Submission to Independent Salmon Group

[Hoppy]

Submission to

The Working Group appointed by the Government to make recommendations on the options available to address financial hardship arising from full compliance with scientific advice in 2007 in the management of the Irish salmon fishery

from

National Anglers Representative Association, Salmon and Sea Trout Recreational Anglers of Ireland, Trout Anglers Federation of Ireland, Donegal Angling Federation, Eastern Salmon Anglers Federation, Federation of Cork Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers
Kerry Angling Federation, Midland Salmon Anglers Federation
South East Salmon Anglers Federation, Stop Salmon Drift Nets Now

Summary

·The only conclusion that can be drawn from the Government’s commitment to fully align with the scientific advice from the Standing Scientific Committee of the National Salmon Commission in 2007 is that mixed stock (ie all drift netting and some draft netting) for salmon will end with the termination of the 2006 season.

·Anything other than a full alignment with the scientific advice would be a breach of the Government’s commitment to the European Commission that Ireland will respect the terms of the Habitat’s Directive in the management of salmon stocks. It is believed that the Commission is already taking an interest in Ireland’s failure to respect the scientific advice in 2006.

·The hardship arising for individuals within the drift net communities resulting from the Government’s commitment to fully align with the scientific advice results from the loss of a gross income of some Euro 5 million per annum for the legal drift net catch.

·The drift net community should be compensated at the rate of some Euro 25 to 30 million for the hardship incurred. The multiplier is derived from the fact that reducing quotas will, in any event, drive the drift net catch to close to zero within five or six years if no action is taken.

·Any compensation paid to the drift net community should be phased over four/five years for a mix of tax efficiency and enforcement reasons.

·The vast majority of salmon saved by the ending of mixed stock fishing should be allowed to escape to spawn – ie protected from exploitation by both anglers and estuarine nets alike.

·The Government should shoulder the major part of the cost of compensation in line with the proportion being allowed to escape to spawn and in recognition of it being a major stakeholder in the restoration of salmon stocks.

·Anglers, fishery owners and the holders of estuarine net licences should contribute to the cost of the compensation. It is estimated that the maximum annual contribution from these sources is of the order of Euro 2/2.5 million per annum.

·Anglers and owners already make a considerable contribution in both cash and kind to the protection and maintenance of fisheries. This contribution needs to be factored into plans for the future management of the salmon fishery.

·Issues such as protection (both inland and at sea), water quality and habitat development will be have to priorities in the post mixed stock fishery situation.

·It is recognised that considerable changes in the traditional behaviour of anglers will be required in the post mixed stock fishery situation.


Introductory points made to the Working Group on 29 May 2006 by the Angling Group

At their meeting with the Working Group on 29 May the representatives of the angling community made the following introductory remarks:

“Before getting into the substance of our opening statement, and we mean this without any way calling into question the personal integrity of the Secretary to your Group, we consider that it is unfortunate that BIM as an institution should be providing the back office support for your enquiry. BIM have a particular interest in the continuation of large scale commercial salmon exploitation and are no more disinterested in the outcome of the enquiry in which you are engaged than are any of us here today from the angling community.

You should be aware that we are of the view that one short consultation session is not going to be adequate having regard to the complexity of the issues involved.

We also submit to you that that the issuing of a complex set of questions which you would like to address at this meeting only five days before this meeting is an unsatisfactory way of proceeding if you expect representative organisations to respond to them authoritatively.

It also seems to us that many of the questions you have raised go outside the terms of reference which have been given to the Group by the Minister. We are willing to address the questions you have raised as part of the Group’s need to get up the learning curve about these complex matters but without prejudice to our view that as issues points b) to g) fall outside your terms of reference”.

The Government decisions of 21 March

On 21 March the Government made a number of interlocking decisions about the future management of Ireland’s salmon fishery. They were announced on 24 March in a press release and in pages published on the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources website.

The following were the main decisions announced (other than those to do with the salmon fishery regime to apply in 2006):

1.“[The Minister of State] reaffirmed the Government’s intention to introduce measures to fully align with the scientific advice from the Standing Scientific Committee of the National Salmon Commission (NSC) in 2007” .

2.The Minister of State acknowledged that “if the scientific advice ....is followed and the precautionary approach fully implemented, then it will have serious implications for drift net fishing” .

