Senator John Dardis
Saving Ireland’s Salmon
Resource:
A New Policy Approach
September 2005
Executive Summary
 In 2005, Ireland will be the only jurisdiction of any significance permitting the
exploitation of salmon stocks at sea.
 The Marine Minister, Mr. Pat The Cope Gallagher, claims to apply a strategy
of sustaining commercial and recreational salmon fishery through aligning
catches on scientific advice.
 It is questionable how closely scientific advice is followed given that the most
recently advised Total Allowable Catch was 100,000, not the 140,000 adopted
by the Minister.
 There has been a steep decline in salmon stocks in recent years, and the widely
held view is that this is primarily due to over-fishing at sea.
 The interceptory nature of the salmon drift netting at sea has been clearly
illustrated.
 For instance, almost 55% of all Boyne salmon caught were landed in Donegal
and Donegal also consistently catches 32% of all Liffey salmon taken; Kerry
and West Cork take respectively 23% and 30% of all salmon caught while
returning to the Lee. Fish returning to UK waters are also intercepted off the
Irish coast.
 The balance of national economic interest is overwhelmingly with salmon
angling not salmon netting.
 One estimate puts the contribution to the economy of one wild salmon caught
by an angling tourist at €423 compared to €22 for one caught by drift netting.
 Angling tourism had been contributing €55m to the economy annually, but
visitor numbers have dropped considerably.
 The reason for the decline is dissatisfaction i.e. lack of fish to catch. Many
Irish and overseas anglers now go elsewhere as the product is better in Russia,
Iceland, Canada, Scotland and recently South America.
 The EU has warned Ireland regarding its non-compliance with directives on
conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. The Commission
believes Ireland’s procedures for annually regulating the Total Allowable
Catch (TAC) do not take adequate account of the conservation objectives for
salmon.
 Ireland’s persistent practice of drift netting at sea has come under the spotlight
of international bodies, and has ramifications for other areas of the island and
our near neighbours.
 The Progressive Democrats policy is to retire commercial fishing licences
through a mechanism that compensates these licence holders on the basis of
projected loss of income from salmon fishing. The cost of such a scheme may
be as little as one quarter of the €70 million suggested by the Minister.
 The Progressive Democrats will actively seek the cessation of
drift netting at sea.
1
Background
The purpose of this document is to outline some of the evidence supporting the view
that the practice of salmon drift netting at sea should be ceased, and a fair and
appropriate compensation scheme for all licence holders made available. How best to
protect Ireland’s national salmon stock is a highly contentious issue, with claim and
counter-claim from the many interested parties. It was deemed useful for a synopsis to
be produced of some of the most pertinent evidence supporting the pursuance of a
policy of banning the practice of salmon drift-netting at sea. This is a policy stance
held consistently by the Progressive Democrats. The objective is to save salmon
stocks and to demonstrate that the current situation is neither suitable nor tenable.
In March 1999, General Council approved the Environmental Policy, which included
the following section1:
There has been a continuing decline in wild salmon catches in Ireland for
almost 25 years. This has been due mainly to offshore drift netting of
migrating salmon, which takes some 92% of salmon returning to the Irish
coast. Drift netting has now been banned in all North Atlantic countries except
for Ireland and a relatively minor fishery off the northeast of England. There
never was any national economic reason to permit offshore drift netting, in
that it merely allowed owners of larger trawlers to intercept fish that were to
be returning to Irish rivers anyway, where they could be caught by anglers or
by small scale inshore draft netting. The potential economic benefit to tourism
angling would be enormous. For every salmon caught on rod and line it is
estimated that the benefit to the economy is £200 per fish. On this basis if even
50% of the estimated official landing of salmon in 1997 of 540 tons (which is
undoubtedly a serious underestimate of the real number) were to be caught on
rod and line it would add £20 million per annum immediately to tourism
revenues. On top of that, a ban on drift netting would also allow stock
numbers to increase so that the numbers of fish returning to rivers would be
far greater than is the case today. Therefore it would not be unreasonable to
project a long-term increase of up to £100 million per year in tourism
revenues. To deal with the issue of those who earn part of their livelihood
from salmon drift netting, we propose that compensation based on a multiple
of average annual earnings be applied as compensation for surrender of
licences. In a series of articles on this subject the former secretary of the
Department of Finance, Ken Whitaker has estimated the cost of such
Compensation at £18 million.
Proposed Policy:
We propose an immediate ban on all drift netting at sea with fair and
appropriate compensation for all licence holders.
1
Figures quoted should be updated. For example, it is now believed that 76% and 12% of salmon stock
is taken by drift and draft netting respectively.
2
As stated earlier, much evidence is produced to both support and challenge such a
policy. This evidence is commonly related to fish stock levels, to the economy, to
tourism, and to the international context. Thus, a secondary purpose of this document
is to present some of the evidence supporting the banning of salmon drift netting, into
these four different categories.
