Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The third item on our clár today is salmon conservation. The committee has agreed to undertake this meeting on salmon conservation in general and on the River Moy in particular. I thank Senator Mark Duffy and Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh for their advocacy in having this session and dealing with this topic.

The purpose of today’s session is to engage with a number of organisations with an interest in this topic. I welcome the following representatives to this meeting: Dr. Eamonn Kelly, CEO, Dr. Fiona Kelly, head of research, Dr. Milton Matthews and Dr. Seán Kelly from Inland Fisheries Ireland; Mr. Martin Parker and Mr. Simon Leonard from the Moy Action Group; Mr. John Murphy, director of Salmon Watch; and from the Technical Expert Group on Salmon, TEGOS, Dr. Michael Millane, chair of the TEGOS committee. They are all very welcome. I remind everybody in attendance to make sure their phones are on silent mode or switched off.

Before I invite the witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I advise everybody of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make any charges against any person or entity by name or in any such 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. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

In terms of the format of the meeting, I will invite the witnesses to make opening statements to a maximum of five minutes each.

Once they have been delivered, I will call the members of the committee to put their questions in the order they indicate to me. The committee operates a rota system, which provides each member with an initial five minutes to engage with our witnesses. It is important to note that the five minutes is for both questions and answers. It is essential, therefore, that members put their questions succinctly and that witnesses are succinct in their responses. Please note that the duration of this meeting is limited and therefore the times must be strictly adhered to. I ask everybody to be focused in their contributions.

We will take opening statements in the following order: Dr. Eamonn Kelly of Inland Fisheries Ireland; Mr. Martin Parker of Moy Action Group; Mr. John Murphy of Salmon Watch Ireland; and Dr. Michael Millane of TEGOS. I invite Dr. Kelly to make his opening statement.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it, and for facilitating me at short notice. I will start by introducing my colleagues. I am joined by Dr. Fiona Kelly, head of research in IFI; Dr. Milton Matthews, director in the north-western river basin district; and Dr. Seán Kelly, senior research officer with IFI. I note as well that Dr. Michael Millane, who is here on behalf of the independent body, TEGOS, is also a member of IFI.

Under the Inland Fisheries Act 2010, the principal function of IFI is the protection, management and conservation of the inland fisheries and sea angling resource. IFI's role relates to fish and their habitats, all aspects of the aquatic environment, such as water quality, biodiversity and hydromorphology, and all aspects that influence biotic communities within water bodies. For threatened species like salmon, IFI has directed resources toward focused conservation measures, which include habitat restoration, research, evidence-based fishery management, legislation and protection. The last of these remains a constant risk and is resource intensive. We recognise that salmon angling is an important contributor to the Irish economy, particularly in rural areas. That contribution was estimated in 2015 at €210 million.

In relation to the roles and responsibilities for recreational salmon angling and commercial salmon fisheries in Ireland, it is worth noting that TEGOS, which is appointed by the North-South Standing Scientific Committee on Inland Fisheries, assesses the stocks annually and provides its scientific advice to IFI. IFI then uses this scientific advice to formulate and provide, in line with its statutory obligation, management advice and recommendations to the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment. The Minister considers this advice, publishes draft regulations and holds a 30-day public consultation. The draft regulations are then finalised by the Minister and enacted in law.

IFI is seriously concerned about the declines in salmon in Ireland and elsewhere. These concerns are shared by other countries around the north Atlantic basin and by international scientific and intergovernmental bodies, such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, and the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, NASCO. We work with them closely. They are also shared by many other stakeholders that are involved in the sustainable management and conservation of salmon. The estimated numbers of wild salmon returning to Ireland have progressively declined from over 1 million per annum for much of the 1970s to less than 200,000 per annum in recent years. The decline in salmon is not unique to Ireland. The global trend for wild salmon stocks is one of long-term severe decline, with populations plummeting across the north Atlantic since the 1980s.

Drivers of the decline of salmon are numerous and overlap across the species' life cycle. The primary challenge in salmon conservation is that no single driver can be considered solely responsible for the species' decline. IFI is committed to expanding our efforts to restore and protect our environment and enforce legislation where necessary, particularly where it can support the restoration of aquatic biodiversity. In 2025 alone, IFI operated fish counters on 25 rivers to estimate the abundance of returning adult salmon to our rivers and conducted electrofishing surveys in 1,027 sites across 41 catchments to assess the abundance and health of our juvenile salmon stocks. Also in 2025, IFI completed a national stressor assessment for Ireland, which identified the top priority stressors impacting salmon stocks.

As part of the IFI research programme, we have initiated a national network of water temperature monitoring sites at over 300 locations across multiple diverse catchment types; invested in real-time water quality monitoring; conducted a national barriers programme to assess the severity of barriers on fish migration; and conducted detailed assessments of the physical state of river habitats across Ireland. IFI also continues to lead the national barriers mitigation programme funded by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. This aims to restore natural river function and improve fish movement, including salmon, across Ireland by addressing major physical barriers that disrupt flow, habitat and ecological connectivity. This work represents a key element of our wider restoration efforts and reflects a growing emphasis on long-term catchment-scale measures. We have spent in the order of €5 million to date on that.

IFI is planning to invest over €1 million from core funding in habitats and conservation and education and outreach projects in 2026. The salmon and sea trout rehabilitation, conservation and protection fund managed by IFI supports habitat restoration for salmon and sea trout, with over €7.5 million awarded since 2016. This is funded by fishing licence contributions and is awarded annually for salmon and sea trout projects. The award for the 2026 fund will be finalised and announced shortly.

In 2025, IFI staff conducted over 180,000 hours on anti-poaching patrols, many of which were related to salmon. Additionally, they undertook over 34,000 fisheries inspections and issued 405 cautions and 343 fixed-notice penalties to anglers. Compliance checks were carried out at 233 premises.

Halting the decline of salmon is a huge challenge. The measures I have mentioned are hugely valuable initiatives by IFI that are already under way. However, without urgent, co-ordinated action to tackle multiple pressures, we are at risk of losing a cornerstone of Irish heritage and biodiversity.

I thank members for their time and particular interest in this very important topic. We are happy to answer questions and provide further details. On a personal note, I thank the committee for facilitating me at short notice. I am a week in the job and am very keen to come and engage with the work of the committee. I will be relying on colleagues for substantive technical responses. I was also keen to come and engage with key stakeholder groupings.

Mr. Martin Parker:

The Moy Action Group sincerely appreciates the opportunity to appear before the committee. We also acknowledge the ongoing work of Inland Fisheries Ireland and the technical expert group on salmon in managing our fisheries. We fully recognise that salmon stocks are in serious decline. While fully supporting conservation measures, they must be based on robust, comprehensive and, most importantly, transparent data. It is our position that there are significant gaps in the current approach which must be addressed.

The Moy Action Group was formed following the draft salmon and sea trout regulations published on 21 November last year. Subsequently, a public meeting was held in Ballina on 27 November, attended by approximately 130 stakeholders. They included fishery owners, angling clubs, local businesses and tourism operators, the chamber of commerce, public representatives and representatives from Inland Fisheries Ireland. This clearly reflected a broad and genuine level of concern within the communities. From that meeting, four central issues were identified, namely, the methodology used to compile conservation data; the proposed 1,044 brown gill tag lottery; the economic impact on the Moy Valley; and future-proofing the salmon run. A joint submission followed, with the primary concern being the methodology used to inform the proposed regulations. The second consultation suggested that seven gill tags could be used from 1 June to 31 August and catch and release for the remainder of the season. The final regulation, entered into statute on 3 April, allows for seven tags and the harvesting of one fish up to 1 June. The remaining tags can be used between 1 June and 31 August. September is allocated as catch and release. This naturally raises the following question. How can two proposals and the final decision that was entered in the Statute Book differ to this extent within a short timeframe if they are based on the same underlying data?

At a stakeholder meeting on 19 January this year, it was clarified that anglers' logbooks formed the only basis for the proposed 2026 regulations on the River Moy. It was also established that partial fish counter data and no electrofishing data was included in the draft regulations.

This clearly shows that not all available data sources have been fully incorporated into the decision-making process. The current methodology highlights several challenges. We have been unable to locate any electro-fishing data directly related to the River Moy since 2012, although we stand to be corrected on that, and logbook return rates in 2024 were 48.7% and less than 50% in 2025. This clearly indicates a significant portion of activity that is not being captured.

