fish passage. To explain the complexity of that, let us think of the different types of fish we have and the different shapes that they have, for example, a big long eel cannot jump while a salmon can jump. Different species, as Mr. O’Donnell said, all have different what we call morphology. They have different shapes and can pass through the passage in different ways. Downward passage is often the most difficult part. If you put a flow in place, eels travel down at the bottom of the river and salmon smolts are farther towards the top. Different species are at different levels. Therefore, it is hard to get them down the rivers for the outwards migration part. In addition, fish have different life stages. They are different sizes and they come from eggs to fry all the way through. All of those different elements would have to be accommodated. I strongly make the point that the ideal scenario is actually to remove the barriers. If you are considering the whole biodiversity, the temperature regime, nutrient flow, sediment, spawning – all those different things need to have the natural process reinstated into the river. Those are some considerations.

Some very good work is being done on the Shannon, as colleagues said, in co-operation. Stakeholder engagement is very important. We have an attachment to barriers in Ireland that probably is not reflected in other European countries. We like the amenity value and we like looking at barriers. It is hard to explain the difficulty those barriers are causing the environment. Those are a couple of points on that.

Regarding the OPW, it has the difficult task of balancing the requirement for drainage in flooding and altering catchments, which was its function, with the natural environment and supporting the restoration. We have been working with the OPW over a long number of years to try to ensure that any work it does, either in maintenance of the drain channels or in development of new drainage schemes, can be done in the best way possible to facilitate fish. However, it is never ideal. It goes back to those processes that must be reinstated. There has been much good work done by the OPW in co-operation with others in mitigation of barriers and restoration of catchments. We did much work. A colleague of mine who is unfortunately no longer with us was a famous gentleman called Professor Martin O’Grady. He developed many sound principles on the restoration of drain channels. Our experience with the OPW – I know Mr. O’Donnell wants to come in on this – has been that it is focused on trying to do the best it can for the environment given its remit. It sometimes comes down to balancing flood prevention in an area versus something else. That is the difficult role it has. We have been working with OPW staff and they are very interested in working together to deliver this programme. They have been in contact with us about this barrier mitigation programme and where they can help out, as well as in other environmental programmes.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

Dr. Gallagher covered the OPW aspect. It is important to note there are other important actors as well, such as Coillte, which we have been working with at a high level to look at the landholding it has, barriers on its property when it fells trees within catchments and the replanting of those trees to try to insulate ourselves for the future in terms of planting broadleaf much more widely than it normally would have been.

We are getting there. People are starting to realise, whether it the OPW, Coillte or anyone else, that while they obviously have to make money, they also have to be environmentally conscious. We are working with them to try and progress that.

An Cathaoirleach

Does anyone else wish to come in?

Professor Ken Whelan

I will first address the totality of what we are dealing with before going on to comment on the Shannon. It is important to understand that this is a very complex matter. That became obvious from the submissions this morning. From the perspective of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, we suggest that this we need to look at the catchments in a holistic way. We cannot do one stretch of the Shannon. It has to be looked at as a single entity. Once you get past Ardnacrusha, you are into other barriers and other locations as you move upstream. Importantly, the fish have to spawn. Then you are looking at the spawning streams that may be in Galway or wherever. It is quite a complex undertaking.

The Atlantic Salmon Trust has tried to deal with it by putting together what we call the likely suspects framework. That has been very useful. It lists out the pressures and problems that, in our case, Atlantic salmon have. However, the framework has a bearing on the way we might approach the totality of what we are dealing with. Basically, we carry out an audit, look at the science and the impacts and try to figure out, in terms of always having a limited resource, what the priorities are and what to do first. We also have to assess what the impact will be as a result of following through on that. That approach is very useful to keep in mind.

In the context of the bigger river systems where there are many issues with invasive species, this can work in two ways. If a dam is removed, invasive species are offered the opportunity to move upstream. It is always a balance of trying to get back what has been lost while recognising that nature abhors a vacuum. At that point, you are trying to fill a vacuum in a completely different time and space. That kind of approach would repay large dividends.

On the OPW, I reiterate what I said at the Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. I have been dealing with issues relating to drainage and drained rivers since I started my career at the old Inland Fisheries Trust. My view is that the Drainage Act 1945, which I think is under review, needs to be completely updated and put into the context that currently exists. I take the point that Mr. O’Donnell made earlier. We have to look at the remit of these agencies because they are constrained by their remit. We all understand that. In the times we are living in however, when we are looking at serious biodiversity loss, a fundamental review of the remit of the agencies it called for. I have experience in the context of the River Dodder. Working with the young engineers in the OPW is a pleasure. They are really interested and creative, but they are constrained. The approach to which I refer is the one we need to look at. Then there are the questions as to what the end point will be and how we can structure our bodies to reach it. Otherwise, there is a real danger that, as in the past, we may tie ourselves up in knots.

Mr. Mark Horton

The Rivers Trust agrees with everything Dr. Gallagher, Mr. O’Donnell and Professor Whelan have said. I will not rehearse it all. Our priority is to see barriers removed as opposed to mitigation. Of course, that might not always be the case so easements have to be considered carefully. The point has already been made about considering upstream and downstream migration and the fact that different fish species require different types of easement in order to do that. One solution will not fit all. One thing I would add to what others have said is that the in the context of the guidelines the ESB is producing, we would like to see the inclusion and valuing of local knowledge and the input of local groups who live in the areas around these structures in particular river catchments.

This is because often they will hold a lot of significant knowledge about the river historically. They will understand where there may be pockets of habitat that may not be that well known and where some of these genetic pools, which Dr. Gallagher was talking about, could well be residing. It is important to understand from the local community what they know about these river systems in order to inform their restoration. Certainly, the likes of river trusts, angling groups and biodiversity groups can also play a critical role in any habitat reparation work once a barrier has been overcome or eased, and there will be a requirement to do that. This has to be complemented with water quality improvement and habitat improvement to maximise the habitat quality for the fish that we then let up into the systems.

On the point about the OPW, there is a need to work not only with the OPW but with the likes of National Parks and Wildlife Service, the EPA, the local authority water programme and also all the State landowners and managers to make sure we maximise the resources that are available in order to realise these programmes of work to maximise the sharing of knowledge but also the positive impact that can be generated from these barrier removal or easement projects. Those achievements need to recognise not only environmental outcomes, but also outcomes for society and the economy as well.

As Professor Whelan said, we also need to always be cognisant of the unintended consequences of what we do. We do not want to make it easier, as Professor Whelan pointed out, for non-native or invasive species, or even diseases, to be easily transmitted through the river systems which we open up.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Horton and call Deputy Whitmore.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank our guests for their submissions this morning. It is really interesting. I could spend all day talking about this issue.