Even a cursory analysis of this contentious issue reveals that there are almost as many
points of view on this issue as there are contributors to the debate. The purpose of this
exercise is to put together some of the most up to date and concise evidence, and to
this end, the data presented is based primarily, but not exclusively, on a review of the
tens of documents submitted to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications,
Marine and Natural Resources Sub-Committee on Salmon Drift Netting, during the
Spring of 2005.
Of course, the debate on salmon stocks and fishing practices is not new. It was the
subject of an official review and report 70 years ago. Despite the salmon stock being
in State ownership, no State agency is specifically charged with its commercial and
economic development as a fishing and angling resource1. The role of the Minister for
the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and of the National Parks and
Wildlife Service of his Department, in regard to salmon is very limited. In general
legal responsibility for salmon, as a commercial fish species, rests with the Minister
for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The salmon is among numerous
species excluded from the provisions of the Wildlife Acts by the Wildlife (Fish and
Aquatic Invertebrate Animals) (Exclusion) Regulations 2001 (S.I. No. 372 of 2001).2
The causes of the decline in stocks of Atlantic salmon are many and complex
particularly in relation to the marine environment. This has precipitated the longrunning and complex debate. Many of causes of the decline in stocks of Atlantic
salmon are still not fully understood, but have been summarised under the following
headings:
1. Changes in the marine environment affecting the survival rates of maturing
salmon including apparently increasing losses to predators (e.g. seals) as
fish stocks decline generally
2. Environmental changes affecting river water quality, the degradation of
habitat in the river systems and predation on immature fish
3. Over fishing
4. Drift Net Fishing / Mixed-stock Fishing
While changes in the marine environment may be beyond the influence of man in the
short term, other than perhaps the over exploitation of feedstock in the ocean, the
second and third (to some extent) are being addressed within existing EU and national
programmes. The fourth remains unresolved3, and is the primary focus of this review.
Ultimately, for the Party, the focus must remain on what policy is the most
appropriate to save the salmon stock, and all other considerations (within reason)
must be secondary.
3
Current Situation
When setting out the policy-objective of the Progressive Democrats (and supporting
evidence) on this issue, it is obviously worthwhile outlining the current view of the
Government.
It is the Government’s strongly held view that our wild salmon stock is a national
asset, which must be conserved and protected, as well as being exploited as a
resource, by us all on a shared and sustainable basis. The Government, as a result,
believe a delicate balancing exercise is necessary between the needs of the coastal and
inland communities who depend on fishing resources for their livelihood and the
recreational users, including tourists, who each pursue the salmon for their own end.
The overriding objective of the Government therefore is to preserve the salmon
resource in its own right and for the coastal and rural communities that it helps to
support. The economic goals for a sustainable commercial salmon fishery, based on
quality and value rather than volume, and the development of salmon angling as an
important tourism product are both fully compatible with the Government’s primary
objective.
Since taking up his appointment, the Marine Minister, Mr. Pat The Cope Gallagher,
has re-affirmed the Government’s belief that the current strategy of developing a
sustainable commercial and recreational salmon fishery through aligning catches on
the scientific advice holds out the strong prospect of a recovery of stocks and of a
long term sustainable fishery for both sectors..
The Minister has stated that “in approaching a final decision on the commercial
salmon quotas for 2005, he intends to consider the implications of setting the national
and district Total Allowable Catch (TAC) at levels other than those recommended by
the scientists. In this particular regard, he will consider both the health of the salmon
resource and the socio economic impact on the coastal and inland communities who
depend on the resource for their livelihood”. In that context, the Minister intends to be
“guided by the fundamental principle adopted, and adhered to, by previous Ministers
over the last three years, which is that the national TAC should be progressively
aligned over that period on the scientific advice”. The Minister has already stated that
“the Government remains fully committed to this principle as the only sustainable and
defensible way forward for salmon management in Ireland”4. However it is
questionable how closely scientific advice is followed given that the most recently
advised TAC was 100,000, not the 140,000 adopted by the Minister
The Progressive Democrats’ alternative policy of an immediate ban on all drift
netting at sea with fair and appropriate compensation for all licence holders is
based on evidence related to fish stock levels, the economy, tourism, and the
international context, and the focus of this review now switches to each of these
in turn.
4
The Decline in Salmon Numbers
In terms of the total weight of the catch, a 2003 report showed that the overall salmon
catch has fluctuated considerably since the early 1960s, at which time it showed
positive annual average growth. However, with the exception of a brief period of
expansion during the mid-1980s, after a peak of 2,188 tonnes in 1975, there has since
been a noticeable marked downward trend in the salmon catch. Indeed, since 1989,
the total catch has remained below 1,000 tonnes on an annual basis, where as between
1960 and 1988, the catch exceeded this level in all but 6 years5.
