Eel Fishing in Lough Erne

Adjournment – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 6:00 pm on 1 June 2010.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of David McClarty David McClarty UUP 6:00, 1 June 2010

I remind Members that the proposer of the Adjournment topic will have 15 minutes in which to speak. All other Members will have approximately eight minutes.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

The difficulties of eel fishing in Lough Erne, County Fermanagh, have been around for some time. Eel fishing may be a fairly unknown profession to many members of the public, but it is important to the small dedicated team that continues to fish for eels in Lough Erne. In many ways, eel fishing is a family tradition that has been passed down from generation to generation in that community. However, the numbers participating in eel fishing in Lough Erne have dwindled over the past number of years. At present, only 17 fishermen have licences for eel fishing on Lough Erne and only 12 are actively partaking.

Eel fishing has been the subject of monitoring and reports for a number of years. The Erne eel enhancement programme was set up as far back as 2001, and a sizeable report was published at that time. In 2005, a report on Lough Erne fishing management referred specifically to eels, and most of what was said in that report was broadly accepted by eel fishermen. However, an EC regulation now requires eel management plans to be provided for all inland loughs that have eel catchments. Lough Erne is transnational, because the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland passes through it; therefore a cross-border management plan must be devised by the relevant Departments in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.

I understand that most fishermen in Europe are allowed to continue to fish for eels but that the management plans will reduce the number of eels they can catch to ensure that more silver eels escape to the sea in order to try to boost eel numbers in Europe. However, the eel fishery in Lough Erne will be closed altogether, and I understand that eel fishing will be also stopped in the Republic of Ireland. That situation is different to the one faced by Lough Neagh fishermen. Although Lough Neagh has a different management structure and plan for developing eel fishing, I do not think that the size of catch permitted there has been hindered. However, the management plan, which the Department has submitted to the UK Government and which has possibly been agreed in Europe at this stage, will signal the end of the road for eel fishermen on Lough Erne, County Fermanagh. I am sure that the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure will tell us more about that in his winding-up speech.

One particular issue of concern is the estimated pristine eel escapement of approximately 147 tons, as was suggested in a recent report on the north-western river basin. Last year, for the first time, a mechanism called trap and truck was used to catch the silver eels and bring them out to sea before they got to the turbines at Ballyshannon. However, only approximately 7·5 tons were caught at that stage. Therefore, the figures provided seem to be skewed and out of context. I am told that there is no potential for Lough Erne to produce anything close to the figures that have been suggested in the reports.

The second issue of significant concern is how, in the past, the hydroelectric power station at Ballyshannon has damaged almost all the eels that go through it on their way out to sea. Silver eels go out to sea when they are between 10 and 20 years old. However, because there is no easy option by which silver eels can get out to sea, they become caught at the power station in Ballyshannon. It is suggested that most, if not all, eels have been damaged to the extent that they are of no use when they do get out to sea. The trap and truck mechanism is being used for the first time, but it should have been going on for years. Unfortunately, it has not been, and we are where we are. There is a concern that the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) in the Republic needs to do more than just trap and truck to get the silver eels out to sea.

There is concern around the elvers returning from the sea to Lough Erne. I want to know how the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) monitors the process of the elvers getting from the sea to Lough Erne and the silver eels getting from Lough Erne to the sea through the trap and truck process. I want to know whether DCAL is confident that all eels caught in those processes get to their respective destinations. Fishermen are hugely concerned that DCAL is not properly monitoring the processes and that, therefore, there may be other outlets whereby eels can be sold to another buyer.

I want to know whether DCAL has had discussions about the fishermen of Lough Erne importing elver eels from other parts of Europe to try to increase and build up that stock. If not, would DCAL be open to such discussions, and would the Minister open negotiations to establish how many elvers a year it would take to build up the stock to the required numbers? Fishermen from Lough Erne have established a contact in mainland Europe who is willing to support that scheme, which is similar, but on a smaller scale, to the process that is used in Lough Neagh. The fishermen are keen to develop that.