No software applications are involved in logbook sales. Therefore, they are paper-based and not practical, particularly in adverse weather conditions. There is no requirement for identification and no centralised tracking system, which therefore allows an angler to purchase as many licences as they wish. These factors raise legitimate questions regarding data completeness and reliability. Most important, it is also acknowledged that a large proportion of salmon pass through what is known as the Queen's Gap, which is a weir in Ballina that is approximately 10 m wide, and are not counted. This presents challenges for accurate stock assessments. During the 2025 season, there were extended periods of river closures due to environmental conditions. No activity occurred during these times and, therefore, no logbook data was recorded. It is important that such factors are fully considered when interpreting annual data.

We understand that the current data can include fish counters, electro-fishing, anglers' logbooks and fishery inspectors' estimates. A raising factor is then applied to account for missing logbooks. This approach, while established, heavily relies on a degree of estimation. Taking all of this into consideration, is it reasonable to ask whether current counting methods are sufficient to fully inform regulatory decisions and conservation measures? The Moy Action Group advocates for a digital logbook system to enhance accuracy and real-time reporting and recommends the use of modern fish counting technologies, such as sonar systems used in Alaska, Canada, Scotland and Wales. These measures would enhance data quality, transparency and, very importantly, confidence in the way this data is produced.

We are not here in opposition to conservation; we are here in support of effective conservation. We all share the same goal, which is the long-term sustainability of salmon stocks. However, effective conservation depends on reliable data. Where there are gaps or uncertainties in that data, it is both reasonable and necessary to address them. We therefore respectfully ask this committee to review the current methodology, ensure all relevant data sources are fully utilised and support the development of more accurate, transparent and advanced technological systems. I thank the committee.

Mr. John Murphy:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it today. I will be as brief as possible. Atlantic salmon are on an accelerated journey towards becoming a biological curiosity. The decisions we make today will determine whether they survive or whether we preside over their loss. Salmon Watch Ireland is an independent advocacy organisation working to protect and restore wild Atlantic salmon and sea trout through science-based policy. Our policy document sets out the evidence and solutions in detail and I strongly encourage members to read it, if they have not done so already. Wild Atlantic salmon are a sentinel species, an indicator of environmental health. They are also something more. They are part of our natural heritage, our culture and, in many ways, the essence of our Irishness.

Their life cycle is extraordinary. Salmon are born in our rivers, migrate to the ocean and return, often with remarkable precision, to the river where they were born, yet despite this resilience, they are failing abjectly. Juvenile survival to sea has declined in many catchments. Marine survival has collapsed from historical levels of 15% to 25% to, in most cases, very low single-digit figures. Adult returns have fallen from approximately 1.7 million fish in the 1970s to fewer than 150,000 fish today. Across Ireland, many rivers are already below their conservation limits. This is not a warning; it is happening now.

The decline is driven by cumulative pressures, habitat degradation and poor water quality, fragmented river systems and climate impacts, both in rivers and at sea, salmon aquaculture, predation pressures where imbalances are emerging and continued exploitation where stocks cannot sustain it. Our approach must be grounded in a simple principle: we must maximise the number of healthy juvenile wild salmon going to sea from their home rivers. That principle should underpin everything we do.

On salmon aquaculture, the evidence is increasingly difficult to ignore. Long-term research indicates a reduction of 19% in returning adult salmon in rivers exposed to salmon farming. In some years, losses can be significantly higher, approaching 50%. This is not abstract. We also must consider the effect on sea trout, a close cousin of the Atlantic salmon, which we have illustrated on the document circulated to the committee. This is damning evidence of the effect on migratory salmonids. Data from a Marine Institute research station in Burrishoole, County Mayo, shows a clear collapse in sea trout populations following the introduction of salmon farming in that area.

A previously stable population declines sharply once farming begins and it does not recover. That is not a correlation we can afford to dismiss. It is a pattern that has been observed repeatedly. This pattern is repeated in Scotland and further afield with one common denominator, salmon aquaculture. In multiple regions, formerly productive sea trout populations declined sharply following the introduction and expansion of salmon aquaculture and have not recovered. These collapses have had wider ecological consequences and have undermined the viability of once-sustainable local fisheries, with associated losses to rural economies and livelihoods. The weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that salmon farming has been a key driver in these collapses. All one has to do is go to Connemara or Waterville in County Kerry to see the effects of salmon farming on stocks.

At sea, pressures are intensifying. Pelagic fisheries in the north-east Atlantic are expanding under unilateral quota decisions. These fisheries overlap with salmon migration routes and feeding areas, increasing ecosystem pressure and raising concerns about bycatch. Ireland must take a stronger position on this internationally. On exploitation, the principle is clear: if there is no surplus, there can be no exploitation. We also need to be honest here. A dead salmon is a dead salmon, regardless of how it is taken. Anglers now account for a significant share of removals. While catch-and-release practice has improved, retained catches still add pressure to depleted stocks. This is not about blame. It is about aligning all exploitation with biological reality.

That requires a firmer approach involving substantially reducing angling tags, increasing protection for spring salmon and larger fish and considering seasonal no-harvest periods. We are not advocating immediate mandatory catch-and-release everywhere, but if stocks do not recover, further restrictions, including zero exploitation, will become unavoidable. This is not a policy preference; it is a biological inevitability. For commercial fisheries, the direction is clearer. Remaining fisheries should move toward phased removal, alongside periods of zero exploitation for those depleted stocks. In the meantime, management must improve. Real-time management is essential. Fisheries must close when expected returns do not materialise because survival must come first.

We must also address predation. Predation is a natural part of the ecosystem but in altered environments, imbalances can emerge, particularly where habitats are degraded or migration routes are constrained. In these conditions, predation pressure can have a disproportionate impact on already depleted runs. This is a sensitive issue. Many predator species are protected, and rightly so, but that does not remove the need to manage ecosystems as a whole.

What is required is co-ordinated and science-led action between IFI and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, monitoring impacts, identifying imbalances and responding where necessary. If we are serious about recovery, we cannot ignore any significant source of mortality.

Members may hear hatcheries presented as a solution, but the evidence is clear. They do not rebuild wild populations at scale. They can reduce genetic fitness and distract from the real causes of decline. They are not a substitute for functioning ecosystems. There is no substitute for a wild salmon spawning in its natal river.

We also need stronger enforcement. Pollution events require a rapid, co-ordinated response, and penalties must reflect the seriousness of environmental damage caused. Beyond fisheries, land management really must change. We need to restore natural processes that slow river flow, sustain river levels and improve resilience. Riparian zones must be properly protected and managed. Nutrient pollution of surface waters must be addressed through robust policy decisions favouring the protection of water over sectoral interests.

Despite recent challenges, IFI remains an organisation of deep expertise. The professionalism of its protection, development and scientific staff must be recognised. It must be properly supported and resourced. Ultimately, this comes down to a simple test. Are we prepared to align policy with evidence or continue making decisions that contribute to the decline? We know what must be done. Now, we act or we accept their loss. The Oireachtas has the power to act and the responsibility to do so.

Dr. Michael Millane:

Good afternoon. I am the chair of TEGOS, an independent scientific body established by the all-Ireland North-South Standing Scientific Committee on Inland Fisheries. TEGOS is comprised of appointees from the Agri-food and Biosciences Institute in Northern Ireland, IFI, the cross-Border Loughs Agency and the Marine Institute. However, all members operate independently of their respective agencies. Our primary remit is to annually assess the conservation status of Ireland’s 144 wild Atlantic salmon stocks and, based on these assessments, produce river-specific catch advice for fisheries management purposes for the forthcoming fishing year. This advice is provided to IFI through our parent body. IFI considers and formulate this advice for the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, which then publishes the draft salmon fishing regulations for public consultation. Following public consultation, regulations are typically enacted in advance of the salmon fishing season.

TEGOS provides objective, independent and evidence-based scientific advice to inform fisheries management decisions. This includes advice on: which river stocks may operate as harvest fisheries and the level of surplus salmon that may be sustainably harvested; which stocks may be open for catch-and-release angling only, which is where stocks are somewhat below healthy levels and require protection from harvest pressure; and which rivers should be closed to all salmon fishing, either due to a very degraded stock status or there being insufficient data to make an assessment and provide catch advice.

To assess stock status and inform our catch advice, we use a range of data sources. These include: data from IFI’s national fish counter programme, providing adult salmon return information from up to 30 rivers annually; angling logbook returns, with exploitation rates applied to estimate stock size; and field survey programmes, most notably IFI’s catchment-wide electrofishing programme, which provides information on juvenile salmon fry abundance as an indicator of spawning success. Our stock assessment methodology is risk-based and precautionary and accounts for uncertainties in the underlying data. The approach used in Ireland is comparable to that in other major north Atlantic salmon jurisdictions and is grounded in guidance from the intergovernmental North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, both of which Ireland is a member.