Total Wild Salmon Catch: 1960-2001 - Tonnes
The number of Atlantic salmon caught and notified to the fisheries boards6
5
The widely held view is that the steep decline in salmon stocks in recent years is
primarily due to over-fishing at sea. The view is held that mixed-stock fishing (drift
nets) takes fish from many rivers and can in some years result in over 80% of fish
returning to a particular river system being killed. (For example, in the Shannon
above Ardnacrusha stocks are described as very poor, where the capture of salmon
has dropped from 55,953 in 1970 to 15,464 in 2000.) All other countries around the
North Atlantic have ceased the practice of mixed-stock fishing, with resulting benefits
to their salmon stocks. Ireland is the only country persisting with wholesale drift
netting, and it is claimed that this country has become “a pariah” in angling circles for
this policy. Many foreign anglers refuse to come to Ireland as long as this practice
continues which, as will be discussed later, impacts further on the angling tourism
industry7.
Much of the debate revolves around the amount of the salmon stock taken by ‘fishing’
(e.g. commercial drift netting at sea) as opposed to ‘angling’ (e.g. rod catches on
rivers and lakes). It is claimed that angling clubs take an average of 25,000 fish or 710% of the national catch annually and that over 75% of Irish rod license holders
failed to catch a fish in 2003 according to the Central Fisheries Board. In 2004 the
number of salmon caught, by both commercial and recreational fishing, may be down
by as much as a third on 2003. One group states that many rivers, especially on the
East coast, no longer have a sustainable breeding population of fish and that in
February 2003, even before the latest collapse, the then Minister of State for the
Marine, Mr John Browne TD, gave a warning that “the scientific advice is very clear
that if we don’t reduce our exploitation of stocks then we will have no salmon
resource in the near future”8. (This topic is expanded upon below)
Some in the food industry claim that the current salmon stock levels necessitate limits
on the allowable catch, and that these need to be more restrictive to safeguard the
stocks, perhaps even requiring limited closures of the fishery in some areas9. Others
support the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) view that only
salmon stocks on rivers, which are shown to be above conservation limits, should be
exploited and that salmon should be exploited on a single stock basis. The claim is, in
effect, that the offshore indiscriminate exploitation of mixed wild salmon stocks is
unsustainable10. ICES provide scientific advice to North Atlantic Salmon
Conservation Organization (NASCO), an intergovernmental body, and though Ireland
is not party to NASCO per se, we are part of the EU delegation to the body. It is clear
that Ireland does not meet its NASCO obligations regarding the multistock
exploitation of salmon.
As alluded to earlier, The Salmon Management Task Force has identified up to 40
influences which can affect salmon mortality, among them sea survival (while the
fish are on the high seas).11 Notwithstanding this fact, there is an onus on those
responsible to do all within their power to protect salmon stocks. Of course, salmon
conservation limits are set for each of Ireland’s seventeen Fishery Districts (see map
on page 14). Worryingly, recent scientific advice from the Scientific Committee of the
National Salmon Commission seems to indicate that salmon conservation limits are
not being met in many of these Fishery Districts12. The advice is that there is no
surplus to spawning in these eight Districts and no salmon exploitation should take
6
place. In 2004, the number of spawning salmon returning to the rivers was insufficient
to meet their Conservation Limits in thirteen of Ireland’s seventeen fishery districts,
with the endangered rivers covering 86% of Ireland’s salmon production capacity13.
Application of 2005 Precautionary Catch Advice to Wetted Areas
Fishery
District
Freshwater Habitat
(Square Metres)
Average Catch
2000 - 2004
Precautionary
Salmon Catch
Advice for 2005
% Reduction
over Average
Catch
Districts not considered to be at Risk
Ballinakill
Connemara
Kerry
Cork
Percentage of
Freshwater Habitat
1,934,183
811,701
8,522,449
4,715,328
7,167
2,229
31,414
30,024
7,167
2,200
31,414
30,024
0%
1%
0%
0%
18,887
10,808
13,239
25,740
14,134
11,000
9,000
9,500
15,000
7,000
42%
17%
28%
42%
50%
5,713
4,560
17,056
15,380
1,497
108
2,474
1,224
Zero
Zero
Zero
Zero
Zero
Zero
Zero
Zero
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
14%
Districts considered to be at Risk
Letterkenny
Bangor
Ballyshannon
Ballina
Lismore
Percentage of
Freshwater Habitat
5,337,762
8,881,629
3,361,359
3,239,957
9,314,020
27%
Districts considered to be in Serious Trouble
Sligo
Galway
Limerick
Waterford
Wexford
Dublin
Drogheda
Dundalk
Percentage of
Freshwater Habitat
3,990,574
5,307,431
14,394,975
24,345,915
7,032,752
2,741,828
6,695,412
2,372,751
59%
The Freshwater Habitat is the area of River Habitat accessible to Salmon as identified by the
Wetted Area Report 2003, Central Fisheries Board
Source: Standing Scientific Committee of the NSC, Central Fisheries Board and SSDNN analysis
It is believed that the continuation of the mixed stock drift net fishery in other
Districts has the potential to exploit salmon destined for those Districts that do not
meet their conservation limits. While the offshore drift net fishery continues to exist,
it is claimed that the conservation of weak stocks cannot be ensured and stock
recovery will be prolonged and difficult14.