Those are the main concerns. Eel fishing is a livelihood, and the fishermen depend significantly on the income that it generates. It has been in those families for generations, and the fishermen will not give it up easily. I am keen for the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to have further discussions to try to establish whether there is a mechanism for reopening eel fishing in Lough Erne and, if so, how that could be managed.

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP 6:15, 1 June 2010

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You caught me a bit by surprise; I did not realise that it was my turn to speak. However, I support the Adjournment debate topic. I listened with interest to what my colleague from Fermanagh/South Tyrone Tom Elliott said, and I totally agree with his sentiments.

It is ironic that this debate is taking place today, because I understand that the closure of the Lough Erne eel fishery is a result of an EU directive that will come into effect today; I am not 100% sure of that, but I think that it was due to take effect from 1 June. Those of us who are concerned by the closure have to ask why the Lough Erne fishery has been singled out for such treatment. That area of water provides a full-time income for a small number of eel fishermen, yet they are the only people to face such drastic action.

There are three eel fishery basins in Northern Ireland; the north-west, the Neagh/Bann and the north-east. Those are all subject to EU eel management plans. It has been concluded that eel fishing in the Neagh/Bann basin is sustainable and will continue at current levels, subject to close regulation and monitoring. At least, that is what the paper that I was reading today said. That paper also states that the catchment in the north-west basin, which includes the cross-border Lough Erne fishery, is not sustainable. Therefore, it has been decided that it should close as a commercial eel fishery. In the north-east river basin, there are no eel fisheries, so the only fishery to suffer is the one at Lough Erne.

The Lough Erne fishery is a cross-border operation, yet is it not strange that the rule applies only here in Northern Ireland and does not apply to the southern side of the border? There are 17 eel fishing licences for Lough Erne. As a result of the directive, those licences will all be lost, yet I understand that not one will be sacrificed in the Republic of Ireland.

Additionally, as far as I am aware, there will be no compensation package for those eel fishermen even though it is their livelihood. For most of them, eel fishing is a family trade as well as a tradition, and it will be erased by one ill-conceived sweep of a pen.

The eels in Lough Erne traverse the border on a regular basis. Eels do not recognise borders, so it seems strange that only the northern side of the border is subject to the directive. I am not saying that eels should or should not acknowledge borders, but I am just making a point. Under the new directive, those eels will be able to be caught in Southern Ireland only, which will give those fishermen the monopoly on eel fishing in Lough Erne. That will be to the financial and practical detriment of Northern Ireland eel fishermen and will destroy livelihoods.

It is interesting to note that representatives from DCAL and Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) met the Toome Eel Company and the Lough Neagh Fishermen’s Co-operative society, which owns and manages the Lough Neagh fishery, in developing the Neagh/Bann plan. That plan provided scientific evidence that the conservation target is being met due to prudent management of the fishery, and that was found to be satisfactory. No such management strategy was offered for the Lough Erne fishery, despite it operating on a far smaller scale. Although everyone agrees that there has been a reduction in eel stocks, completely wiping out eel fishing on the northern side of Lough Erne smacks of being draconian and strikes me as being blatantly unfair.

As I said, there are 17 licence holders for the northern section of Lough Erne, but it is important to note that not all of them are operative. Not surprisingly, those fishermen feel that they are being abandoned and sacrificed on the altar of political expediency to benefit the Neagh/Bann plan and to allow the Republic of Ireland to have free rein over eel fishing on Lough Erne.

Northern Ireland is now the only region in the United Kingdom where eel fishing is permitted. England, Wales and, as of last year, Scotland have banned eel fishing. That would suggest that Northern Ireland is in a somewhat privileged position that should be nurtured rather than wiped out. When I say that Northern Ireland is the only region in the United Kingdom where eel fishing is permitted, I do not include the ban in place at Toome.

However, try telling that to those who have had their eel fishing destroyed in Lough Erne. That, too, is being trimmed, and in relation to Lough Erne is heading towards the Republic of Ireland. It seems strange that that measure has been taken as a result of an EU directive, yet what applies to Lough Erne does not apply across the border. I believe that I have that right, and I look to the Minister for an explanation.

