6 July 2000

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to contribute to the fisheries inquiry. I would like to focus my contribution on the area of Catchment/Regional Management of freshwater ecosystems, and their potential in terms of economic development and best policy for productive and sustainable wild fisheries.

Rivers in N. Ireland have under gone considerable changes especially in the last 10-50 years. With the policy of maximising agricultural production, most rivers were drained (a process that involved deepening, channelizing and removing substrates) to reduce the risk of flooding and to bring more land into production. By the very nature of the drainage, huge areas of formally productive habitat within rivers (eg. Boulders and cobbles, which area essential trout/salmon habitat) were removed. Since then we have learned that much of this habitat loss could have been avoided if schemes had been more environmentally sensitive.

With increased agricultural production, greater fertilizer inputs and faster drainage (due to the above) it became inevitable that much of the nutrients intended for improving crop growth would miss their target and drain into rivers, thus increasing their nutrient content and increased production of algae and bacteria which rob essential oxygen and over all reduce in stream habitat diversity on which a balanced fish community depend.

Management of Northern Irish Freshwaters was under the remit of DANI, FCB and Foyle Fisheries Commission. Other agencies that impact on rivers and lakes are the Rivers Agencies and DoENI (who monitor water quality and have a responsibility for designating special nature conservation status to specific sites).

Despite the responsibilities of all these agencies the decline in the quality of N. Irelands inland fisheries is still apparent, with little effective fisheries management occurring on the ground. Due to the poor resources and lack of trained personnel, active fisheries management by professional staff is reactive to the needs of other departments (i.e. Rivers Agency) and as a result tends to be subservient to their needs. Because of this void much of the recent attempts at fisheries management tends to be adhoc eg. through Salmonid Enhancement Programme S.E.P. Within these programmes 'fisheries management' attempts have been targeted through angling clubs with little or now real input from fisheries experts. The misconception is that because someone is an angler they understand that mechanisms of how a river works and thus how to manage fish, this is not true, and this attitude has lead to 'management' that may actual damage fisheries.

For example:

• The wide use of hatcheries in Northern Ireland to 'enhance wild fisheries' is potentially a serious problem, while it is being phased out throughout much of the western world we continue to increase their use. This policy is contrary to the Precautionary Approach.
• Laws on drainage and adhoc gravel (which is essential for juvenile fish production) extraction mean that many of our most productive stretches of rivers are still under threat due to unsympathetic and in many cases unnecessary removal of substrate. Legally the balance of power still lies with the riparian landowner and thus action taken 'currently within the law' may have in many cases terminal effects for not only the fish community, but other riverine life.

N.Ireland and the adjoining border counties of the R. O. Ireland are divided into natural areas by their relief, these areas are called catchments, and it is at this level that management of freshwaters is most logical (See Figure 1 for an example) Ie fish, management, marketing of angling and policing can be best carried out in terms of the descrete bio-geographical area. At present cross border catchments are suffering from a lack of co-hesion in their management structures. The Foyle is an obvious exception to this.

• Local administration would be preferable to build up relationships with local communities, fishing clubs and professional scientists and managers.
• A local board is more likely to make the correct management options with the needs of the catchment in mind.
• Marketing and maximising profitability from fisheries through sound management can be best achieved at a catchment level. For example, resources and expertise on particular fish species i.e. Eels in Loch Neagh and Loch Erne catchments would involve specific skills at those sites, while in coastal catchments shore line fishery development may be a greater economic and biological significance. This means that limited human resources can be more effectively deployed in order to maximise beneficial effects.

In the Irish Republic Regional Boards have been operating in this way for many years, I believe in N. Ireland and in cross border catchments we can use this template but greatly improve it by integrating freshwater policy, ie Rivers Agency, FCB and DANI into these boards in the model of the Environment Agency in England and Wales.

This fisheries review gives us an opportunity to make a huge difference in the ecological well being of our freshwater catchments and economic and cultural enrichment of the communities that live in them. The huge economic potential of Northern Irelands fisheries is yet to be realized, but this cannot be attained without hard descisions and a long term vision.