Professor Whelan said we should look on this on a catchment level, and I think that is important. If one is dealing with any aquatic issue, catchment level is the best way to look at it.

I have a question for IFI. When IFI identified the 257 barriers to be mitigated under the barrier programme, how did it select them? Was a catchment-level approach taken? A number of years ago, Wicklow County Council undertook a barriers project which identified that half of all the rivers in Wicklow were impounded. Therefore, only half of the rivers in County Wicklow are available for migratory species to access, which really is incredible. If there is one thing we could do as a State, it is to work on those barriers. The potential to deal with this is enormous. I merely wonder if IFI has looked. Is IFI conducting a similar analysis to that which was conducted in Wicklow across the different catchments? How were those 257 barriers identified?

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

I thank the Deputy. We take a catchment-level approach. I have a copy of one we have done for the River Dodder, which looks at the information. We try to bring together many sources of information along with sources from colleagues in the EPA and parks and wildlife, and we have data coming in from our own fish surveys. We also have rapid habitat assessment techniques that we use to look at habitats. We try to get a picture of the whole habitat and what is impounded. Similar to the discussion on the Shannon, we are taking a holistic approach. As we have now put dots on the map, at least we know where these barriers are and we can know how many are in a catchment.

One part of the work we are doing is prioritisation. Because we only have a limited fund, we ask where will we get the best benefit or bang for our buck. What we do is prioritisation. This is something that we are doing a little bit of research on. We are working towards further development as we engage further on the programme. The reason I say that is that this is new ground to develop a national programme. We are trying to put together all the tools in the toolbox to be able to roll it out on a wide scale. The prioritisation at present is based on looking at what the benefits are. The benefits are evaluated against the amount - the quantity - and quality of the environment that will be opened up.

In answer to the Deputy's question in relation to the overall catchment, it is also about looking at the cost - a small barrier versus a big barrier, where it might be, etc. - as well as the socioeconomic impacts and the ease of doing it.

In some cases, we have been involved for more than ten years in trying to deal with a barrier at the front of a river or close to it. If we do not get past that part, though, it does not necessarily mean we should not be doing parts elsewhere as well. It is a question of balance. These are the sorts of techniques we are using to identify and prioritise work.

There was a further prioritisation of the 257 barriers the Deputy mentioned, in that we broke them down into small, medium and large-scale. There are different scales of project. The breakdown sets out approximately 160 small-scale projects. Some of the prioritisation is driven by resources and action plans. The barrier mitigation programme has to be delivered by 2027, so we have to balance what works we can get done in that period in terms of the size of barriers. Multiple approaches have been taken.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

It is not just a matter of looking at the catchment holistically but also at the various agencies and the other work under way.

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

Yes.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Last year, more than €600 million was allocated to the upgrading of roads. I believe it was the Minister, Deputy Ryan, under his transport portfolio who allocated it. That funding was also meant to remediate or upgrade bridges. Did IFI have any engagement on that? If a bridge’s apron or a culvert is problematic for whatever reason, did IFI work with those agencies and suggest to them that modifying the bridges in a particular manner would help fish passage?

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

We are lucky as an organisation to have local expertise on the ground. Those people not only deal with county councils and planning issues but also review planning applications and authorisations. If a request for authorisation to do something is submitted, we make recommendations. The answer is “Yes”. We worked closely on the 73,000 barriers. We worked with some of the network information. We can understand where those culverts are under roads or where the bridges are. We have been working with the data sets relating to those properties.

We are very resource limited in developing the programme. Through the work of a few dedicated people in IFI who have a passion for this area, we have only now reached the point of developing the tools we need to broaden the programme. We will not mitigate all of the barriers. Rather, we will work with everyone involved in the field to help in that regard.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

That is an important point. May I ask another question?

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

The Deputy needs a good 15 minutes.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

That is fair. We will keep talking until the Chair stops me.

I will turn now to the Rivers Trust. I am a director of the East Wicklow Rivers Trust, which is working on a remediation project in Ballinglen with IFI, Wicklow County Council and the local authority waters programme, LAWPRO. The issue of partnership is important because this is about getting and using the resources that are available.

My question is for Mr. Horton and Mr. Murphy, the latter of whom is with the Slaney River Trust. I can see from my rivers trust how difficult it is to maximise our work with the funding we have. Incredible expertise is available to us, including that of Professor Whelan, who is on the trust with us, but it is difficult to find funding for project managers and so on. Is having the funding capacity to do all the work trusts want to do an issue across the country, including Wexford?

Mr. Mark Horton

It is a chronic problem. Community-led rivers trusts and like-minded organisations find it virtually impossible to access the funding or resources to allow them to have an employee or pay someone to work on delivering their objectives, which are aligned with what everyone here is trying to achieve but are driven by communities’ passion for their local catchments and river environments. A volunteer effort can only go so far.

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Murphy, to contribute. He has first-hand experience of having sat at the kitchen table after a hard day’s work for 15 years trying to get a resolution on a weir on the Slaney. It is only through his and the rest of that trust’s dedication that that battle still continues. I underscore the word “battle”. It should not be so difficult for organisations like rivers trusts, in partnership with IFI and so on, to overcome the obvious obstacles we need to resolve to protect our river environment. I will ask Mr. Murphy to discuss his experience.

Mr. Kris Murphy

I represent the Slaney River Trust. The Slaney is an amazing, hugely important river. It is a critical system. There are a few reasons for that. First, it is a largely multi-sea winter salmon run river. It is probably one of the few remaining rivers of that type in the country. For a lot of the rivers in Ireland, the bulk of the salmon will go out to sea and spend a single winter at sea, whereas with the Slaney they will spend a number of years at sea. That means they are bigger, their spawning potential is bigger. We are very lucky at the Slaney River Trust that we have Professor Whelan's expertise; he will probably be better at explaining the benefits of this. We are at a crossroads now where we can actually fix the issues of barriers. The Slaney River Trust has done a lot of work. Up to now, it has largely been left in the hands of groups like ourselves to go in and try to sort out these problems. Really our role would be to try to bring together all the State agencies. There has not really been a facility in place to bring together the county council, IFI, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the OPW, the EPA, all those organisations.