3.The Minister of State announced the appointment of an independent group “to examine the implications of the new regulations for the commercial sector in 2007 and beyond and to make recommendations on the options available to address any financial hardship that may arise”

Terms of reference of the Expert Working Group

The Minister of State on 24 March announced the terms of reference of the “working group to examine the implications of alignment with the scientific advice for the commercial salmon fishing sector in 2007 and beyond”. They were as follows:

Purpose of Expert Working Group
The Working Group will make recommendations on the options available to address any financial hardship arising for individuals involved in commercial salmon fishing from full compliance with the scientific advice by 2007.

Remit of the Working Group
The specific remit of the Working Group will include:

·Advise the Government on the implications of fully aligning with the scientific advice and in particular the hardship that may arise for individuals in coastal communities.

·Determine the scale of financial loss which will be experienced as a result of measures imposed on the commercial salmon fishery.

·Make recommendations, if appropriate, to address any financial hardship experienced.

·Consider the extent to which those stakeholders, who would be the main economic beneficiaries of more salmon being returned to the rivers, should contribute to any scheme, whether in cash or in kind including improved tourist access.

·Determine the implications for the angling sector ”.

Implications of the Government decisions

The principle implication arising from the Government’s commitment to fully align with the scientific advice in 2007 is that mixed stock fishing for salmon (that is all drift netting and some draft netting) will end in 2006.

The advice of the Standing Scientific Committee for 2006 was that:

·“Analysis of the status of district stocks indicates that only four districts are meeting their Conservation Limits consistently (Cork, Kerry, Connemara and Ballinakill). Less than 50% of the Conservation Limit is being attained in eight districts (Sligo, Shannon, Waterford, Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, Wexford, Galway). The remaining [five] districts have consistently met over 50% of the Conservation Limit but less than 100% on average. Even in districts which met their Conservation Limits, some individual rivers within the district did not. Recent data suggests that four of seven rivers in Cork did not meet their Conservation Limits. Similarly, four of nine rivers in Kerry, two rivers in Connemara, four of five rivers in Ballinakill, three of five rivers in Bangor, four of six rivers in Ballyshannon and five of ten rivers in Letterkenny failed to meet their Conservation Limits”.

·“Mixed stock fisheries [ie drift netting and some draft netting] present particular threats to the status of individual stocks....Thus, the most precautionary way to meet national and international objectives is to operate fisheries on individual river stocks that are shown to be within precautionary limits, ie those stocks which are exceeding their Conservation Limits....Fisheries operated in estuaries and rivers are more likely to fulfil these requirements ”

It is unlikely in the extreme that the Committee’s advice in 2007 will be any less demanding than in 2006.

It is impossible to reconcile anything other than a complete cessation of mixed stock fishing with the scientific advice. There are rumours of numerous devices being considered which would permit mixed stock fishing to continue on a reduced scale (eg being confined to three miles from the Base Line as opposed to the current six or being permitted to continue within certain estuaries) but they all fly in the face of the Government commitment “to fully align with the scientific advice in 2007”.

·Anything other than a complete cessation of mixed stock fishing would also be a breach of the Government’s commitment to the EU Commission (given in 2005) to adhere to the terms of the Habitat’s Directive in the management of salmonid Special Areas of Conservation. It is believed that the Commission is already taking an interest in Ireland’s failure to respect the scientific advice in 2006.

“The hardship that may arise for individuals in coastal communities” arises from the income forgone by virtue of not being able to fish for salmon. In aggregate this income has remained fairly stable around Euro 5 millions per annum gross income for the drift net community. As salmon catches have declined the price per kilo has increased virtually in proportion and sufficient to maintain a fairly stable aggregate total.

In 2005 there would be fairly common consent among drift net licencees and fish traders that salmon averaged about Euro 15 per kilo, giving a value per fish of about Euro 50 based on an average weight of salmon of 3.3 kilos.

It must be emphasised that this is a gross figure and no deduction has been made in respect of depreciation of equipment, fuel, helper on board, etc.

It must also be emphasised that the gross figure is in respect of legal catches only.

Dealing with hardship

It has been the settled view of the angling community for many years that the ending of the mixed stock fishery requires that there be a fair compensation scheme introduced for those exiting the industry. There is also a case for measures to be introduced which would facilitate the transition of drift net licencees to other sources of income, whether within the inshore sector in which they are participants or elsewhere .

The angling community believes that the total compensation should be a multiple of the gross annual income (ie without allowance for savings in cost by individual licencees) and consider that a multiple of five or six would be appropriate. On that basis the compensation package should be of the order of Euro 25 to 30 millions. Such a compensation package would be in line with compensation packages elsewhere. (See the Appendix for an analysis of mixed stock buy outs in some other jurisdictions).