It is difficult to express the full implications of these ideas in a short passage, but I trust it may provide some information for debate.

TOP

19 June 2000

I am writing to you today, as a Fisheries Conservation Officer employed by the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland since 1985, to ask leave of this committee, that I might be permitted to place a grievance of long standing before you and in person. I was informed last year by my trade union that immediately after Assembly recess my case would be brought before you, but to date I have had no confirmation. As a result my health has suffered gravely, and I ask the committee that the matter be resolved.

During the long period of my employment with the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland, I have tried my utmost to protect the fish stocks in the river for which I am responsible, notably the River Maine in County Antrim. To do that task properly, entails fair and even-handed interpretation of fisheries legislation and that, I can assure this committee, is what I have attempted to do during my employment with the Board and when my employer permitted me. I had numerous causes for concern and particularly in respect of the non-enforcement of fisheries legislation and failure on the part of the owners to comply, particularly at Otterburn Trout Farm on the River Maine, where the owner is a former Executive Committee Member of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland.

Despite numerous representations to my employer in respect of infringements of fisheries legislation at Otterburn, the situation remains unresolved, and to this day, the slaughter of migrating salmon and trout parr at this site continues. When in 1999 I wrote to the Fishery Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland asking for an audience to express my concerns, I was reprimanded for my actions and to this day, that stain has remained on my character, despite numerous attempts by myself and my trade union representatives to have it removed. As a result I have had to undergo treatment for depression and I have taken the liberty of enclosing to the committee, the medical opinion as to the cause of my illness. I am grateful for this opportunity to write to this committee as I am informed that it is conducting an investigation into inland fisheries and waterways. I would hope this committee would give me the opportunity to come before it and outline my grievances and give first hand experience of the situation which conservation officers, like myself, face on the ground when trying to protect rivers in Northern Ireland.

RJH/MW

15 December 1999

Mr W F Smith
Chief Executive
Fisheries Conservancy Board
1 Mahon Road
Portadown
Co. Armagh
BT62 3EE

Dear Mr Smith

Having exhausted all avenues for Mr Owens to state his case as laid down in his conditions of employment etc. without success, we now reluctantly will place the above grievance with the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and his Committee for adjudication after the annual recess.

Yours sincerely

CC W Owens

TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
DISTRICT OFFICE: The Pentagon 2 Ballymoney Road Ballymena BT43 5BY Telephone: 01266 656216 Facsimile: 01266 46334
General Secretary Bill Morris Deputy General Secretary Jack Adams

24^th January 1996

Mr W F Smith
Chief Executive
Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland
1 Mahon Road
Portadown
CRAIGAVON
BT62 3EE

Dear Mr Smith

Mr Owens was referred to the Clinical Psychology Service in November 1994 by his General Practitioner because of stress-related symptoms in regard to his work situation. He was first seen by me in February 1995 and therapy is ongoing. On examination he complained of poor sleep and appetite, tension, anxiety, irritability and tearfulness. Objectively his mood was depressed.

Psychological formulation of the aetiology and maintenance of his condition concluded that this man's dyequilibrium was as a consequence of alleged harassment by his superiors at work over several years which had had a progressively deteriorative effect on his mental state.

Mr Owens has been employed by the Fisheries Conservancy Board in a temporary capacity since 1984 becoming a permanent employee in 1989. It would appear that during the initial years of employment Mr Owens enjoyed the job very much and had no mental health problems. Indeed, in his history, per se, there is no evidence of mental health related difficulties. Since about 1987 he related that there was a 'gradual build up' of 'stress and worry' in regard to some of his superiors attitudes and behaviour towards him. In spite of this he suggests that he still 'loves the job' and the basic tasks and milieu of being 'out and about, meeting people and protecting nature' even though the nature of the work could be perceived as more stressful than the average job. Unfortunately Mr Owens' difficulties would appear to also have impacted significantly on his family life.