In the past the issues around Clohamon have been a bit of a hot potato; I am sure the members are all aware it has been a hot topic. Clohamon is a village on the River Slaney and there is a hydro facility there. There is a weir at the hydro facility and the river splits in two. One portion of the river goes down into the hydro facility and the other portion goes down the main channel, then, at the bottom, after the turbines, the tailrace joins the main river. We have two issues there. There was a planning application put forward in 2014. It was done with IFI funding; I think only about €15,000 was allocated. The planning application failed. There was very limited funding and the €15,000 would not have covered the sheer amount of reports and work that needed to be done. There are fish passes on the weir itself but there is a problem with fish passage over the weir. There are two fish passes and neither of them is very good. There is a need there to create a fish pass. The design at the time was a rocky ramp. As Dr. Gallagher said, the ideal solution would be to have no barrier. There was an option that would have facilitated this but, due to financial and other reasons from the State, it was deemed not to be an option. The second best option was to go after a rock ramp. The application went in. There were a few refusals on it. There were objections from IFI, actually, and from some of the owners. It is a complex situation down there, with several interests. There were some objections from the public which were mainly around the water flows. There is a guideline from IFI that states that 12.5% of the mean flow plus an extra 50% of the overall flow should be allocated to the main channel.

Unfortunately, negotiations with the hydro facility owners would not go far enough to meet that guideline. There were very successful negotiations at the time with the facility owners to negotiate a flow of 3 cu. m, which is a significant amount of water in low-water scenarios, but it just was not enough to meet the guidelines. That particular planning application was stopped dead back then so we decided to split up the two main issues at Clohamon into separate bits to try to tackle them individually.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

It sounds like there is an awful lot of work in that and that it will take a long time.

Mr. Kris Murphy

There is. The second problem is what happens when the salmon get to the tailrace, in that the volume of water that comes down through the tailrace into the hydro facility in medium to lower waters, which is when the salmon and sea trout tend to run, is such that there is an attraction into the actual hydro facility. Therefore there is more water is coming into the hydro facility. We had the EPA down in 2022 and we measured the flows down there. At medium to low water flow, 80% of the water from the river was going through the hydro facility and only 20% was going into the main channel. What happens at the bottom is that the fish decide that as 80% of the water is going that way, they need to go that way.

At the moment we have a grid in there that is old. It was put in by the facility owners. It loosely meets the 1959 fisheries Act in terms of its dimensions. It is supposed to be 75 mm. We have now redesigned the grid so that it is down to 20 mm, so it will have a huge impact on what can get in. What happens is that the fish get in and they get trapped in there. Every year IFI comes along and rescues the fish that get trapped in there because the grid is solid so it cannot be opened. When the fish go in, they are trapped. Every year towards the end of the summer and into the autumn, IFI goes in and removes the fish. The process is that they have to electrofish. They stun the fish, which go into barrels, are removed from the river, are put upstream and are released again. There is a mortality rate and a disturbance to migration. When we talk about barriers, there is a physical barrier but we also have a trap where very intrusive work needs to be done to the fish to get them out of there and back into the main channel. We have worked on that project to replace the grid.

With regard to the work that must go into something like that, we had to tender for a consultant engineer to design it.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

How long has the Slaney River Trust been working on this particular weir?

Mr. Kris Murphy

We met a group of representatives from the Government and IFI. I have to give credit where credit is due. Deputy Paul Kehoe, who I am very sad to hear has decided to leave Government, was instrumental at the time. We set up a number of meetings. The Minister of State at the time, now Senator Seán Kyne, met us several times and they were very interested in helping out. They set up a few meetings. We met the then CEO of Inland Fisheries Ireland, Ciaran Byrne, with Cathal Gallagher and a few other experts. We tried to figure out how we could move this forward and that was the point when we decided to split the project into two and to resolve the tailrace grid.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

On the project in total, are we talking about ten years or something?

Mr. Kris Murphy

That meeting happened in 2017. We have been working on a planning application for a simple grid to cross the tailrace since 2017. Within that, there would have been topographical surveys, hydrological surveys, hydrological modelling, appropriate assessments, Natura impact statements, freshwater pearl mussel surveys, juvenile lamprey habitat surveys, and freshwater vegetation surveys, all of which had to be tendered for. That is left to organisations such as the Slaney River Trust to put together.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Which is an incredible amount of work.

Think about the length of time spent trying to remediate something everyone says needs to be remediated and it is still not done. It is left to volunteers to try to manage and drive forward.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not know if the IFI wants to come in on that. We have also heard how complex these issues are from a science and regulatory side.

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

I have memories of all those discussions. The Deputy is right. We experience that ourselves and it is the structure we have to work inside. When we say mitigation is complex, it depends on the particular place. Sometimes it is easy. For example, if we are working with the National Roads Authority and it is doing something anyway and has the permissions, it can be straightforward. That is why there is a level of complexity. The Deputy is at one end. Sometimes it can involve 11 or 12 reports, some of which are outside our competence. It could be heritage or architecture. There is a suite that needs to be done.

I propose that going forward, instead of having the stakeholders do it, as part of the barrier mitigation programme, we set up a framework so that all the heavy lifting is done to get these supports in place. A framework would be developed for heritage surveys or whatever else and we would try to streamline that. The restriction on what needs to be done is driven by the environmental legislation we have to adhere to, whether that be under the habitats directive or the water frameworks directive. It is about trying to balance a suite of issues in order to get the work done. We are all on the same page about trying to get the work done but it is complex.

The other complexity the Deputy neatly outlined is that, even if it is decided that a mitigation can be put in, you have to ensure it works. You have to get into the flows and attraction. Even that, on an upstream, is complex. You put the rock pass in, then you also have to consider how fish will get down over it. Ideally, while there might not be the biggest appetite for it, the removal is often the most effective and efficient solution to get to where we want to be. It not only fulfils the requirements for us as fish experts, we have to bear in mind that barriers are the problem. Under the water framework directive, there is water quality. Under the habitats directive, species, biodiversity and eel regulations are impacted on. This is a complex problem and it is affecting a huge amount of Ireland's commitments, deliverables and reporting cycles across all these different things.

We hope from setting up a new programme that we would be able to help to set up the framework and structures to be able to deliver the programme on a national level and to make it easier to do that but it is not easy to do. It is complex.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

Dr. Gallagher touched on it. It is probably not sustainable for individuals or even for small groups to try to undertake this type of work because it goes on for a long time and it is costly and strenuous. We have looked at this with the Department of housing. We have looked at all the pros and cons of this. With a barrier that is not complex, we are talking from start to finish of possibly three or four years by the time procurement, environmental surveys and so on are done. That is significant. With a difficult one where there are legal issues, we have been stuck in the mud for ten years with some of those issues. We will keep going with them, but we are looking at a 50 or 60 year programme here. There are many barriers to migratory fish stocks. With the best will in the world, we will build a professional team of environmental and engineering experts. We hope to have 36 within three years with the support of the Department of housing and our parent Department. That will leave us well placed but after that the capital works need to be done. We have found that some small barriers that were €100,000 have gone to €300,000 in recent years. With a number of barriers we will be at €10 million. It is expensive and people have to understand that.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy O'Sullivan has been waiting very patiently to come in.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I thank the witnesses for attending and for the sobering information. It has been a bit depressing to hear about the reduction in the numbers of different species.