In comparison with Neagh/Bann, the tonnage of caught eels in Lough Erne is low when put beside the amount of eel that would be caught in Lough Erne under the system that operated there. Set beside the Bann/Toome system, it is very small. Of course, we are being told that the eel is an endangered species, and that that is why it has virtually, if not entirely, disappeared in other regions of the United Kingdom. If the eel is an endangered species, surely to goodness the lack of eel fishing in Scotland, Wales and England has replenished the stock sufficiently to allow a small fishery in somewhere such as County Fermanagh to continue to operate.

Can Erne’s turnover really be the linchpin that affects that species? Surely it is not beyond reason to assume that a small eel fishery on Lough Erne can be permitted to carry on. As has been said, eel fishing is a family tradition. A number of eel fishermen now know nothing else, and cannot turn their hand to anything else, yet they find that they are being deprived of what has been a family tradition for many years.

Why can a degree of sensible proportionality not be introduced to ensure the livelihood of the eel fishermen of Lough Erne, rather than this drastic and draconian action? If the issue is the preservation of the eel, which I recognise is important, surely this should have been done differently to ensure that the livelihoods of those fishing on the Erne could have continued. Surely such bans could have allowed eel stocks to be replenished, because they are all understood to spawn in one area, which is in the Sargasso Sea, which lies, I understand, in the middle of the north Atlantic.

Photo of David McClarty David McClarty UUP

Bring your remarks to a close.

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP

Yes. As an Assembly, we need to look to the Minister today to ensure that those fishermen are appropriately compensated. However, I am aware that that is not entirely the responsibility of DCAL, and suggest a full Executive approach. I will bring my remarks to a close. There are other things that I would like to say, but I think that my eight minutes are gone.

Photo of Tommy Gallagher Tommy Gallagher Social Democratic and Labour Party

It just crossed my mind as Lord Morrow was speaking that slipping back and forward across the border in the interests of survival is not confined to the eel population.

The issue of the eels in Lough Erne is a classic case of bureaucracy going mad. We have a decision arrived at by pen-pushers in Europe, relayed to pen-pushers in Westminster, and, unfortunately, relayed to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland, as I understand. None of them really bothered to go down and talk to the people on whom the decision is impacting, namely, the eel fishermen on Lough Erne.

The River Erne, for those of us who know it well, has for a long time had a wonderful asset of fisheries, both salmon and eel. There have been eel weirs, particularly on the lower River Erne, for hundreds of years. Indeed, there is still a footbridge to the eel weir at Belleek. That is a reflection not just of the activity, but of its importance to the local economy. For well over 100 years the place was famous for its eel exports to Europe. The rights of the current licence holders on the Erne were established in the 1960s by the Government in Northern Ireland. Over the decades since then, the number of licence holders has fallen. About 10 years ago, there were 27, but there are now 17. It is confidently expected that, before another 10 years has passed, the number of licence holders will have dropped below 10. Under the current arrangements, as Mr Elliott said, licences are surrendered when the holders cease activity or retire.

What do those figures tell us? They tell us that the numbers of eels being caught are dropping and will continue to drop. That should be reassuring to the people in Brussels who have concerns about the conservation of the eel population. Despite the downward trend, however, the EU and DCAL — and, it is suspected, to some degree or another, the ESB — have contributed to the closure of the eel fisheries on the Erne. We are told that it is about conservation, and that is fair enough. Everyone who lives in Fermanagh, in Northern Ireland and much wider afield understands the importance of the conservation of our fish stocks. However, the local fishermen have indicated their willingness to take part in conservation measures, act responsibly and play their part in implementing conservation programmes on behalf of any agency that is interested in working with them.