7
The reason for this is illustrated below.
The following table15 sets out the most recent data available from the Marine Institute
on the distribution of the point of capture of micro-tagged salmon returning to spawn.
Distribution (%) of tagged fish caught in Irish commercial fisheries 1980-2003
Place of capture
Sample period
Donegal
Mayo
Gal/Lim Kerry
W Cork South Sth East Other N Ire Draft
Trap
River of release
All years
Erne
48.1
24.4
4.8
10.5
3.3
3.7
0
1.8
0.2
3.3
0
All years
Burrishoole
13.4
40.7
29.8
7.8
3.8
3.6
0
1
0
0
0
All years
Delphi
6.7
37.1
48.9
1.5
1.2
0.1
0
0.9
0
3.5
0
All years
Corrib Wild
7
14.5
41.8
13.3
0.5
2.7
0
0.2
0
0
20
All years
Corrib Hatchery
7.6
15.8
42.5
13.3
1.9
3.5
0
0.5
0
0
15
All years
Shannon
5.1
17.9
51.2
11
5.9
4.9
0.1
0.6
0
3.2
0
All years
Lee
3.1
5.1
1.5
23.5
30.7
33.2
0.6
2.3
0
0
0
1985
Slaney
8.9
10.7
1.8
14.3
8.9
55.4
0
0
0
0
0
All years
Liffey
32.5
17.5
15
30
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
1980-1986
Boyne
54.9
14
0
6.7
0
2.4
0
0
0
22
0
The interceptory nature of the fishery seems clearly illustrated in these numbers.
For instance, almost 55% of all Boyne salmon caught were landed in Donegal and
Donegal also consistently catches 32% of all Liffey salmon taken; Kerry and West
Cork take respectively 23% and 30% of all salmon caught while returning to the Lee.
While the Progressive Democrats support the view that the ending of drift
netting is an essential component of any programme to restore stocks, the Party
agrees that this is not of itself a sufficient means for restoring abundance –
habitat restoration, water quality, control of predators, scientific management of
stocks, adequate protection services and curtailment of exploitation in the
estuaries and rivers are, of course, all vital components. However, it seems clear
that the mixed-stock exploitation characteristic and interceptory nature of drift
netting makes it difficult to integrate it into a salmon conservation programme
and, in fact, results in serious damage to conservation measures undertaken in
rivers where stocks are threatened16.
Economic Considerations
Alongside the arguments made on the basis of conservation, lie those based on
economic considerations. Evidence exists to support an immediate ban on all drift
netting at sea on the grounds that recreational angling creates employmentsustainable jobs in the tourism industry and ancillary services, and that the economic
benefits of ceasing of mixed-stock exploitation outweigh the costs generally,
conservation aside.
8
For example, reviewed evidence cites studies and reports indicating that the balance
of national economic interest is with salmon angling not salmon netting. (It should be
noted that the point of seeking the management of stock on a river-by-river basis is
that ultimately you may be able to allow some netting in the estuary of such a
managed river). Direct revenue from VAT and import duty on fishing tackle at €6
million alone exceeds the first sale value of the commercial catch. Trade sales of
angling equipment exceeds €20 million. Angling is worth a further €40 million. It is
claimed that the cost of policing the two-month commercial fishery (Naval Service,
Air Corp and Fishery Boards) exceeds €20 million - as much as the entire annual
exchequer allocation to the Central Fisheries Board (CFB) and Fishery Boards17.
Further, one estimate puts the contribution to the economy of one wild salmon caught
by an angling tourist at €423 compared to €22 for one caught by drift netting18. While
these fugues might respectively, be on the high and low side, both Brendan Whelan of
the ESRI and Dr. T.K. Whittaker in evidence to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on
Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Sub-Committee on Salmon Drift
Netting were of the view that the worth of rod caught salmon was indeed multiples of
the worth of netted salmon19. Whatever the absolute values, international experience
puts the value difference between ten and twenty times.
As is evident, much of the economic argument is based around the monies generated
from angling-associated tourism.