The reduction in numbers, such as salmon going from 1.7 million down to 150,000, is depressing. One hundred and fifty thousand is nothing. It is pretty heartbreaking. It seems as though humanity, in every move it makes, contributes towards the demise of more species, whether they are fish, birds or mammals. Having said that, there are measures that seem to be working in different areas. We will come back to those.

I welcome Professor Whelan in particular. If people find his voice familiar, it is because he is a regular contributor to "Mooney Goes Wild", a terrific show for highlighting biodiversity in Ireland. It is the only dedicated weekly show that I know of. Professor Whelan had a great session recently on the marine heat wave and how it is impacting species and causing them to move. There was a specific feature on ocean sunfish and their prevalence in Irish waters, which is possibly linked to heatwaves. Some species, including some of our pelagic species, are moving north, perhaps to the area off the west coast of Scotland. This brings me to my first question. There has been much focus on how barriers affect migratory species and contribute to a reduction in numbers. Is there an assessment of how much barriers are contributing by comparison with the increase in water temperature and phenomena such as marine heatwaves? Atlantic salmon spend a great deal of their time in the ocean. Do we have a breakdown as to how much each factor is contributing, taking the examples of barriers and the marine temperature increase, in particular?

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

All the species are different. We had a problem with salmon. In the 1960s and 1970s, for every 100 juveniles that went out to sea after spawning, having spent a couple of years in the river, 20 came back. Now we are down to 5%. There is a way of partitioning. That suggests a big increase in mortality at sea. While we have many theories about what is actually happening, it is very complicated to come to a conclusion because there are individual populations. We believe much of the problem is attributable to climate change, but to measure that you have to ask whether the fish have the same food sources they had in the past. We have some evidence that the food being eaten at sea has less calorific value, for example, and we have evidence that there are more predators in different areas.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

Take the pelagic species, for example, or sprat and sand eel. The reduction in numbers could be down to pair trawling, which has been highlighted. I hear that many of the species are migrating to colder waters – for example, off the west coast of Scotland. Are we seeing any bounce-back in the number of salmon entering the river networks from off the west coast of Scotland?

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

No, we are seeing a continuous decline. Unfortunately, we do not look at salmon numbers according to the overall population, although we could do so. We look at numbers in the Corrib, the Shannon or other rivers. While the trend overall is downwards, we still have some very productive rivers, such as the Moy, whose number is still above what we call the conservation limit. There are enough salmon coming back in to deal with the issue.

On the question relating to barriers, we have partition to account for what happens when the salmon leave the rivers on the way out to sea. Barriers have a big impact. For example, if salmon smolts are going out in a year with low water, with not enough water even to get them over a small barrier, there will be a problem with otters. There will be some natural predators and some invading predators, such as mink, which prey on them at different times. You can partition the mortality, and that work is being done. We have been improving the habitat or the engine for the production of fish to some degree, and that has been the focus, but we are trying to manage only what we can manage. We have no tools to manage the sea aspect.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

Does Professor Whelan want to come in on that? I am sorry to be cutting across people.

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

That is no problem.

Professor Ken Whelan

There are two answers, really. I will start with the freshwater, divide the two and then bring the two together if that is okay. I have some science that is hot off the press. I got agreement from my colleagues to be able to quote this. It is in reports to the various fisheries boards in Scotland but is not published as science yet. It is in preparation. As part of this likely suspects framework we are trying to divide this into the boxes the Deputy has asked about to try to get a handle on exactly what Dr. Gallagher was saying about the priorities, what is happening here and what can we assign to the various problems and issues.

On the fresh water, we started with a great opportunity because we got some funding through the Atlantic Salmon Trust to look at seven rivers in the Moray Firth in Scotland. It was ideal because some of these rivers are absolutely free-flowing and some of them are very severely impounded. I will show the contrast between a river called the Oykel and one members will know, or at least they will know Lough Ness. This is the whole Lough Ness catchment. What we found with the Oykel, which is perfect at the moment, is it is still seeing problems, a lot of which we think are down to the marine survival. It is perfect in the sense it does not have pollution problems, has next to no problems from forestry, has a very nice gradient and no dams, so it is an ideal candidate as our control. We looked at that and found that not alone were we able to track the mortality of the fish as they moved downstream - we were very surprised that quite a number of these baby smolts die on their way to sea quite naturally without any barriers or manmade impacts – but when we looked and divided up sections of the River Oykel over three years, we saw repeatability. We saw fish disappearing naturally in particular sections and they disappeared in the same section the next year. To us that was really interesting because we were beginning to get at what happens naturally.

Then we contrasted that with the Ness. The Ness has the Caledonian Canal, which I think went in back in the 1840s. With any of our tagged smolts that went into any of the canals, which are interconnected all the time so the water flows in and flows out of the river, we got no salmon surviving in the canal at all, so that is the ultimate in terms of impacts. We also saw quite a low level of survival overall in the Ness and it repeated itself. Whether there was a year with a lot of rain or a lot of drought, we still got this very low survival out of the Ness which did not vary an awful lot. There were a couple of factors working there. There are obviously the manmade obstructions, but discharge pattern is really important in terms of the pattern of rainfall and the amount of rain that comes. As we are seeing this now in a very different sort of envelope than we saw in the past, we have to be careful to not just take the ancient data and apply it to modern numbers; we have to look at these factors as well. At least now we are beginning to understand that any of these barriers have quite a significant impact on the overall survival of these fish. When we looked at the River Deveron, which is another of our seven in Scotland, it was interesting because it is a lowland salmon river and in that case it has a lot of the manmade impacts. It has pollution, barriers and you name it. To a small extent, it has that throughout the catchment. As far as we can see, the mortality seems to be random. All sorts of different things are hitting those smolts as they come down as the different things impact. That is why I mentioned looking at it in a holistic way earlier. We are beginning to get the science now. We are understanding actual percentages with regard to what the mitigation might mean if we removed it or partially removed it.

The Deputy had a question on the marine side of things and that is obviously hugely complicated. Again, through the likely suspects framework, we have been applying ourselves to that and a gem of information we have seen is we asked some colleagues in one of the universities in Scotland to look in detail at plankton. Of course, when the baby salmon go out they are feeding on quite small organisms and very often it is organisms within the plankton that they are feeding on. The changes we are seeing with respect to the overall energy available from the plankton to the salmon since the 1960s are very dramatic. Mr. Horton was mentioning earlier the big drop in numbers, but to some extent we are seeing a situation where, as the committee has heard on numerous occasions, our oceans are changing and changing fast. As a result of that, the overall synchronisation of the fish going to sea, the food available to them, the heat of the water and the disturbance from storms is changing and impacting. We are in a situation where we have two series of factors interacting, namely, the fresh water and the marine.