The fishermen have a number of questions about the close down that have not been satisfactorily answered by any of the parties that appear to be involved in it. They have not answered the question as to why eel fishing in Lough Erne is to be closed down. Lough Neagh has been mentioned as the only other waterway in Northern Ireland where commercial eel fishing takes place, but there is a completely different arrangement there. The conservation programmes that are in place around Lough Neagh are, at least, acknowledged and allowed by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and, possibly, even supported. However, it is worth noting that no such offer was made to those who earn their livelihoods on the River Erne. As I understand it, there has been no offer to compensate them for the loss of business; there has been only a diktat that, on the decided date, commercial eel fishing will end. The close down will result in a considerable financial loss to the area and a serious financial loss to those who are directly involved. The licence holders’ representatives who spoke to me gave me no indication that they have had any offer of compensation.

There are further questions about the closure, which was sudden, and was like the turning off of a tap. No one seems, in the interest of conservation, to have thought about a phased closure. I fail to understand why some agreement along those lines was not promoted by some of the interested parties on the government side. I understand that the decision goes back to a report that was commissioned by the ESB. Its interest in the river is legitimate, and that has also been mentioned. The ESB has an important interest in fishing on Lough Erne. There is a power station at Cliff and Cathaleen’s Falls, and Tom Elliott mentioned how, when the eels are going out to sea in the autumn, huge numbers are mangled when they are sucked into the turbines.

Given that the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) was an interested party, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure should have asked for an independent study to be carried out. That would have been fairer all round.

I want to put it on record that local fishermen seriously contest some of the findings. Even at this late stage, the least they deserve is that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure carry out a review of the decision, particularly given the way in which fishermen’s incomes and livelihoods have been affected. Some of the fishermen concerned have young families.

Photo of Arlene Foster Arlene Foster DUP 6:30, 1 June 2010

I congratulate my colleague on securing the Adjournment debate. It is important that the issue is brought to the Assembly. I am convinced, as are the Members who have spoken, that the eel fishermen in County Fermanagh have been the victims of yet another example of inept European Union regulation, the implementation of which could have been much better.

On 18 September 2007, the EU agreed a regulation to establish measures for the recovery of the stock of European eels. In December 2008, the UK submitted 15 eel management plans for approval by the Commission. Three of those plans concerned river basins located in whole or in part in Northern Ireland. Eel fishermen from my constituency consider that the consultation by DCAL officials was inadequate during the formulation of a recovery plan for their area. I acknowledge that the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and his predecessor facilitated meetings with officials and the fishermen concerned. Indeed, one such meeting took place in my constituency office. However, the fishermen feel that they were not sufficiently consulted about what was to happen to them. We are, after all, talking about their livelihood.

Reference was made to the fact that the fishermen have not yet seen the scientific data prepared and submitted by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) as part of the north-west plan. My party colleague Diane Dodds MEP, who has been working assiduously on the matter and liaising closely with the eel fishermen affected, requested that information from AFBI, which directed her to DCAL. Mrs Dodds made that request to DCAL as late as 15 April 2010 and awaits a reply.

The European Commission was expected to approve the UK eel management plan in late January 2010, but that approval was delayed because of a technicality. Officials from DCAL knew about the delay. I spoke to some of them at the time, and they were acutely aware of the discontent among the eel fishermen in County Fermanagh. The officials were also aware that the fishermen were expressing grave concerns about the process through political representatives such as me, Mrs Dodds and others. The officials from DCAL chose not to intervene in the north-west plan, and, despite the concerns, the European Commission approved the plans on 4 March 2010. Consequently, the fishermen were told that their fishery would not reopen in May 2010. The description of that as a devastating blow is not an overstatement. It was a bitter disappointment to those of us who thought that we could salvage their way of life.

I hope that the Minister will explain why his officials did not take the opportunity to seek a solution to the problems after the EC vote was delayed on 28 January 2010. Those problems had been well rehearsed with him at various meetings and through a range of written communications.

As Lord Morrow said, apart from the experience of Lough Neagh, the Lough Erne eel fishery is the only fishery, not only in the UK but in Europe, that has been closed to secure a recovery in its stock, we are told, for environmental reasons. The fishermen are devastated that their livelihood is being taken away from them through no fault of their own.

