I am a fourth generation eel fisherman from County Mayo. My family has fished the silver weir eel on Lough Mask since before the foundation of the State and I am here as representative of the Western Eel Fishermen's Association. I thank the committee for inviting us here today. It is a relief that somebody is finally willing to listen to us. The pity is that the committee is the first official body to do so.
This process began a number of years ago when a working group was set up to examine the issue and devise an eel management plan. This group included personnel from various bodies but, amazingly, it did not include any eel fishing representative. It excluded the only stakeholder who was to be affected by the process, whose traditions and livelihood were on the line and, bizarrely, the only stakeholder with the historical data desperately needed to develop an accurate plan. Why would this be? The working group's report is founded on a scientific model test to estimate existing and pristine eel production. Into this model went limited, hard data which in reality was not nearly enough to provide definitive results. The report itself makes reference to this, so it is not in dispute.
Where the data is sketchy, which is almost everywhere, estimates and assumptions were used to fill in the blanks. By definition, this process of guess work carries with it margins of error, which are combined, multiplied and exaggerated through the report. Yet the report offers no such health warning on its findings. They are presented as definitive, with no margin of error, no projections based on pessimistic and optimistic estimates, no acknowledgement that it represents just one of a number of possible scenarios. The report claims an accuracy it simply does not possess. It was presented to the Minister as being beyond doubt or question so he had no room to exercise his judgment in coming to a decision.
If there was enough time, I could challenge the report in detail but for now I will offer just one brief example. The Western Regional Fisheries Board operates an eel weir on the Corrib River in Galway and has records from 1976. The report attempts, at a considerable stretch and without any stated error, to extrapolate from these figures the pristine production for the whole Corrib catchment. The EU regulation stipulates that only data prior to 1980 should be used — Article 2, section 5(a). However, in contravention of this, the report includes data up to 1982. Why did the group do this? As it happens, 1982 was an extraordinary year. The catch exceeded all other years by almost 50%. The effect of including 1982, which was deliberate, was to significantly inflate the average catch. This figure is fundamental to the report’s ultimate findings.
It is clear that the lack of hard data has been a serious obstacle in this process and I am struck by the mental picture of the working group wrestling with the problem of where to get that data — either ask the fishermen or make it up. We were not asked. The Western Regional Fisheries Board's data extends back to 1976. Given it includes only four years' data prior to 1980, it provides a very small window on true pristine production. In contrast, in my case, I have complete catch records dating back to 1926, fishing the same weir with the same effort. If somebody was genuinely seeking to determine the historical data on the production of eels, is it not reasonable to expect that I would be asked about my records? What does it say to the committee that I was not?
Eel fishermen are not in denial. We are aware that the eel stocks are under stress and that measures must be undertaken that will involve sacrifice on our part. However, we do not accept this report and its findings. The truth is that the data is so sparse and our understanding so vague, it would be possible to devise a model to support almost any course of action or inaction simply by making certain assumptions. This is proven by the responses of our partners in Europe.
Ireland accounts for 2% of the European catch, yet no other significant eel fishing country is proposing an outright ban. The Netherlands, one of the largest eel producing countries in Europe and a recognised authority, estimates that just 1% of pristine production is currently escaping but by closing the season for two months each year, it expects to reach the European target by 2027. Ireland on the other hand is compelled to impose a total ban on eel fishing for 90 years. Our nearest neighbour, the UK, is another case in point. Out of 15 river basin districts, it is proposing a fishing ban on just one, the Erne, on which it happens to share jurisdiction with Ireland. For all other river basins it has adopted the following policy: "Until more detailed information is gathered on stocks and the fishery, the preferred approach to conserving a sustainable fishery, while working towards compliance, should be to hold the fishery within its limits". It is not even proposing a curtailment.
It is obvious where other countries respect their fishing heritage and include the fishermen in their plans. In Ireland, the Department has offered us nothing but contempt. This report is a national embarrassment. The emotions within the fishing community I represent are best summed up in five words: disbelief, sadness, frustration, anger and determination. I beseech the members of the committee to use what influence they have to find a more reasoned and equitable solution.