What we are trying to do, if we can put it in the context of the health service, is that if we have a very seriously ill patient in front of us, the patient is triaged. That was our "likely suspects" framework. Then one sets one's course for stabilisation. Collectively, around the table here, we are trying to stabilise the freshwater output which we have complete control over to see whether we can counterbalance what is happening in larger marine climate change impacts.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I could listen to Professor Whelan go on forever on this topic. The work being done is fascinating, particularly in the Scottish rivers.

Professor Ken Whelan

There are numbers coming-----

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

We look after what we can control and, unfortunately, the increase in sea temperatures is something which is rapidly getting out of control. On the subject of riparian tree planting, there are disadvantages when one removes trees, especially, as I understand it, in an area where salmon or different fish, perhaps, are spawning, where it is important there is shade. What kind of results can we see if we introduce the right type of riparian tree planting to provide shade? For whatever reason, removing trees along river banks has been something of an obsession. Do we know if that will see a bounce back in success rate? Can I ask Dr. Gallagher to take this question, please?

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

"Yes" is the answer and we need to do more of that because we are just seeing one direction of travel in that regard. We have been doing some work on climate mitigation, which is what we call it for fish, and we are looking at exactly the question the Deputy has asked, that is, how one would address the future of climate impact and build some areas of refuge to control the temperature, and tree planting is one of those. To support that, we have done some research which looks at some of the impacts of it. Funnily enough, it is not just the impact on water temperature but work in the riparian corridor can change the physical structure of the catchment itself. That is the latest work we have done on an EU-funded project called the CatchmentCARE Project. We have a document, which looks at that. It is called Riverine Restoration in an era of climate change. We are trying to build on that. At the moment, we have over 300 monitoring stations and we have 12 index catchments. The difficulty in Ireland, even with its size, is that what is happening in the climate in rivers varies between the west and east coast of Ireland. We are working with four different climate models. As Professor Whelan correctly said, the climate impact is not just what we normally think about, which is drought. We have seen elements of drought for long periods but it is also elements of flooding and of high water for a sustained period. All of that is causing an impact.

Then one considers what one can do about that. It is not just tree planting but it is what one does in the upper catchment and with the drainage structure that has been in agriculture over those years, to attenuate the water and to control the temperatures.

There are many different measures, along with tree planting, but it has proven to be successful.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

Can I ask one more question, Chair, if that is okay? This comes back to the flooding which is one of the trickiest ones for us as policymakers in reacting to what communities are looking for in flood prevention. The River Bandon would be one of the biggest rivers in my constituency. The people of Bandon were devastated by multiple floods and there was need for action. The action was fairly hard core and, I would argue, was not very sensitive. Essentially, a whole section of the Bandon River was dredged and a new mountain or hill was created from the dredged material along the road which goes along the Bandon River. One can imagine the devastation. A weir was also put in as a fish pass, which, by all accounts, is not working. If our witnesses are not familiar with that project, that is okay but they might come back to me on it. How long does it take for habitat, wildlife or fish species to respond in an instance like that where that type of devastation has occurred?

An add-on to that question, because our witnesses mentioned the arterial drainage scheme, is around farmers, in particular, looking for sections of a river to be dredged. It makes sense in one way because they have made land and have put a great deal of investment into making land alongside a river bank, with a great deal of effort and hard labour going into making that land. They see it then flooding and perhaps see trees blocking up a river. It is a natural process for rivers to become blocked and for the natural flooding of flood plains. How do we balance that with the agricultural sector in saying that we will compensate it if this happens but that this is a natural occurrence?

If we do not act, however, what happens is that the town farther downstream is flooded. There are a couple of questions there.

An Cathaoirleach

I would like to come in on that question because those are very pertinent questions and observations. We are straying into the remit of other State agencies. It would be very good to hear what the witnesses have to say about how the remit might be changed. I know it is a sensitive thing, and perhaps more so with the IFI, but our more independent witnesses might have strong views on that and it is important we hear them.

I have become aware in recent days of work on the Newport River, not far from where I come from, which, as I understand it, has been contracted by the Office of Public Works, OPW, and the footage and photos I have seen show what can only be described as devastation of that particular catchment of the river over a couple of kilometres. I am a layperson and I do not have the expertise of Deputies O’Sullivan or Whitmore, who certainly know a great deal more about this than I do, so I can only imagine there must be a massive impact on the ecology of that catchment and a knock-on effect downstream from that catchment. We are into that discussion about how remits should be changed, if they are to change. It is the responsibility of this committee, I presume, to call that out but we need to hear from the likes of the witnesses.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

There are a number of things in the committee members’ questions which are all very complicated. To answer Deputy O'Sullivan's first question, once a catchment, a river system or a section of it is drained at that level, it does not recover. It recovers to a certain extent but we are in mitigation territory after that. That will be a long protracted period.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

Is Mr O’Donnell familiar with the work that was done on that section of the river?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

Yes, it is devastating. We think about all of the species. We talk about eels, salmon and brown trout but also all the other species that live there downstream from it. Everything is extremely harmed. Their home is taken away overnight. They get displaced and, depending on what stage they are at in their life cycle, some of them cannot move and will perish very quickly. Once a river is drained at that level, it causes all kinds of instability within the system. There will be undermining of banks and rivers will widen. When there are periods of very warm weather and the temperature goes up to 21° C or 22° C, it is lethal for fish like salmon. There are all of those issues. It is the balance between the socioeconomic impacts of flooding and property. Clonakilty, Bandon and places like that have been severely affected by floods over the years. We as scientists and environmentalists can come with a very sterile view and with our DNA, but we have to have cognisance that there is a human and political aspect to this. It is very much about planning and working together before this knee-jerk reaction to undertake a very large-scale project that will have long-term impacts on the environment. That discussion needs to take place and all the experts need to be brought into the room. The reality is that if a town or small village gets flooded two or three times, something has to happen by way of mitigation. It is about getting that balance right.

Professor Ken Whelan

By way of transparency, it is important that I say I was consultant on the River Bandon project at the end. My former colleague and good friend, Martin O’Grady, who passed away, had been doing that work and I was asked to implement Mr. O’Grady’s restoration programme on the post-drainage situation. In the Bandon example, I believe the river was dropped by something like 1.3 m. On the positives, it was the bottom end of the river, which was very good because there were 60 km odd upstream. That was really the factory which was probably producing the bulk of the fish. I was very surprised when I did my initial survey on it in how quickly the river struggled to come back. The one thing worth mentioning is that we are very fortunate in Ireland to have very resilient waterways. We should not be pushing them the way we are, which is patently clear, but they respond very well and very quickly. We also took back some of the gravels from the mountain which the Chairman described and put it back in the river.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

It is more a hill than a mountain, to be fair.