Mr Owens presents as a genuine and highly-principled man. He is a rather particular individual who carried out his duties for the Board in a fastidious manner or to the 'letter of the law' in accordance with the Fisheries Act. He is meticulous in record keeping. It would appear that the pressures placed on him from some superiors served to increase the latter practice in that he felt a propensity to record on a daily basis almost everything that occurred in the progress of his work. This created more endogenous stress. I have had sight of the detailed file which Mr Owens has kept for several years. In particular I noted that the local Anglers Association heralded 'the excellent job' he had done highlighting the 'harassment of an efficient bailiff' by senior management. On one occasion questions were asked at Westminster by an MP in regard to Mr Owens on behalf of these anglers.

Mr W F Smith

24^th January 1996

Therapeutic intervention has included cognitive therapy for depression and teaching anxiety management techniques. He has been diligent in working at the tasks of therapy. For a few months from about May to July 1995 Mr Owens mood improved substantially. He regressed somewhat for a further period until late August 1995 but further improved. Unfortunately he was physically ill on holiday I think with a viral illness in early October. This condition had a chronic course only relenting a few months later. Indicative of his dedication to his job Mr Owens continued to work throughout this period of chronic physical illness with the unfortunate corollary of a knock-on effect to his mental state.

At present while his mood continues to improve he has not in my opinion as yet gained a total personal psychological equilibrium. This may take some months and beyond especially if any further stressors arise.

Yours sincerely

Mental Health Directorate
Holywell Hospital, 60 Steeple Road, Antrim, BT41 2RJ
Tel: (01849) 465211 Ext 2395

24^th November 1995

Chief Executive
Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland
1 Mahon Road
Portadown
Craigavon
BT62 3EE

Dear Mr Smith

This man first attended me on 15^th September 1989 complaining of being very tense and nervous because of trouble at work. He was very afraid of losing his job. His blood pressure was elevated and he was in quite a state. He was allowed to ventilate and was prescribed anxiolytic tablets, viz Diazepam 2 mg. He attended again on 26^th September 1989 and on 15^th January 1990 with the same problem. In September he had right sacroiliac strain and was advised rest and July 1991 he twisted his right knee at work on rough ground, and was treated as a ligamentous injury. Mr Owens had further consultations about trouble at work on 22^nd October 1991 and 18^th November 1991. By this time he was very upset and tearful regarding his work situation as he was not able to cope with pressure from his superiors regarding reports he had made on a fish kill. I got the impression that this man was meticulous at his work and recorded absolutely everything and reported every person he saw transgressing, and that his superiors did not wish to take action on a lot of his reports. He was treated at that time for reactive depression and was off work until 10^th February 1992.

Sometimes when William was seen at the surgery he was very depressed, crying and shaking and on every occasion he related this to major problems which had to be settled at work. In January 1992 he told me that several MPs and his bosses were involved. He was further seen in March, April and June of 1992 with all consultations relating to stress at work. There was a break then until February 1993 when he was again under severe stress and thought he would have to go to court. He was off work at that time until 14^th April 1993. In July the patient again attended with anxiety and stress and was prescribed different anxiolytic tablets, viz Lorazepam and later on Inderal LA. He was further seen twice in August and in September when he had started to vomit and complained of abdominal pain. He was sent for an ultrasound scan of his abdomen which revealed a gall bladder stone; this was followed by a laparoscopic cholecystectomy in June 1994.

Mr Owens attended again in October 1994 with anxiety as a result of problems with his boss at work. He was still taking Inderal tablets. He was also seen in November when he was changed to antidepressant tablets called Lustral. He was referred to a Psychologist at that time and indeed still attends there. He was seen again in December, January, February, June and August, all to do with his anxiety and stress from his bosses at work.

In summary, this man has suffered from anxiety and stress due to pressure from his superiors at work, since 1989. There is long, accurate and detailed documentation and I am quite sure it is all genuine.

I hope this report is helpful.