Wild Atlantic salmon stocks are under pressure across their entire north Atlantic range. Recent ICES reporting shows that many stocks are at, or close to, their lowest levels in decades. Declines are attributed to multiple factors, including: reduced marine survival linked to climate change and long-term oceanic variability; coastal pressures such as salmon farming arising from sea lice impacts on migrating smolts; and widespread freshwater pressures, particularly water quality issues, habitat degradation, barriers to migration, and climate change. Other potential factors implicated are excessive predation, by-catch and illegal fishing.

The future trajectory of our wild salmon stocks remains uncertain and, unfortunately, there appears to be little prospect of any immediate recovery in the coming years. In 2025, TEGOS assessed the status of our 144 wild salmon stocks and provided catch advice for the 2026 season. Our standard advice is set at a 75% probability of a stock meeting its conservation limit. The conservation limit represents the minimum number of returning salmon required to sustain a healthy stock. Above this level, a surplus may be available for sustainable harvest; below it, no harvest is advised. For the 2026 advice, TEGOS was also requested to provide catch options at more conservative probability levels, reflecting a more precautionary management approach. This was reflected in the draft regulations published in November 2025.

The most recent TEGOS report has been provided to the committee along with a briefing note. In summary, only 28% of Ireland’s 144 designated salmon river stocks are exceeding conservation limits at the 75% probability level. This includes 53% of the 77 stocks where direct assessments were possible. In effect, this means that 41 river stocks had an advised surplus for harvest as they were above their conservation limits; 29 river stocks were advised as catch-and-release-only angling fisheries as they were somewhat below their conservation limits; and 74 river stocks were advised to be closed to all fishing.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important issue of salmon conservation with the committee today and to answer any questions members may have.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Millane. I now invite members, in the order they have indicated, to engage with witnesses.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions this afternoon. As is outlined, the situation regarding salmon decline, particularly the north Atlantic salmon, across the whole world is very stark. I am very conscious of time but what is clear is that there is a loss of confidence in the data collection. Something that has been shared by the Moy Action Group and with me very broadly is the need for us to have data collection that is as accurate as possible. It sounds like a lot more needs to be done in improving the data collection so that we have accurate information in order for decisions to be made. The introduction of sonar counters is something that has been requested, as have electronic logbooks. There has been some innovation locally in that regard. Have these been considered or can they be realised? Dr. Eamonn Kelly may answer that. I welcome him. I know he is a week into the job and will be supported by his colleagues. It is a good opportunity today because I think we are all on the same wavelength in trying to get accurate information and data but also making decisions that are going to ensure we have a brighter future for the River Moy and other salmon-producing rivers.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I thank the Senator for that. I appreciate his good wishes. I agree that we are all on the same side to some extent. I was chatting outside with all parties and that was very clear.

I appreciate what the Senator has said as regards confidence and data collection. I acknowledge that there are alternatives emerging in relation to counters. We are currently reviewing the salmon management arrangements at the request of the Minister. We will be looking at all aspects of that and the board will be providing a report to the Minister. We will look closely at a lot of those elements. We are constrained in terms of some of the elements and how they interact with one another but we are coming into this assessment with an open mind. We want to get to a very effective system and avoid some of the challenges that emerged last year and earlier this year.

I might rely on some of my colleagues to speak more to the technical specifics. I know that sonar has come up locally. Our staff were involved in a meeting recently and I am awaiting a report and submissions on that. With all parties at the table, we can look at that proactively. Perhaps Dr. Matthews would like to add something.

Dr. Milton Matthews:

The director for Ballina has been in contact with the Moy Action Group and local angling interests. As Dr. Kelly outlined, there have been a number of discussions in recent days and weeks about the various technologies. We are entirely open to suggestions and recommendations with regard to counter technology. IFI is painfully aware that as pressure comes on with regard to the management of salmon and with the numbers critical, we are managing a species that is very close to the margins in terms of stability and the health of its population, so the need for reliable data through whatever methodology is available is coming into focus even more.

On the different public consultations more generally and the different scientific methodologies with regard to use of electro fishing data versus counter data versus log book data, they all have a part to play. I will refer to my technical colleagues Dr. Kelly and Dr. Millane from TEGOS in terms of how that is used in the different fisheries according to their stock status, for example, whether or not they are above conservation limit. Notwithstanding counter technology and advances in technology, logbook data forms a critical vehicle for anglers to make their contribution in terms of-----

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of time. Dr. Matthews said IFI is open to the sonar counters and electronic log books, which is a big difference from the paper-based system that is used. Does IFI want both of those innovations?

Dr. Milton Matthews:

Our new corporate strategy is very much about digitisation and a move to GIS-type technology. To use a parallel, under the sport tagging programme, there is a phone-based app for sea anglers who wish to report catches, which is a valuable database. That is the type of model stakeholders are calling for. There are certainly opportunities under the salmon review the Minister has called for that we can explore.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When will that review conclude?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

We are working on it. The Minister has asked for feedback in early summer. It will certainly be before next season.

Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Murphy put it correctly. The salmon is very much part of Irish cultural identity. I hoped that we would have had the salmon of knowledge on our lunch menu today but it was not on it. In terms of salmon conservation, everyone is very much on the same page about why it is important. Even though our focus is on the Moy today, and the Minister for Social Protection talked to me about the case raised by the Moy Action Group, in my part of the world, which is Wicklow-Wexford, it is the Slaney I am concerned about. There is a similar challenge with regard to stocks there. Our challenge is around how we measure some of the stocks and ensure we have accurate data. I chair the Oireachtas Committee on Artificial Intelligence and have posed questions to quite a number of agencies. What was interesting was the fact that cross-Border Loughs Agency came back to talk to me about how it was using AI in fish stock management and monitoring. The Defence Forces have been using it in sea mapping. How can we ensure the most accurate data? What is the gold standard when it comes to getting the most accurate data because that is how we inform policy?

Dr. Michael Millane:

In Ireland, we are regularly in contact with scientists who do stock assessment and similar work in Norway, Canada, France, Sweden and Great Britain. We are quite similar to them generally in how we approach our stock assessments and the methods we use. The most robust measure of measuring a stock involves fish counters. We have 144 salmon-designated rivers so it is impractical to have fish counters on each of those. A lot of them are in older weirs, which are, in some instances, historical partial barriers to migration, so there is not much appetite to put in more fish counters of that type. We have a lot of rivers where we have to rely on measures other than fish counters - primarily angling catches. We also look at commercial catch returns. With angling catches, we apply what is called an exploitation rate. The angling catch may represent a certain proportion of the population in the river. That is our secondary method so, obviously, that is not as robust as a fish counter.

Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of angling catch, we are obviously relying on responsible anglers who catch and release. One of the problems is that there are irresponsible anglers who clearly do not abide by the rules and are probably not concerned about conservation. How does TEGOS capture that?

Dr. Michael Millane:

We are aware of that. In our stock assessment process, we account for uncertainties to do with angling catches, exploitation rates, our stock estimates and the conservation limits. We know there are varying levels of accuracy with the data but the uncertainty is accounted for. Ultimately, when the data is limited or uncertain, that warrants a greater degree of caution when we issue catch advice for particular river systems.

Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How accurate is TEGOS's picture nationally? I know it will never get it completely precise.

Dr. Michael Millane:

Individual river stocks can vary a lot from year to year so we forecast returns each year based on the previous five years of data. The forecasts are in and around 14% on average different from the actual returns the following year-----

Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a 14% variation.

Dr. Michael Millane:

There can be more or less variation depending on the individual river in a particular year.

Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish Dr. Kelly the best. I will be very specific about the River Slaney, where there has been a long-running issue. An options paper on the Slaney about being able to improve the flow and for salmon stocks to move up and down the river was due to be published. Will Dr. Kelly give me an indication as to when this will be published because it has been promised for a while?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I am looking at-----

Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that Dr. Kelly is new but I ask that he let us know.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

Absolutely. Does this concern the barriers?

Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I know that our head of barrier mitigation was down in Wexford last week to look at that with the Slaney River Trust and the Minister. I will certainly get that information for the Deputy.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could Dr. Kelly come back to Deputy Byrne and communicate directly with him? Deputy Cronin has confirmed that Deputy Conway-Walsh is substituting for her.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Cronin for substituting with me. I particularly wanted to be here today but I am not a member of the committee. I attended the public meeting in Ballina earlier this year that was also attended by Dr. Millane and others who are here and was deeply concerned about the proposals that were put on the table. There were a couple of reasons for that. An obvious one was the integrity of the data but another reason was the wider impact of the decisions that were being made. It seemed that these decisions were made on the basis of data that certainly did not satisfy me in terms of how decisions would be made.

There is the impact to tourism in the wider Ballina and Mayo area. I am party spokesperson for enterprise, tourism and employment so that is of concern to me. I have a couple of things. Data and sonar counters were talked about. I know this has been talked about for a long time. Within whose gift is it to make the decision to put sonar counters on the Moy?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I understand our regional director attended a meeting recently about that issue. I am waiting for recommendations that I understand are on the way up. I believe it was viewed with interest, but I need to see the local assessment and put that into the context of the wider review going on. We have to look at these river by river and it is important to view it in the context of that national review. In terms of whose gift it is in, we can look at that as an organisation and at the potential value of that.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How much would it cost to put a sonar counter on the Moy?

Dr. Fiona Kelly:

It is approximately €150,000 for each sonar counter and each day of recording generates three days of resource time for a person. It is not just about putting in the counter. It is the resource behind it and the data analysis. We have to understand all of that.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask for that to be done. It has been talked about for long enough. I ask that it be done, and a commitment come out of here today to do it. We are talking about a small investment in a sonar counter and we are looking at thousands of jobs. In that context it is well worth it. In any conservation effort that needs to be done, you need buy-in from the stakeholders. If there are questions about the integrity of the data being presented to support the decisions being made, I do not think that is acceptable.

Mr. Parker and Mr. Leonard were at that meeting. They talked about doing a pilot project. What would that look like?

Mr. Martin Parker:

On 19 February, we met with Inland Fisheries Ireland as stakeholders and we had this discussion about counters. Fortunately, I have been to Alaska and Canada where they have been using them for years. They have even gone to the extent of hooking them up to Wi-Fi and putting them into a local restaurant so people can watch fish. That is a side issue. Since 19 February I have been calling Wales. I spoke to the person there who asked us to please go over towards the end of May. Yesterday, we had a meeting with Inland Fisheries and the local authority. They are currently waiting. I spoke to Dr. Eamonn Kelly outside of the meeting and explained we had been waiting nearly three months just to do a field trip. Once we have done the field trip, Inland Fisheries will hopefully see the benefit of the equipment. It can then be purchased and put on trial here on the River Moy and evaluated from then on.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The decisions can then be made based on that, and we will know those decisions are sound and solid and everybody will buy into them. Is that what I am hearing?

Mr. Martin Parker:

Yes, absolutely. I am sorry to contradict Dr. Fiona Kelly. It does not take days to read one day of data. It might take an hour or an hour and a half. It all depends on how many fish are running. Inland Fisheries, with its experience, should be able to tell when a good time is to go to look at the counter, take it out and take it back to the Inland Fisheries office, look at the video and count it. They put another piece of software in to continue counting at the time.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On software, we have also been contacted about the development of apps. I know one student from Foxford put forward a proposal.

Mr. Martin Parker:

Yes.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding of that is it would give the information in real time. Will Mr. Parker explain that to me?

Mr. Martin Parker:

Yes, of course. I thank the Deputy for asking that question. I note with interest that one of the Inland Fisheries representatives mentioned sea anglers and an app. In the meeting yesterday we again brought this up and said it was long overdue. They said they have been looking at it since Covid. We still have not seen anything. Fortunately, there is a gentleman studying for his master's degree in software development. I sat him down as has one of my colleagues here. He has got it ready to go, off the shelf. It is a total mirror image of the paper logbook, which we have to use in the rain, etc. It is also fully compliant with GDPR.

I also say, with a smile on my face, in relation to the Deputy who spoke earlier, that it is angler proof. You cannot cook the books with it. It is a real-time database, so at the end of the year Inland Fisheries would not have to sit down for goodness knows how long trying to extrapolate the data. It adds up what is caught on a daily basis. It has a Google authentication login. It has lots of features, including the IFI hotline, all the regulations, etc. He has estimated that it will be about €2,000 for a year on the River Moy as a trial. If you consider the cost efficiency savings with regard to resources, I think it speaks for itself. It goes on and on. The bottom line is that we agreed yesterday to take this young man to Inland Fisheries to make a presentation.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we have presented a lot of solutions. I thank the witnesses.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everybody for coming. I have a few more general questions. It relates to a river in Kerry called the Abha Bheag. It is one of the tributaries of the Feale. It came to my attention two weeks before the most recent election that there was a serious flooding incident in Listowel. What seems to have happened is there was a lot of rain upstream of the River Feale. The water came down quite heavily in a surge and caused a lot of flooding around the Listowel area, off the Bridge Road and further along. When I spoke to people in the area, they told me that the Abha Bheag river or the Awbeg in English, has been decimated. The people up there are blaming forestry, which some people also blame for the flooding. There is vertical drainage. When the rain gathers in the basin it comes down in an unnatural way. Somebody mentioned slow flows earlier. There is a rapid flow down. It is gouging the sides of the river away. You only have to stand at the bridge in Kilmorna to see the gouging it has done away from the river bank and at the metal bridge near the Westering Inn, not too far from Knocknagoshel.

This is a general question. Should rules and regulations be amended or improved with regard to forestry and vertical drainage? According to people upland, there is devastation of the fishery stocks from acidity from the Sitka spruce that has decimated trout and salmon in the Awbeg river. IFI might have more knowledge of it. I might also have a question for them later on a separate issue.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I will get to my technical colleagues. In the first instance, forestry has potential effects the same as agriculture, with regard to our water quality. I saw that first-hand in south Kerry when I was leading the KerryLIFE project many years ago with the NPWS. There is heavy run-off with gouging effects coming off the mountains. That is one of a number of factors that have a potential impact. I mentioned some of those in my opening address. We have a MOU with Coillte and we try to work proactively with all forestry owners to try to achieve a balance between the different sectors.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is he happy with the MOU or does he think it needs to be improved or amended?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I will be honest. I have not got the MOU, personally. That is to be frank with the Deputy. It is something we are looking to expand as part of my own vision for the organisation. Close collaboration with the other relevant State agencies that have a role in some of those sectors with potential impact is very much part of my approach. However, I cannot tell the Deputy where the MOU with Coillte is at, at the moment.

I will defer to colleagues on forestry.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am aware of the Abha Bheag river and the devastation. Twenty or 30 years ago, they used to say that you could step across the trout in the river when you were going to midnight mass. That is gone now. A person I know used to feed the salmon that spawned. He was feeding the dead salmon to his dogs because there were so many around the area. Now, there are none. It is a serious ecological and biodiversity incident. There is some explanation for it. Maybe I am being unfair but that is what they are saying in the area. Have the witnesses any suggestions about what could be done about it?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

They would have said the same thing where I grew up beside the Nore in Kilkenny, many years ago. I remember when it was chock-a-block with anglers and they were all coming home happy, if that is not an oxymoron. It is the case that this is a nationwide and international deterioration. I do not have specifics on the Abha Bheag.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. Kelly might look at it.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

We will check if we have anything that might be of interest that we could pass back to the Deputy.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Farther downstream, I know the River Feale has been closed to salmon fishing for a number of years. I think in three of the previous five years, it has been closed. Are there plans to open it again? Do the witnesses know about that?

Dr. Michael Millane:

I can comment from the scientific advice side rather than the management side. The Feale has been a catch-and-release designated river since about 2019. There was a commercial fishery on it prior to that, but the river has been either just under its conservation limit or, in the last few years, just above its conservation limit. We would have been advised of what we call a sustainable surplus of salmon to harvest, but it is at quite a tight level, and Inland Fisheries Ireland considers that it cannot be managed. It is only a couple hundred fish. There may be commercial fisheries interests that are interested in harvesting the salmon and also some anglers. In summary, it is just above its conservation limit. It has maintained that for the last few years. Looking through the counter data going back to the late 2000s, the stocks go through cycles. It seems to have stabilised, albeit just above its conservation limit, in the last few years. We will continue to assess it annually against its conservation limit. We cannot really say at this stage what will happen in the future.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there plans to reopen it? I think there was an interested group, the Cashen fishermen. Dr. Millane says it is just above the conservation limit. Is he saying "No" or "Yes"?