Tourism
Recent media reports suggest that angling tourism had been contributing €55m to the
economy annually, but that visitor numbers have dropped considerably. Statistics vary
on the absolute values (according to the media 54,000 in 1999 to 27,000 in 200520;
according to Fáilte Ireland the number of game angling tourists has declined from
84,000 in 1999 to 43,000 in 2003) but the decline is obvious nonetheless.
It is argued that the reason for the decline, in the main, is dissatisfaction with the
angling product i.e. lack of fish to catch, and many overseas anglers now go
elsewhere as the product is better in Russia, Iceland, Scotland and recently
South America. The claim is that unless we allow more salmon into our rivers to
survive to spawn, we will see a continuing reduction in the wild salmon stocks
and a serious decline in the number of overseas anglers coming to fish 21. Thus
implying an immediate ban on all drift netting at sea.
There is no question that tourism angling is an important part of the economies of
many regions- regions short on industry and other generators of income. For example,
tourism angling is important to the Shannon Region bringing an estimated value of
overseas salmon angling at €1.26 million to the Region. While salmon-angling
tourism is substantial, there is undoubtedly major room for expansion, if the issues
preventing salmon from occupying rivers were addressed. The Region has the
required infrastructure to meet any increase in salmon-angling numbers.
9
(While salmon angling tourism is important to the regions, we should not to forget
that domestic angling is also of significance with an approximate €3 million being
spent annually by local anglers there)22.
A recent report to the Oireachtas Committee by a consultant highlights the recent poor
performance of the salmon-angling tourist market compared with tourism generally,
and with salmon angling sectors abroad. It states that in the 10-year period 19942003, participation by visiting, holidaying and specialist anglers has declined by 45%
63% and 52% respectively. This is a very poor performance when viewed against the
rising trend of general visitor numbers.
The Report claims that the potential of the salmon angling sector can be assessed by
comparison with Canada and Iceland.
 Canada, which depends predominantly on the domestic angling industry, had a
rod-catch of 190,000 (8 times Ireland domestic salmon angling catch). The
Canadian catch generated a GNP contribution of €190 million, which is almost
60 times that of Ireland’s domestic salmon angling. By comparison Ireland’s
domestic salmon angling market is under-performing by a factor of 7 or more.

Iceland, which is predominantly an international rod angling market had an
angling catch of 30,000, which is six times that of Ireland’s International
market and the Icelandic catch generated a GNP contribution of €30 million
which was 3 times that of Ireland.
The consultants conclude that there is clear evidence of the economic value of
diverting a greater share of the angling catch towards international angling tourism 23.
We must remember that it is argued that the reason for the decline in angling-tourism,
in the main, is dissatisfaction with the angling product i.e. lack of fish to catch.
Yet, consideration of this issue must not take place merely within a domestic
economic or tourism context, as it is obvious that the practice of drift net / mixedstock fishing has serious consequences for our neighbours also.
EU Context and Wider Implications
In 2005 Ireland will be the only jurisdiction of any significance permitting the
exploitation of salmon stocks at sea24, and according to some groups, Ireland:



Is probably in breach of its obligations for salmon conservation under
the EU Habitats Directive,
Is failing to manage the migratory life of the salmon in conformity
with the UN Law of the Sea
Has generally failed to recognise the international ramifications of its
management of the Irish salmon fishery.
10
According to these groups, Ireland is obliged under Article 6.3 of the Directive to
subject “any plan or project” that will have a significant impact on the designated site
of a protected species to “appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in
view of the site’s conservation objectives”. It may be argued that the setting of quotas
without regard for their impact on the river status of the salmon is in breach of the
Directive. Some have made such a case to the EU Commission.25
A recent letter from the EU Commission (DG Environment) to the Wessex Salmon
and Rivers Trust sets out the following decision:
“[T]he Commission has decided, on the basis of the information currently at
its disposal, to send Ireland a Letter of Formal Notice (first written warning)
for non-compliance with the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna and Article 10 of
the EC Treaty. More specifically, it appears that Ireland’s procedures for
annually regulating the total allowable catch (TAC) of wild salmon by way of
drift-netting do not take adequate account of the conservation objectives of
sites that have been proposed as special areas of conservation (SACs) for the
species and of the general EU objective of ensuring that the salmon is
maintained at or restored to favourable conservation status. This is reflected in
the lack of recognition by the Irish authorities of the applicability of the
Directive to the setting of the TAC, the apparent formulation of scientific
advice on the TAC that takes insufficient account of the mixed-stock nature of
the fishery (i.e. the potential for adverse effects outside of individual fishery
districts) and a non-adherence to scientific advice in decision-making.
The Irish authorities now have an opportunity to respond to the Commission’s
concerns and account will need to be taken of any submissions that they
decide to make on the matter”.
Although the issue of salmon stocks does not form part of the annual fisheries
discussions at E.U. level via the Common Fisheries Policy, and has been left to
individual member states to manage26, it is believed that the Commission is trying to
bring them into the “controlled” stocks category.