The multiplier applied to the annual revenue foregone is derived from the fact that reducing quotas will, in any event, drive the drift net catch to close to zero within five or six years if no action is taken.

Once the aggregate amount of compensation has been established it is the view of the angling community that a high degree of flexibility should be entertained in designing the actual compensation scheme.

However, it is the view of the angling community that payment of the capital sum should be phased over a number of years. Such a regime would allow for better tax planning and also provide an incentive not to return to salmon fishing on an illegal basis.

Stakeholders and the public good

The Working Group’s terms of reference require it to consider how stakeholders “who would be the main economic beneficiaries of more salmon being returned to the rivers” should contribute to the compensation scheme.

It is first necessary to consider who will be the main the stakeholders in the salmon fishery once mixed stock fishing has ended and the public good that will derive from the termination of mixed stock fishing.

Stakeholders in Ireland’s management of its’ salmon resource

The salmon that has a place in many aspects of Irish life and in the lives of other European nations whose fish pass through Irish waters. This is reflected in a diverse range of stakeholders in the future of the salmon. Chief among these are:

1.The State: has the broadest and deepest interest of all stakeholders in the restoration of salmon to abundance:

·The State by common consent has a general responsibility to protect key aspects of Irish heritage;

·Ireland has a wide range of obligations enshrined in national and international law (including EU law) to protect and to maintain a favourable conservation status for key aspects of Irish and European biodiversity, including the salmon;

·The State has specific responsibilities for the protection of the Irish salmon and of the salmon of other countries passing through our waters contained in the statutes of the inter-governmental North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation and in the UN Law of the Sea;

·The State has an economic interest in the survival of the salmon given the importance of the different industries that exploit the resource. The State has an interest in ensuring that, to the extent that there can be sustainable exploitation of the salmon stock, the optimum social and economic benefit is derived from it;

·The States obligations to conserve and protect the salmon as a species is reflected in the fact that it is by far the largest actor in the management of the salmon through its regulatory regime;

·The State is the largest owner of inland salmon fishing rights;

·The State derives tax revenues from the economic activities associated with salmon exploitation;

·The State has an obligation to maintain and develop recreational opportunities for its citizens. Angling, including game angling, is among the largest participatory sports in the country as is recognised in the financial support given by the Sports Council to the Angling Council of Ireland.

2.The Commercial Exploitation Sector: While their interests are not identical the estuarine (largely draft net) and inshore (largely drift net) sectors clearly have a stake in the future of the salmon. In 2004 there were 624 estuarine licencees and 848 drift net licencees .

3.The Value Added Sector: Smoking and other forms of processing of salmon caught by draft and drift nets clearly depend on continuity of supply of salmon. It is unclear, however, how dependent they are on the wild salmon resource given the more certain supply of fish from both domestic and overseas salmon farming. There is no data available on the wild/farmed breakdown of salmon used by the sector .

4.The Angling Sector: This is a large and diverse sector embracing individual anglers many of them organised in about 450 local associations affiliated to national federations. In total there are some 17,000 salmon anglers in the country . In addition to engagement in the sport of angling this sector is also includes a significant number of associations which manage game angling fisheries either as owners or lessees. Anglers play a significant part in salmon protection and conservation mainly on a voluntary basis.

5.The Game Angling Tourism Sector: Enterprises reliant on game angling tourism range from those integrating fishery ownership and management with accommodation and other services to B&B in the locality of salmon fisheries and specialising in the needs of anglers. These enterprises are widely distributed around the country and a significant number of them is located in remote areas.

[Hoppy]

continued

6.Fishery Owners: Although largely subsumed in the tourism sector there is a large number of fishery owners who lease their facilities to associations and syndicates. Many fishery owners invest significant money and energy in measures to protect and conserve salmon.

7.The Irish Public: The salmon has an iconic position in public opinion as is evidenced in the wide spread interest in the controversy over drift netting. There is no doubt but that there is a general expectation that the salmon will be managed in a way which will ensure its survival.

8.Other Countries: There is now data available which incontrovertibly establishes that Irish drift nets are significant interceptors of salmon returning to rivers in South West England and South Wales . While data of equivalent standing is not available for rivers in other countries there is little doubt but that Scottish, German, French and Spanish rivers are also to some extent impacted . This gives all of these countries a legitimate voice in how the Irish fishery is managed.