TOP

I have been involved in the tourist industry for over 12 years now, bringing mostly French and German tourists to the West Tyrone area for shooting and fishing holidays. I work closely with the Northern Ireland tourist board and several International tour operators. I am well known to local Hotels, Restaurants, car hire firms and other tourist associated businesses as well as the Dept.of Agriculture for my activities, especially since being involved in the making of a Holiday programme with Shauna Lowery.

In 1996 I acquired a shooting lease from the Gordon Estate, namely Mr Archibald John Eyre Gordon Pugh who was left the interests of the Estate of Lieutenant Colonel THE Right Honourable Sir Alexander Robert Gisborne Gordon in his will dated 1962.

In 1997 we were offered the fishing rights of Lough Braden along with 4 smaller Loughs which the Estate also claimed to own. No records could be found by the Crown Solicitor, Mr Conway acting on behalf of the D.O.E. and the D.O.A. to state that the fishing rights did not still belong to the Estate.

Also prior to me acquiring a lease of the fishing I had spoken several times to Mr Ronnie Lecky of the Land Department of the D.O.E. who also stated that he could find no evidence to say that they had any vested interest in the fishing rights of Lough Braden and that a letter from Bernie McKeagh of the Crown Solicitors Office stating this would be forwarded to me. In May 1997 we applied for and received a 50% grant of £10,000 from WEST TYRONE RURAL 2000 from Leader II project, Partly sponsored by the D.O.A..

In June 1997 I informed Mr W Gowdy of the Water Service Western Division, of our intentions (see letter attached) as Lough Braden is a Public Reservoir.

We commenced work towards the end of June with the building of the fishing Lodge, which is built over the Lough and several piers to give disabled angler's better access. We applied for and received permits from the D.O.A. Fisheries Division (see attached) to stock Lough Braden with several Thousand fish.

The Lough was stocked on a regular basis up until May 1998 when Mr Harry Johnston, from whom we had ordered some fish, came to the fishery one day to inform us that he had had a telephone call from Mr David Wright of the Fisheries Division, D.O.A. that they would not be issuing any further permit to stock Lough Braden with fish. I immediately phoned Mr Wright to enquire why this was the case and he told me that the girls that issued the permits also worked for Mr David Houston (a personal friend of Mr Harry Johnston), from the same Department. I assumed this to mean that the refusal for the permit stemmed from an earlier meeting between Patrick Cross, Solicitor for the Gordon Estate and Archibald Pugh with the Departmental Solicitors and Mr David Houston in which Mr Houston took offence at some of the things Mr Pugh had to say, and as I was told by Ms, Patricia Montgomery "he was now taking this very personally."

In January 1999 I received instructions from the Crown Solicitors that the D.O.A. had renewed their lease with the D.O.E. of the fishing rights on Lough Braden and that I had 14 days to inform them that I would vacate the fishery or face Court proceedings. As I knew the existing lease did not expire until the 9^th February 1999, I telephoned Mr George Howland of the Crown Solicitors Office to enquire why the lease had been renewed before it had expired and was told to speak to a Mr Tomas of the D.O.E. He told me that they had agreements with other Angling Clubs in Northern Ireland and he would be prepared to enter into a similar agreement with us if the D.O.A. were agreeable. He told me to speak to a Mr Allister which I did, as I was keen to try and resolve the situation. He told me that as much as he would like to, it was out of his control as all powers were to be transferred to the New Assembly in March and if I would like to put my proposals in writing he would see that it would be passed on with the relevant files when the Assembly came into power. At this stage I thought it better to approach my local Assembly member and was put in touch with Mr Oliver Gibson.

Mr Gibson has written on several occasions to both the D.O.E. and D.O.A. and to the Crown Solicitors requesting a meeting and each time they have declined. At this stage I discovered that the locks on the gates on the northern side of Lough Braden had been changed. As I also have Shooting Rights and Fishing Rights on 4 other Loughs, which were not in dispute, I went to see the Area D.O.A. Manager, Mr Ronnie Thompson to see why this had happened.

