Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 192: To ask the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his views on a ban on eel fishing; if he has considered the impact of such a regulation on the eel fishermen through the regulatory impact analysis procedure; and the reason for closing down a traditional economic activity when a partial reduction of fishing effort would support the stock and reduce the economic impact on fishermen. [10301/09]

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 193: To ask the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he is in a position to reply to the concern expressed as to the adequacy of the scientific information upon which the recent proposal for a complete ban on eel fishing was introduced in view of the fact that it has been suggested that the European Commission does not favour a complete ban. [10377/09]

Seán Power (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 192 and 193 together.

Following scientific research conducted by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), indicating that the European eel stocks are in a critical state, the EU introduced Council Regulation 1100/2007, the objective of which is to achieve recovery of the stocks to previous high levels. The Regulation requires the Irish authorities to prepare a national Eel Management Plan for implementation from 1 July 2009 or from the earliest possible time before that date.

The Regulation does not require transposition into Irish law and the Minister already has powers under the Fisheries Acts to conserve and protect inland fisheries stocks. In the circumstances, a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was not required. Given that the Eel Regulation did not constitute a significant regulation under the RIA Guidelines a screening RIA was not appropriate either. The Department did, however, carry out a public consultation on the draft eel management plan in 2008. Some 16 submissions were received largely from eel fishermen representatives and, while acknowledging the decline in stocks, these sought to continue fishing.

The impact assessment published in November 2005, when the Council Regulation was first introduced by the EU Commission, recognised the conservation measures that might be employed including reduction in fishing, increases in restocking, improvements in water quality, modification to dams and turbines and assisted migration as measures that could form part of eel management plans, all of which have different social and economic consequences. It also identified that "the key element to retain is that a failure to act will result in a disappearance of all eel fishing and aquaculture sectors if the stock decline continues".

The EU target is clearly defined in the Regulation where it states that the objective of each Member State's Eel Management Plan shall be to reduce anthropogenic mortalities so as to permit with high probability the escapement to sea of at least 40% of the silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of escapement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock. In other words, the Regulation requires that 4kg of eels escape to sea for every 10kg that would have escaped if people didn't kill any or stop any migrating, and the number of elvers coming into the water was as high as it ever was.

Ireland's level of escapement is currently estimated at only 24%. Given the critical status of the eel stock, as demonstrated in the assessment contained in the draft National Eel Management Plan, a number of management measures have been identified as necessary to reach the target set in the EC Regulation, including closure of the commercial and recreational fishery from 2009. It is also necessary to mitigate the impact of hydropower on escapement, to ensure upstream migration of juvenile eel at barriers and to improve water quality.

The decision to cease the eel fishery was taken, based on the best scientific advice available (the nature of which I have elaborated on in replies to recent Parliamentary Questions), as a conservation measure to support a recovery of the stock in the shortest time possible. I am advised that if all measures proposed are adopted and if other EU Member States take a similar conservative approach, the recovery period could be as long as 90 years (i.e. an average of 4 eel generations). A partial closure of the fishery or a more relaxed approach to the other management measures would have extended this recovery period to a very significant extent.

Over the coming months, Ireland's draft eel management plan, along with those of other Member States, has to be evaluated by the European Commission as to their adequacy in delivering the objectives of the Eel Regulation. Neither I nor the Department has received any indications as to the Commission's attitude to the plan to date.

Under the Regulation, all aspects of the plan must be reviewed in 2012. This review will consider, inter alia, whether the eel fishery and market could be reopened in any river basin district in light of the data gathered in the interim and the performance of the stocks. When the last 20 years of poor recruitment is taken into account, I am advised that it is likely that the adult eel stock in Irish waters will continue to decline for at least the next decade.

I am aware that the closure of the fishery will have an impact on licensed eel fishermen who have been actively fishing and I have requested that the Central Fisheries Board and BIM explore diversification options with eel fishermen representatives. The Trap and Transport operations to be undertaken by the ESB, as mitigation of the impact of hydropower schemes as part of the draft plan, may also offer opportunities for a limited number of eel fishermen.