Dr. Michael Millane:

The scientific advice was that it did not have enough of a surplus of salmon for sustainable harvest. I think the regulations have it managed as a catch-and-release only angling fishery. That is its status for 2026.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Millane. I ask the witnesses to come back to the Deputy directly on the other matter.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being with us. I am conscious that it is Earth Day and we are receiving pretty grim reports in the committee. I am conscious of the Salmon Watch Ireland report. I got to read most of it. The life-cycle of the salmon crosses into estuarine, marine and freshwater ecosystems and is facing a perfect storm of different factors that are putting it under such pressure. I am conscious that the Nore, represented by Dr. Kelly and Mr. Murphy, which is a river I fished on growing up, has seen huge changes over the past 40 years.

There are elements which are largely out of our control, on the climate side, since we are locked into temperature rises in certain cases. I refer to the parts around phase 2 of the land use review, the commitment under the water action plan to review the Arterial Drainage Act, and the national barriers programme, which I was involved with when we launched the water action plan in Thomastown two years. I ask for a general comment from IFI and Mr. Murphy because it is focused on in both testimonies. This is a huge opportunity not just to restore these habitats for our salmon but also for flood mitigation and other co-benefits, including agriculture. Dr. Kelly might comment more generally on the pilot barriers programme and what potential there is for that over the next ten years.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

As I said in my opening remarks, we have been assigned responsibility within the water action plan to deliver the national barriers programme, which is being funded by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. We have an entire team working on it. We have spent over €5 million to date and there is a projection of expenditure of up to €100 million. It is a major and complicated capital programme that has multiple stages and often interacts with the planning process. It will take time. It is heavy engineering in some respects. Obviously, there are some lighter touches that work effectively. That is one of our key contributions to the water action plan. There are multiple agencies across that water plan that have roles and responsibilities. The Senator touched on some of them. From our perspective, that is our focus in delivering that programme. I recognise that we have an important role. There are many agencies involved. Specifically on the water quality issue, we need to interact with a number of specific agencies such as local authorities and the EPA. The water plan is a broad beast but we have our specific role in it and we are focused on delivering that with the support of the Department.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Mr. Murphy to comment too.

Mr. John Murphy:

On the macro-policy with regard to aquaculture, the nitrates derogation and various things like that, I am conscious that the matter is before the European courts now. Regarding water pollution, we need intact riparian zones. Coming up yesterday on the train gave me a great view of intensive agricultural land with absolutely no riparian zones. Fences were right on top of the river. There is no overland seepage of nutrients into that area. They will not be stopped. Various land drainages are directly connected to watercourses without even essential leaky dams or any possibility that silt could be trapped in those. That needs to be mandatory. I know there are various environmental schemes but they are not done at scale. The riparian zone management really needs to be done at scale. It need not involve planting trees or whatever. It can just be rewilded, but it has to be more than what is happening now, a couple of feet in from the river.

Going back to what Deputy Daly said, there will be increasing rainfall, so there will be erosion of land. Not having a proper riparian zone adds to that. The leaky dams should be mandatory on all this land drainage. It may raise the water table for some time after a flood event but that water will drain away and will stop the impact downstream from these intensive rainfall events. That is it and there is a simple solution. It is not a difficult thing to do and it should be incorporated on every river in this country.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree. The national biodiversity action plan is on a statutory footing now so there is a requirement for all public bodies. The review of the Arterial Drainage Act is critical too. I thank the witnesses.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all our witnesses for joining us. I wish Dr. Kelly well in his new role. I am conscious he has not been long in it. I hope he will be able to give me an indication on my questions.

First, how many employees are there at IFI now?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

Our ECF, I think, is at 329. Then we have an additional batch of seasonal workers who are taken on for the summer season.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Based on that, IFI is probably looking at around 600,000 hours per annum, based on full-time and part-time working, 1,700 hours a year. Based on 180 hours of inspections - I am conscious Dr. Kelly is just in the door - does he think that is a sufficient ratio or does he think more needs to be done?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

It is important to say that the 329 consist of maybe just over 200 or 250 who work in operations and would have a responsibility in and around enforcement and protection duties. In terms of the detail of the breakdown, I gave some figures in my opening remarks as to what was delivered last year. I know that they are a 24-7 operation. It is very important for us to rely not only on the visible enforcement approaches but also on the intelligence-led approaches. Do I think it is effective? We would like to say that we think it is effective; however, what I am keen to do as I move forward is to try to demonstrate and give some confidence in a transparent manner that it is being delivered effectively. The focus I will have is on trying to deliver not just what the outputs are but also what the outcomes of that are. That is a space I intend to try to develop.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of application of resources, I note that there are a number of vacancies on the board right now. When will they be filled, and what does Dr. Kelly envisage would be the skills or the experience required now in terms of a new direction for IFI?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

In relation to board members, first, I have not attended a board meeting yet. We have not had one, so I am yet to have that pleasure. I appreciate that there are a number of vacancies there with the Public Appointments Service, as I understand it. That is the manner in which they get recruited, and it is a matter for the service as to how quickly that progresses.

In terms of the other question the Deputy asked me about the operational side and the types of skills, we have just released a new strategy for the next five years. That is very much based around not just the enforcement but also conservation, restoration and advocacy. From my perspective, and as to where I would like to see development, when we talk about the state of salmon stocks today, there is a real need to develop skills as to what is required to restore. A large part of the primary focus over the past few years and in the history of the organisation has been in terms of fisheries management, but in terms of restoration, it is that point of intersection then, as I mentioned to Deputy Daly earlier, in terms of some of the different sectors working with other sectors such as farmers, foresters and doing that, as one of the previous contributors said, at scale. They are the type of skills we need to get in - people who can deliver that type of skill and can engage positively with stakeholders and bring people with us because collectively is, to my mind, the only way we will overcome some of these challenges.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse the pun, but from a blue ocean strategy perspective, and to look at what we have referenced here in terms of advocacy, enforcement, the counters and the paper logbooks, which we have talked about, is there anything not included in that list? If things do not change, they say the same. Is there anything not included in that list that needs to be or should be included at this point that has not been considered up to now, from Dr. Kelly's perspective?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

From my perspective, just being honest, there is a certain number of tools in the box. What we need to get to is a matter of scale in terms of implementation, as one of the previous contributors said. We can do things in certain rivers, and that is very positive, but if we are going to try to change the populations at a national level, that will probably require sectoral activity, mainstreaming the requirements for salmon into other sectors and funding instruments. For me, the challenge will be to try to achieve that during my tenure. That is where I would be focused.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Murphy is substituting for Senator Noel O'Donovan.

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to ask questions similar to those Deputy Daly asked but in somewhat different circumstances. I am from the south Galway area, which is a limestone area. We have one river in the south of the county, the Dunkellin, which enters the south of Galway Bay. The entire catchment of the river basin is a limestone catchment. The river for generations would have been noted for having the largest average sea trout sizes in the country as well as very large salmon sizes, with very healthy runs of both seatrout and salmon historically. In the early nineties, the stocks of both sea trout and salmon declined sharply over about four years. There was no substantial reduction in water quality, there was no forestry present anywhere in the vicinity of the river throughout the entire basin, and there has never been any salmon aquaculture in place in the south of Galway Bay. Now, I understand that salmon declines can potentially be explained by what happens outside of Irish waters, way out at sea, and migratory paths. That is not the case for the sea trout. The sea trout have a much smaller path, largely within our own controlled waters, yet they declined even more sharply despite the absence of all the potential problems I mentioned. Around 20 years ago the Dunkellin river was closed to angling, yet no growth or progress has been made in the increases of salmon or seatrout stocks in that river catchment. Certainly, there were problems historically with illegal fishing. That has been looked at and has been largely clamped down on, in fairness, by IFI and its representatives, yet we have seen no progress in terms of fish stocks, fish numbers and the returning populations of migratory fish, both seatrout and salmon. I am curious to know, in cases of rivers like this, are separate plans, river by river, done by IFI to identify the problems within individual river systems? Are plans put in place to rectify problems within individual river systems? Are progress reports done annually, catchment by catchment, to monitor the progress, or lack thereof, being made in individual river catchments that have been closed to angling? Someone from IFI might be able to take that for me.

Dr. Milton Matthews:

I am happy to answer the question in this way. The broad range of issues and pressures in relation to habitat, water quality, etc., nationally has already been clarified. The Senator is right to call out that one of the key issues, in fact, is marine survival, which is largely outside of easy control, but it is not to be forgotten in terms of the key driver of a lot of the decline, particularly in salmon. I take his point about sea trout in inshore areas. I will answer the question by giving him some examples. IFI is engaged with other agencies in a number of interagency programmes. There is one on the Glyde, for instance, in the Dundalk area, as part of the PEACEPLUS programme that looks at nature-based solutions in relation to catchment assessment, nature-based solutions, developing of river corridors, wildlife corridors and fish enhancement measures. There is a major new programme being launched next week, For the Love of Our Waters, FLOW, in a number of the cross-Border areas.