I had met Mr Thompson on several occasions before, (the first time in June 1997 at Lough Braden to see the best place to build the Fishing Lodge) and had always got on well with him. The first thing he said to me was "you must have really upset someone. I see they are taking you to court and I'm under instructions to lock you out". This situation was satisfactorily resolved on 5th July after we met with the D.O.A. and the Crown Solicitors and they have finally acknowledged that the Northern Side is not the subject of a legal dispute.

However, after a confrontation on 28th January 2000 with a third party who claims to own shooting rights on the Northern side, the locks have been changed back to high security.

I had received a grant for a disabled Anglers boat which I had hoped to put on Lough Lack, but had to turn it down as the issue of access has not yet been resolved.

I would also like the opportunity to give oral evidence at any enquiry.

• IN 1993 THE D.O.A. PURCHASED 2000 ACRES OF SHOOTING RIGHTS IN THIS AREA FROM THE GORDON ESTATE AND IMMEDIATELY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH LORD BROOKBOROUGH AND MR HARRY JOHNSTON. NO ONE ELSE WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF A SIMILAR AGREEMENT.
• I HAD A VERBAL AGREEMENT REGARDING BOUNDRIES WITH LORD BROOKBOROUGH AND MR JOHNSTON UP UNTIL 1998, WHEN I QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE D.O.A., A MEETING WAS HELD AND THEIR AGREEMENT WAS TERMINATED.
• MR. HARRY JOHNSTON, A FISH FARMER FROM CASTLEDERG, IS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF MR DAVID HOUSTON (D.O.A. FISHERIES DIVISION), AND AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE FOYLE FISHERIES COMMISSION.
• 3 DAYS AFTER I HAD A CONFRONTATION WITH MR JOHNSTON AT THE FISHING LODGE, A NEW BARRIER WITH HIGH SECURITY LOCKS WAS ERECTED PREVENTING ME VEHICULAR ACCESS. THIS WAS 6 MONTHS AFTER I WAS DENIED PERMISSION TO ERECT A SIMILAR BARRIER FOR THE PROTECTION OF BOATS, "BECAUSE THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAD BEEN DRIVING DOWN TO THE LOUGH FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND THEY COULD NOT BE DENIED ACCESS."
• ON 28TH JANUARY 2000, I HAD ANOTHER CONFRONTATION WITH MR HARRY JOHNSTON, WHILE I WAS ACCOMPANYING 4 FRENCH TOURISTS AND UNFORTUNATELY INVOLVED CASTLEDERG POLICE WHO HAD BEEN CALLED OUT BY MR JOHNSTON TO CHECK IF THEIR GUN PERMITS WERE IN ORDER. 3 DAYS AFTER THIS INCIDENT THE LOCKS TO THE NORTHERN SIDE WERE ALSO CHANGED, PREVENTING ME VEHICULAR ACCESS TO OPERATE MY BUSINESS.
• AS WELL AS LOSING ONE FULL TIME AND TWO PARTIME JOBS AT THE FISHERY, I ESTIMATE TO HAVE LOST IN THE REGION OF £120,000 BETWEEN LOST REVENUE, INVESTMENT AND LEGAL FEES, NOT TO MENTION THE LOSS TO LOCAL PUBS, RESTAURANTS AND FISHING TACKLE SHOPS.
• LOUGH BRADEN HAS NOW REVERTED BACK TO A DERALICT FISHERY. IT WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO GET IT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS IN 1998.

Principal: Michael G Kennedy
Cert.Ed.,BA.,D.A.S.E.,B.Phil.,M.Sc

35 Melmount Road
Strabane
Co Tyrone
BT82 9EF
Telephone: (01504) 382562
Fax: (01504) 382969
e-mail: office@stcolmans.demon.uk
web at http://www/stcolmans.demon,co.uk

21 January 1999

Tullyhapple Angling Centre

Dear Sirs

I am writing to thank you for your excellent hospitality shown to our school during previous trips to your fishery.

The pupils thoroughly enjoyed themselves and even the very bad weather that we experienced on one particular day, failed to dampen their enthusiasm.

We found yourselves very courteous and helpful - a point not lost on the pupils themselves.