Those fishermen have many questions that deserve answers. They have been keen to be involved in the formulation of a recovery plan but feel that their overtures in that respect have not been listened to as openly as they would have liked. Even at this late stage, however, they are keen to seek a solution and resolution. The use of the European Fisheries Fund is one possible option to provide financial assistance to what is not only a traditional fishery but part of County Fermanagh’s social and economic heritage. I urge my colleague to consider that possibility in conjunction with DARD officials and to pursue those recovery options so that something good can come out of it.

After a meeting with the fishermen in January, the Minister said that his officials would seek to review the arrangement surrounding the conservation fishery that the Republic’s Electricity Supply Board operates. I will be interested to hear how successful DCAL has been in that respect, particularly given that, as Mr Gallagher said, there is a belief among fishermen that the ESB’s hydro schemes have had an impact on the fishery’s decline.

DCAL has advised us that the recovery plan may not be reviewed before 2012. I know from listening to fishermen who have experience of recovery plans for other fish stocks that they fear that 2012 really does not hold much promise. As far as I am concerned, that emphasises the fact that DCAL needs to be proactive in seeking a solution with the fishermen to determine whether there is something that we can do.

On a final note, I want to offer some glimmer of hope to constituents who may read the Hansard report of today’s debate. The European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries is making arrangements to take evidence from the eel fishermen from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland who have been affected by the ban. That is some acknowledgement that County Fermanagh’s eel fishermen have been unfairly disadvantaged by an unjust European regime. It is unjust compared with the recovery plans that have been agreed for eel fisheries elsewhere. I hope that that acknowledgement will be reflected by urgent action at local level. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in that respect.

Photo of Michelle Gildernew Michelle Gildernew Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. A small number of eel fishermen on Lough Erne continue to be affected by the phasing-out or closure of the Lough Erne eel fishery. Of the 17 licence holders, the youngest is around 50 years of age. When a phased-out approach was suggested a while ago, it was fairly acceptable to the fishermen on Lough Erne. They could see that conservation concerns had to be taken into consideration, and a phasing-out would allow them to plan for the future and deal with the transition period between having an active eel fishery and not having one. However, we have almost moved from boom to bust, although we accept that the boom in the eel fishery has not been that wonderful for a number of decades.

I will try to put the situation into context without repeating what other Members have said. The European eel stock has been in rapid decline for a number of decades, and it does not show signs of recovery. A number of causes have been suggested, including changes in ocean climate; habitat loss; predation; hydroelectric turbine mortality; overexploitation; pollution; and parasites. Several of those factors have had an impact on some of the other fishery stocks that our fishermen target.

I want to concentrate my comments on the eel mortality due to the hydroelectric turbines. The ESB hydroelectric power plant at Ballyshannon has probably had more of an impact on the Lough Erne fishery than has been suggested in the past. Other Members have called for an independent survey or more work to establish the precise eel mortality rate at the ESB power station at Ballyshannon, into which the Lough Erne river system feeds. It is my understanding that the level of mortality that ESB admits to is probably a gross underestimation. In the turbines, eels are killed — mangled, as Tommy Gallagher said, and that is a good way to describe it. We need to consider not just those that are killed but the eels that are damaged to the point at which they are no longer fit for the 4,500 mile journey to the Sargasso Sea. Bruising and internal injury may leave them unable to swim that distance to get back to their spawning grounds. It is a worry that those Kaplan-type turbines are in use not just in Ireland but in other parts of Europe, the United States and the world. That might create a lot of the problems that we have and provided the reasons why Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 was brought into being.

We are aware of the attempts by the Lough Neagh Fishermen’s Co-operative, led by Rev Oliver Kennedy and others, to maintain an active eel fishery. That co-operative has had to import elvers into the Lough Neagh system to keep the fishery going. In other parts of Europe — France, for example — large quantities of juvenile eels are taken out of the system and exported. At least in our systems, there is a natural recycling of those eels. They stay in a natural river basin, and they contribute to eel stocks for generations to come. Other member states of the European Union have been able to take out vast numbers of eels and export them to other parts of the world with no natural recruitment or ability for young eels to come back into the system.