IFI is a partner in that particular project for Lough Melvin and the River Drowes, which is one of the key salmon rivers in the country. The catchment-specific funded, integrated programmes can be delivered through those sorts of inter-agency programme measures where the different expertise comes together in terms of agricultural advice, fisheries development, possibly the forestry service and cross-Border agencies as well. The year-to-year annual assessment of stocks falls into our fisheries surveys and our catchment-wide surveys that operate on rotation as we go around the 144 rivers as best we can to spread resources from fishery to fishery, year to year.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question is does the IFI manage on a river-by-river basis? It sounds like IFI does so many issues on a river-by-river basis but does not manage the rivers on a river-by-river basis.

Dr. Milton Matthews:

The salmon advice is provided on a river-by-river basis in terms of whether fisheries are above or below their conservation limit for the purpose of regulations.

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My concern is that if IFI or any State body continues to do the same thing year after year and no progress is being made year after year and no improvement can be documented year after year, then we have a problem. When something is not working year after year something has to change. I am concerned that the same failing practices are continuing on many rivers year after year. If we do not measure success or lack thereof and make changes to strategy river by river accordingly then, I am afraid, we are slowly going nowhere. That is what I am trying to figure out. Rivers that have been closed consistently for 20 years, and have been handled the same for 20 years with the same lack of progress, would worry me in that we are getting nowhere quickly in a case of a lot of catchments.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What does Dr. Kelly think about that? From a management perspective that is a pretty-----

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

To be honest with the Senator, from my perspective I cannot comment on specific rivers. I do not have that level of detail available unless Dr. Millane has any science behind the River Dunkellin specifically. I am familiar with the Dunkellin area. I can get in touch with the relevant regional offices because there is work within IFI done centrally by our research division in relation to all the stock assessments. There is also a lot of work done that is channelled through our regional directors and the staff who are based in the regions. On specific rivers, of which we have many, I am quite happy to come back to Senator Murphy with any information we might have. I take his basic points that we cannot keep doing the same thing and expect different outcomes. I get that as a point of principle. However, I do not have in front of me, on a river-by-river basis, what work, if any, may have been done in the past and what the awareness and direction of travel might be. I absolutely assure the Senator that I can make contact with our regional offices, which will be more familiar with local circumstances, and come back to him with whatever information is available.

Mr. Martin Parker:

I support what the Senator has just raised. From everything we read and look at in relation to inland fisheries and TEGOS reports, if a river is closed the Senator is correct that it hardly ever opens. We are aware of only one river in County Mayo, the Owenmore, which has opened after a closure. The point is well made. If nothing changes, that river stays closed.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in, for their engagement and all their contributions. When Ardnacrusha was built, it was a nation-building project back when the Free State was established. However, today it is a 86 MW plant when we have a system of nearly 5 GW of wind. The ESB's own data shows that wild salmon above the hydroelectric plant on the Shannon are no longer naturally occurring. Correct me if I am wrong. Given the assessment of the environmental cost or legacy of hydroelectric power, is it still justified by the level of energy it produces compared to the comparative analysis of the economy that salmon fishing could bring to Ireland?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

The first thing to say is that we work quite closely with the ESB. That has been a long-standing practice. Even this week colleagues were meeting with directors. The second point, as I mentioned, is we do have a national barriers mitigation programme. There is liaison with the ESB on that. The third point is that there are larger issues in relation to sustainable energy and the sustainability of multiple sectors. We have to fit in there as well and try to achieve a balance between those. That is an ongoing challenge. We do not have any specific views in relation to Ardnacrusha that I could articulate today, to be quite honest. I assure the Deputy that we work closely in collaboration with our colleagues on the fisheries side in ESB. Whether there would be additional information though just to the specifics-----

Dr. Fiona Kelly:

There is a plan to mitigate passage at Ardnacrusha. The Department of housing is leading on that. There has been a significant amount of consultation. A steering group was set up and money is set aside by the Department of housing. It will be leading on that with the ESB. That is due to start this year as far as I am informed.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just to clarify, when Dr. Kelly said "due to start" did she mean alternative routes for the salmon stock?

Dr. Fiona Kelly:

No. The alternative route has already been chosen as far as I am aware. I could be wrong. I will need to check with the Department of housing but the planning should be starting on that shortly.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perfect. I appreciate that. Has there been a cost-benefit analysis comparing the ecological impact on the River Shannon against the same energy output we could generate from a modern, small wind farm or the boom in tourism we could have for the Irish salmon industry that once was?

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not clear what Deputy Heneghan is asking.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am wondering whether a comparative analysis has been done for estimations of how much money we could generate in tourism through restoring our original salmon stock compared to how much we are making from the small generation from this hydroelectric dam.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do you mean to close Ardnacrusha?

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I am just asking whether it has been examined.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

Not to my knowledge, is the simple answer. The slightly longer answer, to speak to Deputy Heneghan's broader point, is a national socioeconomic assessment is being developed within IFI at the moment looking specifically at salmon management and the broader benefits that might be attained. It is not that we are immune to the wider benefits but on the specifics of particular intersections with the likes of Ardnacrusha, I am not familiar with any study.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason I am asking is because across Europe we are seeing the large-scale restoration projects, including dam removal and improved fish passage, to bring salmon biodiversity back. We all know the famous case involving the adding of iron to the waters off the west coast of Canada to increase the plankton bloom. I know correlation is not causation but there was an increase from 50 million to 220 million in the salmon stock that year. We are seeing geoengineering being examined. That example is unproven and it was heavily criticised because people cannot just add metal to the ocean. Are there any specific options being examined in the next year? I welcome that there is a steering group. Will there be or have there been any success stories of this passage and increased numbers of fish in Ireland we can use, with the steering group, as an example?

Dr. Milton Matthews:

I am happy to come in on that briefly in relation to ESB facilities. I will chat about my area in the north west with which I am most familiar.

As the CEO has elaborated, there is ongoing liaison with the ESB in relation to hydro-impacted systems. An example of that is the Clady and Crolly rivers in Gaoth Dobhair. The ESB, through its new river sustainability programme, has committed to installation of a vertical slot fishway there instead of the current facility. That will be very welcome. It is the sort of example we would like to see with the inter-agency collaboration regarding this challenge that we have in terms of what the game-changers are going to be. That certainly would be a substantial step forward. In consultation with our colleagues in the North, through the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and with the research section in the IFI, there are proposals for improvement of the downstream smolt passage at the two stations at Ballyshannon and Belleek. Those are two concrete examples, if members will pardon the pun, of measures coming into place in relation to the ESB.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When I listen to the debate on salmon, I think of the time the Government decided to abolish drift netting of salmon. We were told, and unfortunately believed, it was going to transform the whole salmon sector onshore. We were told at the time that if this was agreed, a certain Icelandic person would make such compensation and figures that we had never heard of before. That never happened. There were no pennies, never mind euro. We will let bygones be bygones. We were also told by those involved in angling that every salmon landed by an angle would be worth ten times a salmon landed by a drift net. That never transpired. Having said all that, who is now advising the Minister in relation to drift and draft? When we think of drift netting, there is a history there and a culture that is part of our heritage. Consideration should be given to having a pilot scheme to allow those on islands - and God knows there are not too many on the islands now - to fish.

All politics are local. I think of Loughros Point in Ardara with which those involved in the north west will be familiar. The season there is from 1 to 21 July. In other parts of the country where there are similar types of tags, the season is much longer and goes on from 12 May to the end of July. Each year, we look for an extension till the end of the July, even if that means applying force majeure because fishermen cannot go out because of weather factors. Who has discretion if the weather is bad during that period to allow an extension? Is a recommendation made by Inland Fisheries Ireland to the Minister or how does that happen? Maybe I should not have to ask these questions but it is so long since I had responsibility for Inland Fisheries Ireland that I do not recall how that happens.

After the total allowable catch, TAC, was reduced, the licence fee remained the same. Is that written in stone? If the Minister or Inland Fisheries Ireland wants to make a recommendation, is a legislative change required, as was suggested to me in a letter from the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley? If it requires a legislative change, it would require approval from the Department of public expenditure and reform. I thought that Department's role was to look after the millions, not the pennies. Could somebody indicate what happens there? If the quota is changed, the licence fee should be reduced. To do otherwise is wrong.