The area around your fishery is peaceful and idyllic, (i.e.) no buildings or traffic and it is safe for the pupils to fish, particularly in the bait area.

I was wondering if we could use your facilities in June for an inter-schools fishing competition, which will be sponsored by a local company.

This competition is a cross-community event, involving schools from Enniskillen, Derry and Strabane, initially.

We hope that you could accommodate us as your facilities would be ideal. We will finalise a date closer to the event.

Yours sincerely

Belmont House
Newbridge
Co Kildare

17 May 1998

Tullyhapple Angling Centre
Brandan Road
Lough Brandan
Drumquin
Omagh
Co Tyrone

Dear Sir,

Just to inform you that the Day Fishing, which you kindly donated to our Raffle for the Punchestown Country Fair, has been won by Mr Michael Deely, a member of the North Kildare Trout and Salmon Anglers' Association. I expect he will be in touch with you in the near future to organise his fishing. Thank you, once again, on behalf of the Irish Ladies Flyfishing Association. Sorry, I was one of the ones who did not have the pleasure of fishing Lough Bradan, I hear I missed a good outing!

Yours sincerely

Telephone 01662 252326 / 01504 382870

10 June 1997

Mr W Gowdy B Johnston
Water Service Western Division 9 Golan Road
Belt Road Omagh
Altnagelvin Co Tyrone
Londonderry
Co Londonderry
BT47 2LL

Dear Sir

As acting Chairman of the W.T.S.D.A. I am writing to inform you of our proposed intentions and seek your co-operation in developing Lough Bradan into a stocked Trout Fishery. Earlier this year we negotiated the part ownership of Lough Bradan and 4 other Loughs, from the Gordon Estate.

Our intention is to improve the angling facilities and with the co-operation of the Forestry Service, improving the access to the Lough and facilities for YOUNG and DISABLED ANGLERS. This would mean provision of piers (10). These would be no more than 8"-12" above high water level and measure approx 15' long and 4' wide and be all wooden construction. Also would be the provision of 5 no rowing boats. No out-board engines would be allowed except possibly one for our own use. Provision of life belts would also be required.

This project would provide a much needed leisure facility in this area and someone would be employed to oversee the angling at all times.

Hoping for your co-operation on this matter.

Yours sincerely

28 January 99

Subject Tullyapple Angling Centre

Dear Sir/Madam

The above Angling Centre has been known to Drumquin Development Association for this past two years and during that time has always supported the activities of our organisation in terms of community development and our efforts in developing a tourism strategy for the area.

We recognise the contribution Tullyapple has already made to the area by providing a splendid fishing and shooting amenity attracting visitors from all over Europe. The economic benefits to the area by these activities are most welcome.

We congratulate Tullyapple Angling Centre for their entrepreneurism thus far and fully support any future development they may seek to engage in.

Yours faithfully

GEORGE KERR
(Development Officer)

TOP

7 March 2000

Introduction to RSPB

i) The RSPB is Europe's largest wildlife conservation organisation. It campaigns for the conservation of wild birds and their habitats. Wetland habitats are amongst the most important in Northern Ireland for birds and other wildlife.

RSPB and Inland Waterways

ii) Water quality and quantity are two of the most important issues to the RSPB. RSPB, therefore, shares common objectives with fisheries interests.

Integrated Catchment Management Planning

iii) Fisheries cannot be managed in isolation to other activities within a wetland system. RSPB has consistently advocated an integrated approach to management of river catchments. The forthcoming EU Water Framework Directive will require Member States to produce and implement River Basin Management Plans for each catchment. Existing Water Quality Management Plans will not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Directive.

RECOMMENDATION 1

iv) The Directive will introduce a range of requirements including new monitoring measures. There may be considerable resource implications for the implementation of these measures.

RECOMMENDATION 2

RECOMMENDATION 3

All relevant Government departments must be sufficiently resourced to carry out the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.

v) A number of key functions relating to inland waterways will fall to the new cross-border implementation body Waterways Ireland. It is important to ensure that this body's remit does not conflict with either fisheries or nature conservation objectives.