It is claimed that failure to meet Conservation Limits on a consistent basis is a ground
for a species being described as being “below safe biological limits” by the
International Council for the Exploration of the Seas and the North Atlantic Salmon
Conservation Organisation27.
The practice of drift netting at sea may come under the spotlight of international
bodies, and as will be shown, is believed to have ramifications for our near
neighbours, but it is also important to look at the implications of the practice on other
areas of the island.
11
Impact Around the Island of Ireland
Groups from the regions claim that salmon in Ireland is effectively managed as a
single stock and that the allocation of quotas (even when backed up with scientific
advice) is perceived as unfair particularly to the shareholders in the southern region
who happen to live and fish “further down the line” or “around the corner”. They state
that, regarding the 2005 scientific advice and the current allocation of quotas,
commercial fishermen are intercepting salmon bound for their region’s rivers28.
For example, concerns have been raised about salmon destined for the River Slaney,
which are being caught by drift nets off the west coast of Ireland. The fear is that the
whole east coast is suffering due to drift netting.29. It is understood that some 18 local
authorities have passed resolutions in opposition to the present Departmental stance
on drift netting. Furthermore, Derry City Council has informed Minister Of State
Gallagher that last June, it had passed a resolution stating the following:
That this Council calls upon the Minister for the Marine, Pat 'The Cope'
Gallagher, to reverse his decision to allow the drift net fishing industry
to catch 140,000 Atlantic salmon, against his own Department's scientific
advice that the catch should be limited to 100,000 and to end this practice
of catching wild Atlantic salmon before they reach rivers in Ireland and
Europe, in the interest of Irish tourism and the environment.
Thus, there are clearly expressed concerns and calls from regions of the island about
the continuing practice of drift-netting- calls that must be responded to-, and these are
joined by similar expressions from Britain also.
Impact on Britain
As with most ecological, environmental and conservation issues, no state must fool
itself into believing that it acts in isolation. National action and policy in these spheres
has repercussions for others states also. Views expressed to the Oireachtas Committee
from Britain regarding Ireland’s continued practice of drift netting, bear this out. For
example, the claim is that there are seriously depleted salmon populations of the
lowland rivers of southern England. The United Kingdom, like Ireland, is a signatory
to the earlier-mentioned European Habitats Directive.
Nearly all southern English and Welsh rivers that are candidate ‘Special Areas of
Conservation’ under the European Habitats Directive, with salmon as a reason for that
designation, are failing to achieve a ‘Favourable Conservation Status’. It is believed
that Irish drift nets exploit salmon originating from these cSAC rivers, some of which
allow no exploitation by angling or estuarial netting. Thus the drift nets are
contributing to those rivers failure to achieve a Community Objective. Interests in
Britain contend that the Irish Government, as the licensing authority for the drift nets,
is in infringement of the European Habitats Directive.
In this context they drew the Oireachtas Committee’s attention to complaints laid
before the European Commission (DG Environment) by groups in the United
Kingdom and elsewhere. The resulting interrogatives that have been submitted by the
12
EU Commission to the Irish Government have generated responses that the
Commission have not accepted. As a result the matters are now the subject of a
review process by the whole Commission30 (See letter extract above). Should
Ireland’s response to this process be inadequate in the eyes of the Commission, a case
may be prepared for the European Court of Justice.
Conclusion / Recommendations
In 1999, the Progressive Democrats proposed an immediate ban on all drift netting at
sea with fair and appropriate compensation for all licence holders. The fact that this
policy has not been adopted has meant that the situation underpinning that policy has
deteriorated further over the intervening six years.
The policy, of course has two elements.
Firstly, we call on the Government to ban the practice of drift netting at sea. The
process must begin and be completed quickly. It is clear that there exist
legitimate concerns based on fish stock levels, the economy, tourism, and the
international context that support this move.
As recently as last June the Minster stated, “I have no plans to introduce proposals to
purchase commercial drift net salmon fishing licences. The Government has
consistently ruled out buyout as an effective means of achieving the restoration of
salmon stocks. Moreover, no convincing case has been advanced as to the public
good that would be acquired by the State in the context of a publicly funded buyout of
commercial salmon drift net licences or why stakeholders benefiting from increased
numbers of salmon entering the rivers should not contribute in whole or in part
towards achieving that increase”31. The Progressive Democrats believes a strong case
has in fact been made.
As outlined, the Progressive Democrats agree that while the ending of drift netting is
an essential component of any programme to restore stocks, it is not of itself a
sufficient means for restoring abundance – habitat restoration, water quality, control
of predators, scientific management of stocks, adequate protection services and
curtailment of exploitation in the estuaries and rivers are, of course, all vital
components. If only some of the nets are retired it will be all the more lucrative for the
remaining nets and poachers. Therefore all nets must go. A review of measures to
tackle poaching should be held in parallel with this process.