9.The European Union: The European Union has been taking an increasing interest in the Irish management of salmon stocks over the past two years. The Directorate General for the Environment has pursued the Irish government over its obligations under the Habitats Directive eventually extracting a commitment from the Government that it would adhere to the terms of the Directive . In addition the Directorate General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs has commissioned a report on the effect of interceptory fisheries on salmon stocks .

The public good to be derived from restoring salmon to abundance

The extent of the State’s stakeholder interest in the health of salmon stocks has already being outlined. The public good that would accrue to the State from restoring salmon to abundance arise from that interest. The following summarises the key elements in that good:

1.The protection of bio-diversity, heritage and the conservation of the species – all issues for which the State has domestic and international responsibilities. The meeting of those responsibilities demands the adoption of a precautionary and responsible approach to the management of species, like the salmon, that are under severe pressure. Only a policy that seeks to maximise the number of spawning salmon is justifiable in a situation in which salmon are suffering historically high marine mortality .

2.Meeting Ireland’s responsibilities to apply the Habitats Directive : It is entirely in Ireland’s interests to be in compliance with EU law given the threat of severe penalties being imposed by the European Court of Justice and, more widely, the damage to Ireland’s international reputation by any failure to meet significant environmental and habitat obligations;

3.The meeting of Ireland’s obligations to the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. Ireland is a party to NASCO as a member of the EU and has been under persistent pressure from other NASCO members to implement the organisation’s precautionary principles and practices in the management of salmon. At the 2006 NASCO conference the head of the EU delegation stated that “Ireland has given a firm commitment to meet scientific advice in 2007 which means that fisheries will only take place in estuaries and rivers on stocks which have been shown to be above their conservation limit”.

4.Considerable benefit in economic activity and social value would flow from restoring abundance and creating the maximum exploitable surplus of salmon. Successive Irish studies have shown that increases in recreational and tourism angling that would be relatively small in the context of total stocks, can have a disproportionately large impact on revenues – accommodation, ghillies, tackle dealers, restaurants, etc all benefit and to a very large extent in remoter areas;

5.The contribution that activity based tourism can play in sustainable rural development is well documented. Angling and game angling are an important component in that product ;

6.The enhancement in the value of the State owned salmon fisheries. Through its various entitites the State is the largest owner of inland salmon fisheries in the country. The restoration of salmon stocks with a resultant increase in angling activity would enhance both the current earning capacity of these fisheries and, as a consequence, their capital value. Increased current earnings would also increase the capacity of the State to invest in further conservation and protection measures;

7.Enhanced tax revenues would flow from an reinvigoration of game angling tourism ;

8.The preservation of a major recreational resource for the Irish people.

The justification of each of these goods is implicit in them and requires little further elaboration. The attribution of a monetary value to some of these elements is probably beyond the capability of any entity other than the Department of Finance.

Stakeholders contribution to a compensation scheme

For the reasons outlined above the lion’s share of the cost of a compensation scheme for those exiting the sector should be borne by the State. The responsibility of the State for salmon stocks transcends, both in character and in scope, that of any other stakeholder and it could be argued that even if there were no economic benefit to be gained from a phasing out of drift netting the State, for conservation reasons would have an obligation to act to end drift netting. In this regard it is worth repeating here the opinion of the Joint Oireachtas Committee that “any public monies spent must have, as a primary aim, ensuring the survival of the salmon species and that this precept must be regarded as more important than any economic gain to any sector that may accrue”

There are at least two other reasons for a substantial State involvement in a compensation scheme:

·On the basis of 2005 figures some 100,000 legally caught salmon would have escaped to the rivers had there been no drift nets. No more than a third of these, should have become available for catching by estaurine nets and angling. It seems logical that the State should, at least, contribute in proportion to the numbers allowed to escape to spawn. This suggests that in order to meet its conservation obligations alone, the State should contribute at least two thirds of the cost of compensation and it could be argued that it should contribute considerably more than that having regard to its roles as a significant fishery owner and in tourism promotion.

·There is a ceiling to what the “private sector” can realistically be expected to raise for a compensation scheme. The fragmented structure of Irish fishery ownership makes the potential for large scale contributions very limited compared with, for instance, Scotland or England. Two estimates, generated independently of one another, have put the figure for a domestically generated contribution at between Euro 2 and 3 million per annum with the possibility of some limited additional funding being raised from overseas beneficiaries of the cessation of drift netting.