More research must be done on the decline in eel stocks and conservation. We recognise the importance of the eel for biodiversity. It is a species in serious decline. We have to look more closely at the causes of that decline and what we can do to stop it. Given that the River Erne spans the border, I have spoken to Minister Eamon Ryan about this issue. Much more could be done by ESB, which plays a part and has a responsibility. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure will have to say that eel stocks are in decline and outline what is being done to protect them. However, we could do so much more to protect eel stocks by ensuring that ESB does all that it can to conserve them and is more honest about the impact that the hydroelectric plant has on them. I ask the Minister whether measures have been introduced to mitigate the impact of the many other factors that make for a decline in eel stocks. The recruitment issue is obviously of major concern to him; however, other factors have also had an impact on eel populations over the decades.

Other Members have spoken about fairness. The Lough Erne fishery was active, and a very small number of people became involved with a view to phasing it out. That has been removed from them, and we want to be fair to the fishermen who are still there and to do what we can.

It is interesting that there is all-party support on this issue in the Assembly. We all want to do what we can to help the fishermen in the Lough Erne catchment basin. We also recognise that the eel stock is being depleted and that we need to look to the future. I said in the Chamber earlier today that without fish there will be no fishermen. In this case, if there are no eels we will not have eel fishermen. However, that is not just because of the actions or over-exploitation in the Erne system, other things must be considered. It is important that they are all factored in, so that the Minister has all the available facts in order to make the decisions that he must make.

Photo of Gerry McHugh Gerry McHugh Independent 6:45, 1 June 2010

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Adjournment debate, which was secured by Tom Elliott. At this point, nearly everything has been said. I will make a few points that I have picked up on during the debate.

I have spoken to local fishermen, and, as can be seen by which Members are taking part, eel fishing is a parochial issue. However, it has wider connotations for the Minister, in that this sort of issue will continue to arise in all parts of the North and in Europe, because, as Tommy Gallagher said, the pen-pushers work away at such matters every day of the week, and when they get the bit between their teeth they will keep at it until they achieve their purpose, whether or not the matter in question has been fully looked into.

I have spoken on many regulations, and this one does not seem to have the full facts. There are missing links and missing figures regarding what happens to the eels from the time that they leave the Erne for the Sargasso Sea or on their way back. To be honest, very little, maybe nothing, is known about that. Some figures have been compiled, but those who are imposing the regulation have not done enough research and cannot put their hands on the full figures in the way that they have been able to on other issues, such as sea fishing. That is why we should ask that the ban be held until something is done to resolve all the anomalies yet to be investigated.

The Department of the Environment’s regulation is not something that we are asked to implement in full; we have discretion. It is for us, as an Assembly, to decide whether to implement the regulation in the way that it is written or to do things differently, as has happened in Lough Neagh and in the South. Sometimes we tread on the people least able to defend themselves; perhaps that is happening in this instance. We are talking about 17 fishermen: local, traditional workers who are unable to defend their position. Strong lobbying measures were taken by people in defence of their counterparts in Lough Neagh, and there seems to have been quite a difference.

As Tommy Gallagher said, the Ballyshannon dams create two points at which a lot of damage can be inflicted on elvers making their way out of Lough Erne. It is a common belief that little injury can happen to fish. However, a fish can be as seriously injured as any other living thing. It may be that the slightest injury will end their lives, so perhaps we should have that concern rather than entertain the notion that they can continue their migration. The ESB has never accepted that it has greatly interfered with nature by erecting a barrier — in the form of those dams — to eels or other fish, including salmon, making their way to their natural spawning areas. I have not been able to find any figures for the period before the dams were erected. There seem to be figures from the 60s onwards but not far enough in the reverse direction to give us some idea of what happened in those early years.

Fishing has carried on for generations, and there are local fishermen who tell me that there is any amount of eels in Lough Erne; its waters are teeming with them. Therefore, someone, somewhere, has got it wrong. Those to whom I have talked, not just in the Enniskillen area but right up to the border, have a fair idea of what is happening in those areas.