Secondly, the Progressive Democrats support the establishment of a fair and
appropriate compensation process for all relevant, affected licence holders. This
might be along the lines of the suggestion that the Government make it possible
for netsmen to voluntarily retire from the fishery with compensation based on a
Individual License Quota calculated from certified log book returns. A levy on
rod angling licenses has been alluded to by some, as an equitable method of part
funding a voluntary retirement scheme.32
13
The Oireachtas Committee has heard of some discussions with offshore drift net
fishermen who have indicated their willingness, at a reasonable cost, to be bought out
over a five-year period, and also of indications from some of the remaining fishermen,
inshore, that they would favour a voluntary buy-out system, with the remaining
fishermen considering what could be described as a heritage licence, allowing them to
fish in the traditional manner for a small number of salmon33.
The stated Progressive Democrats policy mentions a ‘fair’ compensation process, and
this may involve the compensation of drift net fishing for salmon being funded by the
beneficiaries of such cessation including fishery owners, anglers, tourism interests and
of course the State34. Consideration should be given to same.
Ultimately, deliberation on the elements of the compensation process should not
be allowed to delay the implementation of the ban on all drift and draft netting.
In terms of addressing declining fish numbers consideration should be given to a
suggested immediate stock audit of all salmon rivers and restriction of killing salmon
by anglers put in place were there is evidence of not attaining conservation levels in
an individual river. Each river might then in future have a Total Allowable Catch.
Anglers could be severely restricted in the number of salmon they can kill and urged
to practise “catch and release” as it has been proven to work 35. The government
should in any event investigate how “catch and release” is or can be further promoted,
encouraged or incentivised (e.g. by-laws in certain locations / rivers to achieve
sustainable stock levels).
The objective of Progressive Democrat policy is to retire commercial fishing licences
through a mechanism that compensates these licence holders on the basis of projected
loss of income from salmon fishing as a result of the termination of fishing rights.
Buy-out schemes, it seems, have previously been successfully implemented in a
number of other countries, including Canada and Iceland. A national buy-out scheme
must be introduced involving reasonable compensation for loss of income36.
However, the cost of such a buy-out is a matter of some dispute
The discussion around the proposed Party policy in 1999 stated that compensation be
based on a multiple of average annual earnings be applied as compensation for
surrender of licences. In a series of articles on this subject the former Secretary of the
Department of Finance, T.K. Whitaker has estimated the cost of such Compensation
at £18 million. This appears to be based on an income of £1.8 million per annum for
affected fishermen, over a 10 year time period. (Approx €23 million). Ascertaining
actual income from drift netting of salmon is difficult, and thus, so is determining the
cost of any buyout scheme.
Primary responsibility for the allocation of commercial salmon fishing licences is a
matter for the relevant regional fisheries board, in accordance with the prescribed
criteria laid down under the Control of Fishing for Salmon Order 2005, SI 72 of 2005.
While this licence entitles fishermen to fish for salmon in a specified fishery district,
these licence holders are not required to report their income from this source to the
Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Prior to 2005,
applicants for commercial salmon fishing licences were required, in accordance with
the Control of Fishing for Salmon Order 1980 and subsequent amendments, to
14
provide details to the regional fisheries board of their income from fishing to verify
that proportion of their livelihood derived from fishing for salmon. The Minister has
indicated, that while fishermen were required to provide these details on their
application forms, this information was not collated by the fisheries boards. As a
result, the Central Fisheries Board is not in a position to provide the estimate37.
Given that the number of drift net licences issued in 2004 was 84838, it is known who
will be affected by a buy-out scheme. How much income is generated specifically
from salmon drift netting is less obvious. One estimate of the landed value in 2004 of
drift net caught salmon was approximately €5 million (Approx €5,900 per license).
This figure of €5 million is deliberately generous, allowing for five times ‘past value’
as opposed to ‘prospective value’, which would be a lower sum. The same group has
proposed the following approach to funding a buyout scheme based on these figures,
and could be a useful start point for discussions on same.
Example of a Proposed €5 million per annum Buyout Funding Scheme39
Government:
Increase in Salmon Licences:
Euro 2.50 million (See Note 1 below)
Euro 1.25 million (See Note 2 below)
Owners, tourism sector and other
sources:
Euro 1.25 million ( See Note 3 below)
Notes:
(1)
This would be justified on grounds of the States responsibility for
conservation and on the eventual increase in Exchequer returns from the angling
tourism sector.
(2)
This assumes a Euro 50 buy-out levy on the salmon rod licence with some
reduction in that amount for the very short period licences. A case can also be made
for an increase in the licence for estuary nets which will benefit from a withdrawal of
drift nets.