RECOMMENDATION 4

Waterways Ireland should have a clear environmental remit to provide for consistency with nature conservation and fisheries objectives.

vi) Water quality is one of the most significant environmental issues in Northern Ireland. Poor water quality can adversely affect tourism, fisheries, nature conservation and even human health. There is currently widespread recognition of the problems being caused by the eutrophication of our waterways.

vii) The RSPB welcomed the recent "Proposals for a strategy to control nutrient enrichment" ("Eutrophication Strategy") produced by Environment and Heritage Service. In our response to the consultation document we recommended that two further options for dealing with water pollution should have been added. These were targeted extensification of agricultural land (eg at the head of catchments) and wetland restoration.

RECOMMENDATION 5

Targeted extensification and wetland restoration should be adopted as options for the "Eutrophication Strategy" for NI waters. They should also be key elements of any forthcoming River Basin Management Plans.

viii) A Northern Ireland Audit Office report in 1998 made a series of recommendations on dealing with pollution. Most of these have yet to be implemented by Government. The report also referred to the ongoing debate about an independent environment agency for Northern Ireland. Although the report did not make any specific recommendations about this, many environmental groups continue to support the need for such a body. RSPB believes that an independent body should have a wider remit than water quality issues.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General for NI in his report on the Control of River Pollution in NI should be implemented without delay.

Consideration should be given to the creation of an independent body to monitor Government performance on a wide range of environmental obligations.

ix) Water resource management practices can have serious, often negative impacts on fisheries and wildlife. Even in Northern Ireland, where rainfall is generally high, sensitive management of water resources is required. Water abstraction and drainage can both have adverse impacts on wildlife and fisheries. Drainage has caused loss of wetland habitat and associated declines in birds such as breeding waders. There is a need for these losses to be addressed through wetland management.

RECOMMENDATION 8

Funding for agri-environment schemes should be enhanced to encourage greater uptake of prescriptions for wetland enhancement and restoration.

x) We welcome the fact that this inquiry is addressing the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. The development and management of inland fisheries presents a range of opportunities for contributing to the delivery of Biodiversity Action Plan targets. Other aspects of fisheries management, such as introduction of fish or provision of fishing facilities, could have adverse impacts on biodiversity.

RECOMMENDATION 9

This inquiry should promote further progress towards the implementation of existing Biodiversity Action Plans which are relevant to fisheries management. It should also promote the allocation of additional resources to allow Government departments to implement the NI Biodiversity Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION 10

Fisheries management should not result in loss of biodiversity. For example, fish introductions should be subject to an assessment of environmental impacts and fishing facilities should avoid disturbance to nesting birds and other wildlife.

There is a need for planning policy to recognise the importance of waterways for both fisheries and wildlife. All Area Plans should contain policies which protect wetland habitats and riverbanks from inappropriate development. Zoning in plans should always take into account the adequacy of existing sewerage infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATION 11

Area Plans should contain policies which relate directly to the protection and enhancement of priority species and habitats from inappropriate development. Area Plans should also contain consistent policies on the protection of river banks and other features which are important for fisheries and nature conservation.

RECOMMENDATION 12

Area Plans should demonstrate a presumption against development in areas where there is no access to adequate sewage treatment infrastructure.

1.1 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is Europe's largest voluntary wildlife conservation organisation with a membership of over 1 million. Of these nearly 10,000 live in Northern Ireland. The RSPB manages one of the largest conservation estates in the UK - over 140 nature reserves, of which 8 are in Northern Ireland. These nature reserves include important wetland habitats such as wet grassland, reedbeds and lakeshore.

1.2 In encouraging the conservation of wild birds and their habitats, the RSPB takes an interest in a range of environmental and land-use issues and employs specialist staff to advise on such matters. The RSPB actively campaigns on conservation issues and provides advice to key decision-makers. The RSPB will, when necessary, promote changes to UK and EU legislation.