There is a bit of flexibility with respect to the regulation. The local fishery in Lough Erne is the only one that is being closed at the moment; everyone else seems to be able to continue working. I think that there has been pressure from the South to get this closure. Other measures were being taken that the South could not control, which is part of the reason why it applied such pressure to have the regulation implemented on our side of the border.

The fishermen work on a very small scale. Therefore, I would like to know exactly how many eels those 17 fishermen lift. Perhaps other Members have the figures, but I imagine that the number would not be great. Elvers are very small, thread-like creatures, and the adult fish are quite large. However, the fish being lifted are the same size as those lifted 20 years ago, and it is curious that big fish are being lifted if they are all supposed to have disappeared. If the regulation continues, what will happen to the adult fish in the next 20 years? Will they simply die naturally? If so, that will have an impact on the other stock in the lake.

Full investigation is required, and I ask the Minister to carry out a full and proper investigation. He should look for the full information and demand that those on all sides who produced figures in support of the regulation should stand by them by producing proper and full figures. That has not been done. Time will tell, but, unfortunately, time is not on the side of the families involved. I say to the Minister that this is an opportunity for the Assembly to do things slightly differently and not just rubber-stamp the regulation, as we normally do with much of what is handed to us from Brussels. We do not always look into those matters.

Nature has been bypassed. As Tommy Gallagher said, very little is known about the damage that happens to fish in both directions. However, we know that turbines cause an enormous amount of damage. I have been told that as many as 50% of those fish could be damaged. It is just as important to try to do things right on behalf of a small number of people as it is for a large number of people, but that is for the Minister to decide.

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP

The debate is about eel fishing in Lough Erne, and men have been fishing for eels in Lough Erne for centuries. Therefore, it is very sad that, due to the rapid decline in the European eel stock, this historical way of life for fishermen in Lough Erne has come to an end.

I will outline the background to the closure of the traditional eel fishery in Lough Erne. The rapid decline in European eel stocks has been happening since around 1980, and it shows no signs of recovery. A number of causes have been suggested: changes in ocean climate, habitat loss, predation, hydroelectric turbine mortality, overexploitation, pollution and parasites. However, international scientific advice indicates that the European eel stock is now outside safe biological limits. The decline has happened despite measures taken by individual countries to conserve stocks and protect the eel’s natural habitat, including minimal landing sizes, licensing of eel fishermen, regulating the construction of weirs and dams and stocking with baby eels. The result is that the eel is now the most endangered common migratory fish in Europe.

Following lengthy consultation, on 18 September 2007, the European Commission adopted Council Regulation 1100/2007, which aims to establish measures to ensure the recovery of the European eel stock. It requires member states to develop eel management plans for each of their river basin districts to meet the specific conservation target for silver eel escapement.

Tommy Gallagher told us that that was something the pen-pushers in Europe had passed on to the pen-pushers in the United Kingdom, before it was passed down to the pen-pushers in Northern Ireland — all the responsibility lay with these pen-pushers. I suggest respectfully that, if we are to allocate and apportion responsibility, we should go back to the start: at the end of the day, this was a European diktat. For those who are pro-European, that may create some difficulty. For Euro-sceptics, it creates no difficulty, in so far as they are happy to apportion blame and responsibility to Europe. Nevertheless, that is where the issue emanates from; the regulation is a European diktat.

The regulation demands that it be demonstrated that at least 40% of the adult eels from each river basin are escaping to spawn, compared with the best estimate of the potential escapement in the absence of human activity. As part of the overall UK submission, Northern Ireland submitted three eel management plans. There are no eel fisheries in the north-east catchment, which covers Antrim and Down, and the plan for that area reflects the fact that the conservation target will be met in due course by natural means. It suggests that no other practicable measures can be taken.

The Neagh/Bann plan includes the Lough Neagh eel fishery, which is the largest wild eel fishery in Europe. The Neagh/Bann eel management plan provides a scientific rationale that the conservation target is being met through regulation and prudent management of the fishery, including the stocking of baby eels into Lough Neagh from elsewhere over the past 20 years.