Private sector contributions are, however, highly dependent on, at least, the following:

·Assurance that any new regime will be effectively policed both at sea and inland;

·A comprehensive regime for the future management of the salmon resource being in place;

·Issues to do with the lease of State owned fisheries to angling associations being resolved.

Contribution in kind

A very considerable contribution is being made by anglers and their associations and by fishery owners to the protection of salmon stocks and the development of spawning areas. This in put needs to be recognised in determining an appropriate contribution by the angling sector to a compensation scheme.

Improved tourist access

There has been a continuous refrain from the Central Fisheries Board, and others, for some time about difficulties in access to salmon fishing. It is difficult to know what the issue really is as few if any examples have been given – the complaint of most tourists is about a lack of salmon rather than difficulties of getting access to them.

Given the protections extended to private property by the Constitution it is hard to envisage what might be done about the problem, if it exists at all.

However, the return of salmon abundance and more vigorous efforts to enforce the fishery rate should encourage fishery managers and owners to open up to tourist anglers.

Implications for the Angling Sector of adhering to the scientific advice

The angling sector will be severely impacted by the Government’s commitment to fully adhere to the scientific advice in 2007.

The Standing Scientific Committee have stated that there is no exploitable surplus in eight districts and when applied at a river level, where the data is available, the situation may be even more drastic.

From a fishery management perspective it has to be carefully considered whether angling should be totally banned in districts/rivers where there is no exploitable surplus or whether very restrictive quotas and/or a catch and release regime should be introduced.

There is no question but that a system which keeps anglers on the river banks throughout the season needs to be adopted and there are ample analogues to be examined from the English experience which indicate how this can be done. Without anglers on the river banks there will be a serious diminution in protection, discouragement of poaching and water quality and habitat monitoring.

The angling community accepts that a post mixed stock fishery situation will present it with particular challenges and it is willing to engage with Government in identifying and resolving the issues involved.

Conclusion
The angling community are convinced that the ending of mixed stock fishing for salmon is an essential but not of itself a sufficient basis for rebuilding salmon stocks. In this they are ad idem with scientific advice from at home and abroad in relation to single stock management and exploitation of the salmon resource.

The ending of the mixed stock fishery (all drift netting and some draft netting) must be accompanied by a fair system of compensation for those exiting the sector. There is a moral case for such compensation as undoubtedly some of the benefit of ceasing to exploit salmon at sea will flow to other actors in the sector – anglers, fishery owners, tourism and estuary nets. There is also a pragmatic case for compensation as without it the propensity towards large scale illegal fishing will be reinforced.

Anglers stand willing to contribute to the cost of compensation as do the other beneficiaries of the ending of mixed stock fishing – which includes the State.

APPENDIX

SOME ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PRICING A COMPENSATION SCHEME

North East of England Model
This scheme involved the retirement of 52 nets reputedly catching 40,000 salmon per annum. (The remaining 16 nets are subject to a “use it or lose it” Net Limitation Order). The total cost of the payout (phased over two years) was Euro 4.8 million. It transpires that the actual catch saved (ICES report to NASCO Assembly 2005) was closer to 32,000 than 40,000. The derived price paid per fish foregone is, therefore, of the order Euro 150*.

County Clare Drift Nets Men Model
The 16 drift net licencees off the Clare coast proposed to the Shannon Regional Fishery Board that their average annual catch for 2001/2004 of 16,722 salmon and the average landed value per fish over those years of Euro 20.75 be used to calculate total annual compensation of Euro 347,000 to be paid for four years. The Clare drift net men proposed that each licencee be paid 1/16th of the total sum. .

Landed Value Model
There are no reliable, consistent data available on the landed value of salmon from drift nets. Taken over the season, however, there would be some concensus around a carcass price of Euro 15 per kg in 2005 with an average carcass weight of 3.3 kg, ie a landed value per fish of Euro 50. Based on a five times multiple the cost per fish in a compensation scheme would be Euro 250 .

NOTE ON THE NORTHERN IRELAND BUY OUT

The buyout of 51 drift nets in the Fishery Conservation Board area of NI was carried out at a cost of UK£1.64 million or approximately Euro 2.4 million. The number of fish “saved” as a result was estimated to be 8,500 per annum giving a cost per fish of Euro 276.

* The fact that the NE England licencees, presumably for reasons of solidarity, adopted a payout system that gave a minimum payment of UK£30,000 and a maximum of UK£80,000 per licencee gives a highly distorted result when applied to the Irish drift net fishery on a licence, as opposed to fish, buy out basis.