Professor Ken Whelan

They re-established to some extent. There are mitigation measures that could be taken, but I agree that it was a tough drainage scheme in terms of the level of works that were deemed necessary to avoid flooding in the town.

I will make a more general point, if I may. Through my consultancy, I am dealing with a small catchment in County Mayo, which is seeing many of these problems in miniature. The first time I met the local farmers was two years ago on the bridge. We were discussing the flooding. They had a simple solution – they wanted all the trees taken down from the riverbank and for any areas with deep pools or slow-flowing waters to be drained. That was going to solve the problem and it would flush all the water away into the sea. When we started to work with the farmers and discuss the matter with them, though, we needed to find out what we could do. This relates to the Chair’s point about how we might see the OPW or a similar agency in the future. We began discussing with the farmers the idea that maybe they were not farmers after all, but land farmers and water stewards. We do not recognise farmers as water stewards, but farmers are the guardians of the water resources that are on their lands, and some of those resources are critical.

We took out a map – the farmers are still laughing at this – and, off the top of my head, I identified a particular area that I thought would be useful for what we call a nature-based solution. I asked what would happen if we funded the farmer to allow the land in that area to be flooded, with it acting as a reservoir during those large floods. The farmer would be handsomely compensated for that. We would then trickle feed the water back down towards the town over the following months. Of course, the land I picked belonged to the chairman of the local IFA and I got a very strong reaction from him. However, these are the sorts of radical solution we need to be considering. The OPW is interested in this. It depends on the remit and the speed at which that remit has to be met, but there are nature-based solutions. If we are dealing with vast quantities of water the likes of which we have not seen before, we have to think about different and new ways of dealing with the issue. It will not be possible to treat these beautiful rivers as channels, which is why I made that point. In my mind, these are not channels, but living entities. If we are to deal with these problems as well as the other issues that exist, we have to look at rivers in a different way. It is a question of combining the wonderful biological expertise that we have in the likes of IFI and the National Parks and Wildlife Service with the OPW in a much more cohesive way, considering this issue in the totality of the catchment and trying to understand the interactions and the physical nature of the challenges involved. I firmly believe that there are solutions, but that we need to fund the people who own the land to help us find them in a novel and different way.

Mr. Mark Horton

I am familiar with the work that was done on the Bandon. I visited the Bandon not long after the flooding and again after the works had started. If one were not familiar with it, one would have thought someone was building a motorway up the middle of the river. It was quite dramatic. Nonetheless, those works will have given the local community some reassurance that something was being done.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

Yes.

Mr. Mark Horton

This is where we get into the conflict of catchment management, namely, drainage should be a measure of last resort. What we all need to do is apply what we might call upstream thinking, whereby we go up into the catchment and look for opportunities to install the nature-based solutions that Professor Whelan referenced. These can be many and of different scales, but-----

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

The beaver was never native to Ireland.

Mr. Mark Horton

No, we are not going to introduce the beaver. However, wood debris in small channels and leaky dams slow the flow of water, do not create barriers to fish, the removal of which we are discussing at this meeting, and create habitat refuges for wildlife. They also build climate resilience within catchments. Networks of nature-based solutions can provide considerable benefits – not just environmental ones, but also societal ones.

Many of these opportunities lie on privately owned land and those landowners would need to be compensated for delivering public services for a public good. This is something that we will need to consider in terms of our agri-environmental schemes.

However, there are barriers to employing nature-based solutions, not least the fact the public and, in many cases, parts of State agencies and so on do not necessarily understand their benefits or how to install them. It is difficult to argue with the public that we should not drain a river to prevent flooding and should instead plant some trees and install leaky dams. This will involve education around how we need to better integrate nature-based solutions into catchment management. They do not just benefit flood reduction or water retention in drought conditions, but also the fish species in the rivers. The Bandon is a freshwater pearl mussel river. The freshwater pearl mussel is a globally endangered species that needs protection. Nature-based solutions can bring multiple benefits to fish species, other wildlife, the economy and society as a whole.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I thank Mr. Horton. That was interesting.

An Cathaoirleach

Does Mr. Gallagher wish to respond?

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

I will be brief, as most of the points have been covered already. The question of attenuation and the look of the catchment is important. There are many measures and stakeholders involved. This needs to be modelled. There are flood models, but before engaging in a large scheme, one needs to be able to demonstrate that all other measures have been considered. This requires a multi-agency and multistakeholder approach.

Regarding education for farmers and everyone else, it is difficult to tell someone whose house has flooded that we will do something up the catchment that will fix the problem. Demonstration is a big part of that, and we need to be able to demonstrate to people that these solutions work.

For us, the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about the impacts of climate change is the flood. The droughts we are experiencing and the time of year they are occurring have significant biodiversity impacts. We are having drought periods when we should have normal flows or flood periods. This change in cycle in catchments is affecting migrations and biodiversity a great deal. As such, there is more to this than just flooding. We need to be able to release water when we need it. This is a complex issue and it needs a co-operative catchment-based approach and for us all to work together and try to come up with solutions.

An Cathaoirleach

Thank you. I should have said “Dr. Gallagher”, not “Mr. Gallagher”, and acknowledged your credentials.

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

I am all right.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank the witnesses for their interesting presentations. We are where we are, as they say, but we are where we are for a reason. We have systems designed in certain ways and agencies have remits that pull in different directions, sometimes directly contradictory ones. There has been much discussion of a catchment-based approach, a multi-agency approach and working collaboratively, and rewarding farmers is an idea that regularly comes up in the general space of climate action. I will pick up on the Chair’s point about the remit of agencies. We do not operate in that way yet, so what priorities should we as policymakers be considering to try to deliver that type of model of work? Should we revise the remits of the OPW, Coillte, Bord na Móna and so on? Should separate structures be established so that we can get the benefit of collaborative opportunities?

Mr. Kris Murphy

It is important to note that a great deal of work has been done in the background by people like us, namely, public groups, but there is a much bigger story at the moment with the water framework directive being moved forward into the barriers project. I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, on pushing these matters forward. We are now in a situation where managing projects is no longer completely reliant on public groups like ours.

We have been working very well with IFI, especially recently, and it is putting together a team that is going to manage these barriers. From a State point of view, I really think it needs the support to make sure it can make it happen. Its hands are tied through legislation and red tape. It is very important that once the money is allocated and this barriers project begins, processes have to be simplified and streamlined. They have to be sped up and handled with a collective approach. It has taken us seven years to put together all the reports necessary for a simple little grid on a tail race. I would be afraid that once this money comes in, precious time will be lost, money will be spent and projects will not be delivered because of red tape. It is great to see, and our application for the rock ramp is almost shovel-ready and we hope to be able to hand that over to the new team. They will take the bulk of the responsibility to push that forward but we will be there to liaise with the various State agencies as well in trying to pull it together. However, support and legislative and administrative changes need to happen in order to make this new funding successful.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

What type of legislative changes? Mr. Murphy talked about bureaucracy, red tape and barriers. In practical terms, what does that look like? You guys are at the coalface.