The other question I want to ask is about the Eany fishery in south Donegal. Can the witnesses confirm whether it is a catch-and-release fishery? I know there is no quota there. Sometimes the best barometers are those who are fishing the rivers. I understand there may not be a counter there and there are counters elsewhere. We have so many young people - up to 50 - and we should be trying to entice them to go fishing. I am told that the Minister has signed the order. In his time, has Dr. Kelly experience cases where the Minister amended the order? Is that possible? I presume it was the IFI that recommended to the Minister that the Eany should continue to be closed for a further period.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

The Deputy's questions are specific so I will draw on the expertise of my colleagues rather than contribute myself.

Dr. Milton Matthews:

I will talk about the Eske and Eany rivers. Both have fish counters. One of the few positive stories in the past couple of years is that the runs have increased in both of those rivers, and they are very close together. They go into Donegal Bay. As far as I know from the regulations, they are both catch-and-release rivers because the Eske is meeting 80% of its conservation limit. With the Eany, although it is meeting well under its conservation limit, juvenile stock surveys looking at fry in the catchment are showing reasonably healthy levels. That is where both of those rivers are at.

I can speak briefly about mixed-stock drift net fishing, which the Deputy mentioned a moment ago. The mixed-stock drift net fishery ceased in 2006. It was well before my time but there were concerns at the time that it was intercepting salmon not only from Irish rivers, but from rivers in France and Britain as well. Genetic studies showed that. There was concern at the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization and in other jurisdictions that Ireland was exploiting stocks from elsewhere. Around 2007, just after the mixed-stock drift net fishery ceased, Ireland moved to river-specific conservation. That really reflects that each river has unique stock, and mixed-stock fisheries have higher risks, especially drift net mixed-stock fisheries at sea which exploit multiple stocks. That is the main reason the drift net fishery ceased at that time.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Gallagher had a question on the cost of the licence.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

In relation to the other two questions, the first of which was on the licence fee. For the fishery in question, Loughros, which is the Owenea-Owentocker river, there is a special local licence. The special licence costs €545, while the district, ordinary licence which would apply across the whole district costs €398. That is really a matter for the Department rather than IFI. The best I can say to that is that the licence fee is set by a licence duty order. I do not know what the mechanism is behind that in the Department. It is not a matter for IFI but a departmental matter.

In relation to the Deputy's other question about the season, the control of fishing for salmon order was signed yesterday, and the associated draft net regulation was signed today. That has the draft net season for those fisheries which are open from 1 June to 31 July. It will actually be a longer season this year.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was it last year?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

Last year, for Loughros, it was from 1 to 21 July. I cannot recall if there was an extension last year, but it was initially from 1 to 21 July for a number of years.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is it going to be this year?

Dr. Milton Matthews:

It will be from 1 June to 31 July for all the draft net fisheries that are open.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Finally-----

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very briefly, Deputy.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to get my head around the fees of €545 and €398. Is the Minister at liberty to reduce the €545 fee? I doubt the order was signed yesterday because the Minister is out of the country, unless he does not physically sign them or there is somebody delegated to sign the orders.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

To clarify that, the licence duty order was not signed recently. It is done from time to time. The control of fishing for salmon order and the draft net by-law were signed in the past two days. The duties order comes up from time to time, but the rate is set by the Department, not IFI.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions. The Moy Action Group is saying there is a data gap that has to be filled with respect to salmon in the Moy. Does IFI accept that? It sounds like it accepts that there is data gap. Is that correct?

Dr. Fiona Kelly:

Dr. Millane is dealing with the data all the time.

Dr. Michael Millane:

The TEGOS, which is the technical expert group on salmon that I chair and am representing today, has in the last couple of years raised with Inland Fisheries Ireland fishery managers the logbook returns being about 50%. It is a concern in the medium term for us, so from the TEGOS point of view, it would be great to see increased logbook reporting. It is the person who takes out the logbook who is ultimately responsible for that.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

IFI, therefore, relies on TEGOS's assessment and it says there is a gap that could be improved. In layman's terms, that is what it is saying.

Dr. Michael Millane:

Yes, there is definitely a gap that could be improved. Seven or eight years ago, return rates were about 70%, so the lower rate of logbook return really increases the uncertainty of the data we use. That may ultimately lead us to be even more precautionary with our advice.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. That is good. Filling that data gap is a priority. Mr. Parker mentioned sonar as a technology. Is it in use anywhere else in Ireland or is this the first time for it to be piloted or used?

Dr. Fiona Kelly:

The Loughs Agency has a unit.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where is that?

Dr. Fiona Kelly:

The Loughs Agency is a cross-Border agency.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Which water body does it cover?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

Lough Foyle.

Mr. Martin Parker:

If I can help, a Chathaoirligh, there is one there but the agency is not using it. We have made contact with it and the unit is not in use. However, sonar is being used in Scotland, Wales and numerous other countries.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was it ever in use? Do we know? Why did it go in there if it was not to be used?

Mr. Martin Parker:

We do not know why. I am sorry.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All right. Mr. Murphy mentioned aquaculture and salmon farming. Does that industry acknowledge it is a contributor here?

Mr. John Murphy:

Absolutely not.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there no evidence?

Mr. John Murphy:

No. It must be taken into account that long-term data indicate, from Dr. Paddy Gargan recently, that there is an average of 19% fewer adult salmon getting back to rivers that are affected by aquaculture. In some years that can be up to 50%. Just to note for the committee, the two most recent licences granted were for Shot Head in Bantry Bay and the other, which was granted by the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, was for Deenish Island. Both were quashed in the High Court recently. As far as we know, 29 licences are up for renewal. These have been operating under section 19A(4) of the fisheries Act. Once there was an application in, the operator could continue. This has been going on for the last 20 years but is coming to a head now because all these farms have to be relicensed, renewed and reviewed. There are 29 licences currently and if it is anything to go by, they will not pass muster in the High Court.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Going back to the original question, there is not an acknowledgement within the industry of the contribution or the effect.

Mr. John Murphy:

No.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am looking at the statistics at the end of Dr. Millane's report. Seventy-four river stocks are advised to be closed to all fishing. Does that actually happen? Are they closed? Who implements that? Is it IFI? Does that happen in reality?

Dr. Michael Millane:

I suppose it happens. I do not have a management role as a scientific adviser, but it does happen in reality. A lot of those rivers might be small in size but they are of considerable biodiversity value as well. Looking at the EU habitats directive and the reporting we have to do, we are obligated to survey those and look at their stocks. In essence they are closed to all fishing activity.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A few members have indicated they want to come back in so I am going to give three minutes back to those interested.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be very brief because I have to go to the Seanad for 2.30 p.m. I again thank everyone for their contributions, especially the Moy Action Group, which is composed of volunteers and represents a large body of people who attended the public meeting. I want to put on public record, for the purposes of this meeting, that IFI does want the introduction of sonar counters on the River Moy - it sounds like the Queen's Gap would be the most suitable location for them - and the introduction of electronic logbooks. That was clarified in my opening contribution but I would like to get that confirmed as well as a letter, with the support of the Cathaoirleach, back to the committee by the end of summertime after the review concludes to update on the progress made on both of those introductions and any obstacles that exist. As the witnesses have heard, they have political support and political will for these interventions and introductions and we want to see IFI realise them, but we would like to have this under review, with your support, a Chathaoirligh.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

Just to be honest with the Senator, the meeting about sonar happened yesterday, notwithstanding that there were other meetings back in February with the three parties coming together, namely, the council, stakeholders and our regional director. When the papers and assessement come back from those who were at the coalface of that meeting, I will certainly look at that. We have internal mechanisms we have to go through for sanctioning but that will have to be considered. That is not necessarily a push-back; it is simply saying I have not received a report on this yet. Until I receive a report from the regionals that were at that meeting, it is not before me. I am expecting it, though, and am fully aware of the positivity of that meeting as well, so it will be considered in that context.

On the electronic logbooks, that will have to be viewed in the context of the review that is ongoing. I am not necessarily going to do a solo run on anything until I see the review, which is ongoing, of the overall salmon management framework. I have to view things at a national level and-----

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It sounds like a good introduction for any waterway or riverway to have clear data in app form that is not going to be duplicated. If there are 50% logbook returns at the moment, that is a very poor return and obviously things could be improved. Does Mr. Leonard want to come in on a final piece?