(3)
Owners (which includes a large State involvement mainly through the
Fisheries Boards and the ESB and a significant number of angling clubs) will be
major beneficiaries even with a more rigorous scientific management of the stock as
would the tourism sector. There is potential for fund raising from foreign
angling/conservation sources through the North Atlantic Salmon Fund, some EU
support may be available in respect of fishermen withdrawing entirely from the
inshore industry, etc.
Another estimate could be based on the assumption that the value of the catch is 50%
above farmed salmon at €4.2 million. If one allows a modest €1 million for costs of
catching the salmon (boats, nets, fuel, etc.) the net income lost comes to €3.2 million.
Thus, the cost of a five year buyout could cost as low as €16 million.
15
In reply to parliamentary question on the issue, Minister of State Gallagher said:
“The Government has consistently ruled out buy out as an effective means of
achieving the restoration of salmon stocks. Since 2002, it has instead
promoted the application of quotas on commercial fishing and bag limits on
angling to achieve catch reductions as the best instrument available to achieve
this objective. While I have no plans to introduce a single stock management
system for the commercial catching of wild Irish salmon, I intend to keep the
matter under review in the context of the policy outlined above. No
convincing case has been advanced as to the advantage to the public good of a
publicly funded buy out of commercial salmon licences. I have previously
stated that the cost of buying out commercial salmon drift net licences in
Ireland could be as high as €75 million based on buy out proposals
implemented in recent years in Northern Ireland and the north east of England.
The cost of buying out up to 56 licence holders is understood to have cost
some £3.25 million sterling.
On this basis, I have assessed the cost of a similar voluntary buy out scheme in
Ireland, with special consideration of the cost if such a scheme were to be
taken up in full by the 887 licensed drift net operators. The cost would
increase substantially if all other commercial fishing nets were to be
included… buy out proposals on such a scale are impractical. We must caution
against excessive expectations of significant amounts of compensation. As I
have previously indicated to the House, I am prepared to keep the matter under
review. I am open to any relevant proposal whereby stakeholders benefiting
from a reduction in commercial catch identify themselves and indicate a
willingness to fund any compensation that might arise.”40
The fact that the Minister of State has stated that the probable cost of a buyout in
Ireland would “be €70 or €80 million”41, as opposed to €25 million or even €16
million, demonstrates that more work needs to done on this issue. However, this
should not be allowed hinder or hold up the process of ceasing drift netting at sea. The
Minister faces accusations of using inflated figures of €80 million to try to exclude a
compensation scheme or alternatively suggest a levy on anglers to try to make it
administratively unworkable.
16
17
Notes
1
Neylon Economic & Social Consultants
National Parks and Wildlife Service
3
Stop Salmon Drift Nets Now
4
Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources: Inland Fisheries, Marine Leisure &
Research Division
5
An Economic/Socio-Economic Evaluation of Wild Salmon in Ireland. Indecon International Economic
Consultants.
6
Written Answers Nos. 213-231, Dáil Éireann, June 29th 2005.
7
Fishing Ireland West
8
Federation of Irish Salmon & Sea Trout Anglers
9
Irish Smoked Wild Atlantic Salmon (ISWAS) Slow Food Presidium
10
The Western Regional Fisheries Board
11
Irish Fish Producers Organisation
12
The Western Regional Fisheries Board
13
Stop Salmon Drift Nets Now
14
The Western Regional Fisheries Board
15
Stop Salmon Drift Nets Now
16
Ibid.
17
The Western Gamefishing Association
18
Irish Independent, July 21st. 2005.
19
Great Fishing Houses Of Ireland
20
Irish Independent, July 21st, 2005.
21
Fishing Ireland West
22
The Shannon Regional Fisheries Board
23
Neylon Economic & Social Consultants
24
Federation of Irish Salmon & Sea Trout Anglers
25
Stop Salmon Drift Nets Now
26
Fishing Ireland West
27
Stop Salmon Drift Nets Now
28
The Southern Regional Fisheries Board
29
Slaney Draftnet Men's Association
30
Wessex Salmon and Rivers Trust
31
Written Answers Nos. 213-231, Dáil Éireann, June 29th 2005.
32
Western Gamefishing Association
33
Fishing Ireland West
34
The National Anglers Representative Association
35
Fishing Ireland West
36
The Western Regional Fisheries Board
37
Written Answers Nos. 213-231, Dáil Éireann, June 29th 2005.
38
Written Answers Nos. 213-231, Dáil Éireann, June 29th 2005.
39
Stop Salmon Drift Nets Now
40
Questions tabled by Members of the Dáil for written response and the ministerial replies received
from the Departments. 10th March 2005. http://debates.oireachtas.ie/Xml/29/DAL20050310A.PDF
41
Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy
Gallagher at Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Sub-Committee on
Salmon Drift Netting, April 5th 2005.
2
18