Mr. Kris Murphy

The big one, and it is not going to be resolved overnight, is the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959. It dictates a lot of the powers that the lads have. In 1959, we had an abundance of salmon and we are in a drastically different scenario now. It is obviously outdated. There are guidelines, like the guideline I spoke about regarding the water flows and hydro facilities. That needs to be looked at.

If all of the environmental reports and impact studies, as a collective, are now going to be managed to a degree by this new team of IFI, it would be much easier to pool resources and speed up these particular documents because it is quite cumbersome and long. Our Natura impact statement was 100-odd pages. Some of the elements of that can be, if you like, copied and pasted. While it takes something like the Slaney River Trust a couple of years to put together something like that, a team that is specifically put together to handle these projects should be able to process that level of information, whether it is guidance or physically putting together the paperwork. As long as it is collaborative, it should happen much quicker. It is just to make sure that it does happen.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

I would like come in and answer that question. We are reviewing our legislation at the moment. That has been ongoing for the last two years. We hope to be finished with that next year and have something new and consolidated. We have stuff going way back to the 1890s that have come forward into the 1959 Act. They are not fit for purpose anymore.

However, what I would say to that is that even as an agency ourselves, we come into conflict with other State agencies around emergency works that they are carrying out. It is not an ideal situation to be in, where one has to go out into the field and try to stop works that an agency is doing. I think that there are agencies out there that carry out significant structural works along rivers and river corridors, and they need to examine their legislation. Some of it goes back to the 1930s and 1940s. It was a very long time ago, and people were not even really thinking about the environment at that point, or what the consequences would or could be into the future. Whether their legislative framework - and what I really mean is their legal powers to undertake works - is aligned with EU directive or not, we find, and we all read about it every day, that there are NGOs or other voluntary groups taking agencies to court saying their powers do not trump new EU legislation. The agencies are saying, "Sorry, they do".

That all needs to be clarified. It is costing the taxpayer a lot of money. There needs to be a review, and I am not going to specify any particular agency. If you have emergency powers going back to the 1940s to undertake works, you need to look at whether they are relevant now. I think not, in a biodiversity crisis. They need to be reviewed. That answers the Deputy's question.

An Cathaoirleach

Does Mr. O'Donnell want to name the agencies?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

Absolutely not, no.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not know if Deputy O'Rourke wants to press him on that but it seems we do need to hear who they are. I understand the sensitivity of it.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

Is that a direction? With regard to the agencies I am talking about, we work very well with them but from time to time, they undertake emergency works and we have to go out into the field. In some cases, we initiate a prosecution. That is not a place where Inland Fisheries Ireland should be. I do not think it is good for State agencies to be in that position. So far, legislation is saying we have to do one thing with regard to our legal protections: that we go out into the field, stop a guy in a JCB on a Saturday morning undertaking works where there is a freshwater pearl mussel population, which is the remit of the NPWS downstream, where there is habitat destruction or maybe salmon eggs being dug up from the river. They are saying to us that their powers allow them to do this. Have they the screening done? They say that they do not think they need to do it. We are saying, "No". It is well past time that these things were teased out.

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

The questions were very interesting. There is an example that is working quite well at the moment, and it is the focus that is being brought onto the third cycle of the water framework directive. That governance structure starts with the water policy advisory committee, WPAC. Part of that brings together all of the Departments and the agencies that sit at that high level and decide what is going to be done. That, to some degree, is driving this programme. It has driven the introduction of LAWPRO but it has also impacted on all of the agricultural schemes with regard to water. It is also driving some of the legislation, like the abstraction legislation that is coming through at the moment.

I think that is a good example. If it is something similar with regard to biodiversity or other areas, it seems to be a way to get both the parent Departments and the agencies into the room to be able to agree a firm path forward. That works very well, and we are delighted to be part of that process. There are individual structures underneath that which function as well down to a technical level, and when you come to an issue, you at least then have the technical people from different agencies and Government Departments agreeing the way forward. That is a good example.

There are specific things that could be done with regard to barriers. Ownership is difficult. To find ownership of river beds and soil is a difficult thing. It becomes more difficult if you cannot find it. Then you have nobody to chase and you are left in limbo. Some legislation is needed where if someone does not come forward with ownership of this particular barrier, the State is going to absorb it and we are going to deal with it. That is one that we come across, and we come across it not just with regard to barriers but also with regard to ownership of the bed and soil of the river, or ownership of the fishing rights. There is a whole area there that could help.

Professor Ken Whelan

In the context of putting this in focus, I will give one example of an experience of mine. Was it the Newport river in County Mayo the Chairman was speaking about, or Newport in County Tipperary?

An Cathaoirleach

I think part of it is in Limerick. It stretches up into Tipperary.

Professor Ken Whelan

Yes. At the other Newport river in County Mayo, I was running what was called the Salmon Research Agency at the time, and we were asked by the owners to put together what at that stage was an original idea, that is, this idea of a catchment plan. We put together the catchment plan and we realised quite quickly that we had all of these competing interests. When we produced our plan, I called a meeting in Newport. I asked all of the agencies to come with a projection over the following five years of what their ideal water requirements would be. We asked representatives from the EPA, OPW, the county council and so on. I had a little blackboard and a piece of chalk. We started the meeting with everyone giving me millions of litres. We totted it up, and it was 110% of the water flow of the river. The lesson was that they were not speaking to one another. They did not realise that all of them had these competing demands. I know that is very simplistic but that, in essence, is part of our problem because of the way the legislation is.

Certainly, having, as I said earlier, worked with some of the really excellent young engineers in the OPW, I feel that these people do not have access to the knowledge about where the expertise lies at the design stage of their programmes. I explained to them the sort of expertise that is available in the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, and in IFI. At the higher levels, this might be understood, but these are the chaps who are drawing up the designs and they are not aware of the hydrological information and so on that the teams in IFI have so we have to find a way to bring the sister groups together. How do we do that? We start at the end point, which is the rivers. For example, let us take one river, such as the Shannon. There has been a cry for a long time to have a Shannon authority. Perhaps we do not have to go that far, but if we took a single river system and asked each of the bodies what its responsibilities were in the context of that river, they would begin to see the overlap and, I think, the solutions. The solutions may lie in the expertise in their sister bodies. Especially nowadays, there is a broad spectrum of expertise that can be available and is somewhat hidden in these organisations. Our legislation is totally out of date in my view with respect to facing that crisis. We have to label it crisis management and we have to do it on an individual river basis.