Turning to Lough Erne, DCAL’s historic policy, informed by concerns for the status of the stock, was to phase out commercial eel fishing in Lough Erne. No new licences were issued, so, if a fisherman stopped fishing, the total number of licences decreased. In 2008, 17 licences were issued to fishermen who retained the entitlement to fish for eels in Lough Erne, although not all of those 17 were actively fishing.

The EU regulation requires member states to prepare an eel management plan jointly for river basins that extend from the territory of one member state to another. The north-west plan, which covers the cross-border Erne catchment, was, therefore, developed in conjunction with the authorities in the Irish Republic. Collaborative scientific work indicates that, even with no fishing effort and no turbine mortality, the eel regulation conservation target would still not be met. A suite of all possible measures is required in order that the UK and the Irish Republic can demonstrate to the EC that every effort is being made to at least try to reach the target.

In September 2008, officials from my Department met Erne eel fishermen in Enniskillen to discuss the eel regulation and the development of the north-west plan. Fishermen were asked to submit comments on the north-west plan. Six of the 17 licence holders attended the meeting. Three formal consultation responses were received in writing, and all respondents acknowledged the crisis in eel stocks and the need for action. The north-west plan recommends that traditional eel fishing in the Erne catchment should be replaced by a conservation fishery, to be run and funded by the Electricity Supply Board in the Irish Republic. The hydroelectric power station at Ballyshannon uses two turbines to generate electricity. These turbines have been shown to cause a high rate of mortality for eels trying to migrate to the sea from Lough Erne.

The conservation fishery, which was established on a pilot basis in 2009, traps live silver eels that are attempting to escape to the sea to spawn. The eels are then transported in tanks by road to the seaward side of the hydroelectric station and released to continue their migration. Under the terms of the north-west plan, ESB must also undertake research into best practice on the safe passage of eels through hydroelectric power stations and other barriers and implement solutions to achieve that.

DCAL encouraged Lough Erne eel fishermen who were interested in tendering for the conservation fishery and provided assistance where possible. A series of letters was issued and open meetings held in Enniskillen to achieve that. As a result of that engagement, a number of DCAL eel fishing permit holders formed a group to tender for the conservation fishery. Unfortunately, that group’s tender was not successful in 2009.

It was expected that the eel management plans would be approved or rejected by the EC at a meeting on 30 June 2009. In the event, only the plans submitted by the Irish Republic, including the trans-boundary north-west plan, were considered and approved. The requirements specified in an eel management plan must be implemented immediately after the plan is approved by the EC.

The Irish Republic opted to ban all eel fishing in its jurisdiction in recognition of the state’s inability to meet the 40% escapement target, even with a complete ban on all eel fishing throughout the country. My predecessor, however, decided that eel fishing on Lough Erne should continue until the north-west plan was approved by the EC as part of the United Kingdom’s submission. I continued to adopt that approach.

The EC approved the United Kingdom’s plans, including those submitted by Northern Ireland, on 4 March 2010. The commercial eel fishing season in Lough Erne could not, therefore, reopen in May. As a result of my intervention, however, the Lough Erne eel fishermen were able to fish throughout the 2009 season in the traditional way. That extension to enable them to fish in 2009 was in spite of suggestions from some quarters that we should stop it immediately and not proceed with allowing them to continue in 2009. We allowed them to continue in 2009 by intervention, which was of benefit to the fishermen.

Efforts have continued to assist fishermen whose livelihoods have been affected by the closure of the Erne fishery.

Photo of David McClarty David McClarty UUP 7:00, 1 June 2010

Will the Minister bring his remarks to a close?

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP

My officials have participated in an initial review of the conservation fishery. The value of the knowledge and experience of the former Lough Erne fishermen has been stressed. My officials have been exploring the possibility of accessing the European Fisheries Fund administered by DARD. Unfortunately, it has not yet been possible to establish any grounds for eligibility, but that matter is ongoing. There is no precedent at the moment for the payment of compensation, but we are looking at the potential for doing that through the European Fisheries Fund. I will finish there, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Adjourned at 7.03 pm.