Mr. Simon Leonard:

Yes. On the meeting yesterday, IFI is ready to go. It is just looking for approval from above. It has said it should have an answer on Tuesday.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that next Tuesday?

Mr. Simon Leonard:

Yes. We are ready to go. We are funding it ourselves. IFI is looking for approval from the board or from above and it told our local councillors yesterday that it is ready to go when it has that.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That sounds positive all round.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, but if I could ask a final question, that sounds like there is support for it at multiple levels. Could we have an update for the committee, with your support, Chair?

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking on the public record for a reply updating us on progress on the introduction of the sonar counter on the River Moy, at the Queen's Gap or wherever the most scientifically suitable location is, and also the introduction of electronic logbooks. It will be an update on progress and if there is not progress, what are the barriers and what is restricting that progress? They both seem like natural innovations that will have a positive effect on informing all our conversations.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All right, so six months from now, IFI might give a written response setting out the progress.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to leave. Thank you very much.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is pretty clear there is support for it here. Deputy Conway-Walsh is next.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No decisions will be made until that information comes back and what we have discussed today is done, is that right?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I am sorry but I do not understand. Decisions concerning-----

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Decisions about the activity on the river. There will be no closing-down of anything or reductions.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

That is separate. Just to be very clear, the management framework has been set for the year already. That is in train. What we are looking at in our review is in the context of 2027 onwards.

I refer to what we are looking at in terms of the conversation around sonar. As I said, we have executive meetings every Tuesday. That is where budgetary matters get discussed, which is what the gentleman was referring to. The decisions around fisheries have been made for this year already and they are in train. They are being implemented.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are being made based on the old data or data where the-----

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

This is forward-looking-----

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where the integrity of the data is in question, they have been made on that. Is that the case?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

Yes, they were collected last year. That is the normal salmon management framework. You deal with the logbook returns. It goes through the science-----

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In all fairness, it is not right to make decisions on it. Would Dr. Kelly accept it is not right to make decisions based on the data when the data is not comprehensive?

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think there is an acknowledgement that there is a data gap.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Decisions have been made on it. It is wholly unacceptable. I need to ask about the other decision that was made to close the Owenduff and Owenmore rivers for the traditional draft fishermen there. I want to ask specifically in terms of the separate categorisation of the spring salmon and the summer salmon in regard to determining the numbers there. Any salmon going up before 12 May is not counted. Can Dr. Kelly comment on that?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I will certainly ask technical colleagues. Dr. Kelly will comment on it.

Dr. Seán Kelly:

Was the question on why were salmon not included prior to this?

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a small number of traditional draft fishermen there going back generations. The decision was made to close that on April. Why are the spring salmon being separated from the summer salmon? Why are the fish that go up before 12 May not counted?

Dr. Seán Kelly:

All of the fish that go up are counted on both the Owenmore and Owenduff rivers. That is 365 days a year. There are fish counters on both of them.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are those fish counters available? It was said in the beginning that they would be available to the draft fishermen. Is there transparency around what is coming?

Dr. Seán Kelly:

The data is publicly available through the IFI fish counter reports. They can download it from the website.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it true to say that, in making the decision, the fish going up before 12 May are not counted?

Dr. Seán Kelly:

They are counted. In the case specifically of the Owenduff, it is a river that has a two-sea-winter early running component of the stock. In that case, it is assessed as both as two-sea-winter fishery and a one-sea-winter fishery. The fish that were counted up to the counter prior to the summertime were the data that would have been used to make the assessment on whether the two-sea-winter fishery could open or close.

Dr. Michael Millane:

To clarify what Dr. Kelly said, most of our summary data for fish counters is publicly available and in the TEGOS appendix reports. A couple of rivers - possibly the Owenduff, Carrowmore and Owenmore - are redacted because it is private fishery owners' information. Nevertheless we use the information. I think the Deputy is talking about the commercial fishery in the Owenmore Estuary-----

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not available if it is private.

Dr. Michael Millane:

Not publicly, but TEGOS has sight of it. I presume the owners of the data can be asked for it. The Deputy was asking about the commercial fishery in the Owenmore. In the Owenmore Estuary, it is a mixed stock commercial fishery so it exploits stocks from the Owenmore and the Carrowmore. We have to consider those in particular. In the Carrowmore river, there is a significant spring salmon run up until around 31 May. That is not included in the assessments of what potential surplus may be available or advised for exploitation-----

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why? That is what I am asking.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, we are out of time.

Dr. Michael Millane:

They generally run before that commercial fishery is operated. That is the reason for that.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our witnesses. It has been a very useful session. I will make two points, one of which is on the SWIRL report, and the other on the gaps in the current Government approach. It has been my experience from my previous role that there are significant caps in terms of co-ordination and interaction between Departments. I would have advocated in this cycle of Government that the NPWS moves into the Department of climate and that all of nature is in a single Department. That is not going to fix the problem, but there needs to be greater co-ordination and interaction between various Departments.

I will ask Mr. Murphy about the recommendation on international co-operation and membership of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, NASCO. We are looking at the issues that are happening out at sea. We do not have a voice. We are not at the table and cannot fully participate in these entities. It is the same with OSPAR. The State needs not only to sign up to agreements but also to fully participate in them. It is a critical piece missing from the jigsaw. We are very good at signing up to international agreements but putting the resources in to participate in them and have a voice at the table is hugely important. NASCO is the one that deals with the commercial exploitation of salmon in feeding grounds in Greenland. These are hugely important issues that are affecting salmon stocks. Maybe the IFI and Mr. Murphy might have a view on that. We need to put the resources in to ensure we can fully participate in international agreements that we are signatories of.

Mr. John Murphy:

We do. The Government does. NGOs participate in NASCO. The biggest issue we are looking at from the point of view of NASCO is that some of the countries that have unilateral quotas for fish in the salmon's migratory route and feeding grounds are signed up to the convention, namely Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Pressure needs to be put on these people. By-catch this year is about to be reported. It is the first time there is mandatory reporting of salmon by-catch in these fisheries. Overall, those fisheries are fishing beyond sustainable limits on those pelagic fish. We know from the Norwegian test fisheries that are occurring in the Norwegian Sea that they are catching salmon in those test fisheries. This suggests that there may be a large enough by-catch in those fisheries, especially since around 2008 when this really took off. It was because the distribution of mackerel changed, and these countries started to fish for them in huge quantities. This is part of the problem here in Ireland. We hear about the mackerel quota in Ireland and that we are going responsibly through the EU, but other countries are taking it upon themselves to have unilateral quotas. Through NASCO and the EU, we should be putting pressure on these people to fish these stocks sustainably and report accurately on any by-catch that is occurring. Maybe a small change in the methodologies or in the areas where they fish might help our salmon stocks.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. Millane wishes to come in there.

Dr. Michael Millane:

I will follow up on Mr. Murphy's point and then on what Senator Noonan was saying. It is very welcome that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, has now mandated that all the jurisdictions, including Ireland, must report the by-catch of salmon in the marine fisheries. Dr. Kelly and I have been involved in various ICES groups that have looked at the evidence. There is a big absence of evidence with regard to by-catch. The general thinking in those groups is that there is not significant pressure on wild Atlantic salmon stocks. Other issues in the ocean are more substantial, as you can imagine. It is definitely something that we need more evidence of.

We are talking about Ireland today but our scientists in Ireland are intimately involved in NASCO and many different working groups of it. We also send a scientist to west Greenland every year to sample the salmon that are caught in the commercial fisheries there. Some of those are of European origin.

We are in regular contact with numerous scientists from countries with salmon on all sorts of issues, from Pacific pink salmon and stock assessment to all of the threats and pressures we have talked about today.

Dr. Fiona Kelly:

On the question of interaction with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, we have been working closely with it in relation to a submission on the nature restoration plan. A large portion of that is for the Atlantic salmon. We have proposed major catchment-wide restoration projects in seven catchments across the country, as well as other projects. As you can imagine, it is for other Annex II species. That sort of work will benefit other biodiversity and habitats as well.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I take the Senator's point. I was involved a considerable bit with OSPAR 20 years ago. The engagement and support IFI brings to the Department in the attendance at the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, NASCO, is substantial by comparison with what the engagement was 20 years ago in other forums on an international basis. Even in the next few weeks, there will be a considerable contingent at NASCO again, supported by the Department. I assure the Senator on that one.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we are at the end. I propose we publish all the opening statements on the committee's webpage. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for taking part in the meeting today on this very important matter of salmon conservation. We will now suspend the meeting to allow witnesses to leave. I ask members to stay for two minutes.