I will make a point so I do not forget it. It is important to remember the rivers and streams that do not have anything on them. There is a good programme ongoing in the Pacific north west at the moment called the stronghold programme. It is looking for strongholds. It is looking for the River Oykels in the area, that is the rivers that are to a large extent in tact and functioning well. They are making absolutely certain they are ring-fenced for the future before they go near any barriers or anything else. It is a good lesson. We should not forget that we have some really nice, functioning medium-sized rivers and so on, that we need now to say to people are completely hands-off. These are strongholds and that they have different designation in legislation. That would also help.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Whitmore do you want to come back in?

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Yes, I will on that point because the concept of a stronghold is really important. It is about protecting what you have and making sure there can be no degradation of that resource, whether it be a forest or river. That is what we should be looking at. My question to IFI is whether it is something it is looking at and monitoring. Has IFI identified those stronghold rivers and worked with the different agencies to say at this point A, B or C will not be allowed?

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

Yes, we are working closely. Under the water framework directive, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has identified the pristine catchments we want to keep at that very good level and we are actively involved in supporting that. A large programme of money is being set aside to try to maintain them. It is important those catchments are maintained. Under our remit, we have designated particular catchments as index catchments. For example, the River Erriff in County Mayo is the national salmonid index catchment. We monitor that. We have various catchments we do a lot of work in, such as the climate ones and we always try to have pristine ones. On a national level, the ones that are being addressed under the water framework directive are the ones we concentrate on, helping to maintain the status of water quality.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

My next question is about the IFI's resources. Mr. O'Donnell mentioned that the IFI is looking at a 50 to 60 year programme for the national barrier programme. However, if we are talking about crisis management, we need to ask whether we should be expediting that. It is great that IFI is getting 36 new staff, but should it be getting more? This is clearly a really important area. We are losing species at an unprecedented rate. If we are looking at our river systems, nearly like respite areas for these species when they come in from the marine areas, this is where they should be able to breathe in nice cool water. Does IFI think the ambition of 36 new staff is enough and does it have enough resources from the capital programme? We have heard about the climate and nature fund which I understand will fund capital projects from 2026 onwards. Is that something IFI will be able to access?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

We are looking at that and at the moment we have a memo ready to go from our parent Department and the Department of housing to the Government on this programme and the capital envelope for it. We do not know yet what that will be.

On the numbers, of course IFI needs to build capacity and expertise. It will take time to get projects started and probably in four years' time there will be a significant pipeline of projects that are at various stages. Yes, ideally, it would be good if we could get more people to do it, but as an agency, we have to prove we are capable of doing it, that we will progress a significant number of mitigations, easements or whatever. We should start with that. There is a risk to all these things. There is no guarantee of funding into the future. I mentioned a 50 year programme. We are probably looking at five or six years out now. We are taking on a barrier mitigation lead. We are interviewing for that position and that individual will take on the team in the next two or three years. When you are not sure where the money will come from, you have to be careful about scaling up. I know it is critical that we do, but there is a risk for the agency if we scale up that we will turn around in the morning - we are in an election year as well - and find that people hold money tightly.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Are the initial 12 jobs that will grow to 36 contract positions?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

They are not permanent positions at the moment, but the view is that they will be made permanent.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

IFI has no commitment.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

We have no commitment at the moment. That also sort of answers the Deputy's question. Going above 36, I will have to see on a year-to-year basis where the funding will come from. I am starting with approximately 12. We hope to ramp up to 36, but that will be conditional on what I am told. Every year, there are negotiations.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I will ask one more question. IFI has identified 257 barriers. Under the biodiversity plan the ambition is for 300 km of waterways to be freed up. I imagine the 257 barriers is more ambitious than the 300 km.

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

I do not have that exact figure, but I am aware of it. The overall EU wide ambition is for 25,000 km. Meeting that biodiversity target is one of the things this programme will feed into. It is doing multiple things.

I will return to the staffing levels for a second. It is difficult to get the right people at the moment. I have to make the point that recruitment is incredibly difficult. With the environment out there, getting the skill sets to match the scale we can recruit at is difficult. I do not have the exact figure on the biodiversity but I can come back to the committee with an estimate.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Ideally, what you would want in that team, is people who not only have the skills to do the work, but also have the skills to teach and train because we need to have them going out to the local authorities and all the different agencies so that engineers who are doing work there will be up to date with what is needed.

Dr. Cathal Gallagher

My vision is that this will be a programme to enable. It will not only relate to how we do it, how we prioritise them which we talked about earlier and the frameworks to get the surveys done, but also the education part. There are four pilot projects to start with. One of the pilots in Annacotty has to deal directly with the stakeholder engagement part so we can learn from those pilot projects about how we engage to do so effectively to be able to deliver particular programmes. The pilot projects that are ongoing are to help us to scope out the frame of that. It is all about collaboration, facilitating and getting it done. Perhaps the secret to getting more done is to have the tools in the box to be able to enable everyone to do it.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

It is also important to ensure the rivers trusts are funded properly so that project management staff can be funded within them to drive these projects so it is not all left to volunteers.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

There has been a lot of goodwill. We have people in our parent Department and in the Department of housing who are committed to doing this. They really are switched on about this. There is risk all around here, but they are committed to going forward with IFI on this as are we, with them and other stakeholders as partners. It is about getting the team built first.

An Cathaoirleach

Whatever about the Department of housing, which IFI is very involved with, we will have the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform at the committee meeting on Thursday, so I am sure Deputy Whitmore will be interested in asking the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, about the investment in the public sector and about making those roles permanent.

We are at the end of the session. It has been hugely informative and educational. I can say that for myself anyway.

We would like to put together a report as quickly as possible because there is that ESB policy piece which has been developed and we would like to influence that. Separate from that, it has been very informative for committee members and for anybody watching. I hope journalists are watching as well. It is certainly one of the really high-quality meetings we have had in this committee. I would like to think it will inform election manifestos - we are in an election year. We are going to have a subsequent session in a few weeks' time. Deputy Whitmore has been instrumental in helping me frame these sessions. We will have a chat and will figure out who we should bring before the committee in the next few weeks. Certainly, what we have discussed today will inform the session we will have then.

I thank all the witnesses for taking the time to come in today. I know some of them have travelled from very far afield; I am not sure who is further, Mr. O'Donnell or Mr. Horton. It really is appreciated that they travelled all the way to discuss this critical issue with us. We are hearing that the situation is quite calamitous at the moment but as I said at the outset, based on the opening statements, we know what to do. It is very important for us, as policymakers, and legislators to listen carefully and do everything we can to set us on the right trajectory in the next few years and decades ahead. With that, I thank the witnesses again.

I adjourn the meeting until the committee's private session at 3.30. p.m. today.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.11 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Thursday, 15 February 2024.