1.3 The RSPB is a UK body with offices throughout England, Scotland and Wales as well as in Northern Ireland. The RSPB is the UK's lead organisation within Bird Life International, which is a global network of wild bird conservation bodies. We work closely with our partners in the Republic of Ireland, Bird Watch Ireland. The RSPB has been established in Northern Ireland since 1966 and now has over 20 permanent staff members who deal with conservation issues, public affairs, education, reserve management and fundraising.

1.4 The main thrust of the team's work is aimed at conserving and enhancing sites and species of conservation importance. To this end we take a close interest in Government policy on a range of issues, including agriculture, fisheries, transport, planning and the environment etc. The RSPB welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity to present evidence to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee.

2.1 Wetlands are of importance to people for the functions that they serve, for the products they provide and as a part of our heritage of landscape and culture. Northern Ireland's lakes and rivers are extremely important for fisheries both in terms of their commercial and recreational value.

2.2 Northern Ireland's wetlands are also of environmental importance because of the species and habitats they support. In particular, a number of sites are of international importance for birds. Sites such as Lough Neagh/Beg and Upper Lough Erne have been designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the EU Birds Directive. Other sites (eg Magheraveely Marl Lakes) which are of international importance for their habitats or for non-bird species are candidate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the EU Habitats Directive. A number of SPA/SACs are also designated as Ramsar sites under the Convention on Wetlands of International importance.

2.3 A number of issues relating to the management of inland waterways are of interest to both nature conservation and fisheries interests. Water quality is a key issue for the RSPB, as it is for fisheries organisations. Similarly, the sensitive management of water resources is critical both for fisheries and for wildlife.

2.4 The RSPB, therefore, shares a number of common objectives with fisheries interests. This evidence addresses issues which we believe to be of common interest to both fisheries and environmental interests.

3.1 Fisheries cannot be effectively managed in isolation to other activities within a wetland system. Wetlands and waterways need to be managed for a wide range of uses including fisheries, recreation, flood alleviation, water abstraction and biodiversity. An integrated approach to management is required to reduce and address conflicts between different interests and uses of the wetlands.

3.2 Catchments, rather than individual waterways, provide the ideal geographical units for integrated management of the water environment. Catchment Management Planning allows a strategic approach to management, taking into account regional and national policies as well as local issues and situations.

3.3 Management of wetlands and waterways on a catchment basis is likely to become a requirement for EU Member States under the forthcoming Water Framework Directive. This Directive will consolidate a raft of existing legislation and will introduce new ecological monitoring requirements as well as the need to prepare and implement River Basin Management Plans. Another requirement of the Directive will be to introduce greater public participation in management planning.

3.4 The RSPB is currently involved in a major EU LIFE-funded project - "The Wise Use of Floodplains" which will help to guide Member States on the implementation of various aspects of the Directive. One of the sub-projects is based on the Erne system where the key objectives are to consider mechanisms for management of a cross-border catchment and to develop techniques for the involvement of local communities. We also understand that the Department of the Environment and Magherafelt District Council will soon be appointing a catchment management planning officer for Lough Neagh.

3.5 Despite these initiatives, the RSPB is concerned that major decisions relating to the management of key waterways may be made in the absence of any integrated catchment management strategy. For example, plans to increase the level of water abstraction from Lough Neagh are already well advanced. While the proposal will be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) there is no framework to allow a more strategic consideration of the proposal in the context of other management objectives for the system (see also 5.2 below). The catchment management planning process enables clear and inter-related objectives to be developed for all issues relevant to the wetland, including water quality, water resources, fisheries and nature conservation.

3.6 The RSPB believes that the NI Government should take steps to introduce a programme of integrated catchment management planning as soon as possible. Some water quality management plans have already been prepared (eg Foyle and Erne), but these deal only with water quality. This does not amount to integrated catchment management planning and the scope of such strategies needs to be widened to meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.

3.7 We welcome proposal 32 in the Draft Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy which states: "prepare and implement management plans for all catchments, in co-operation with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland where appropriate".

We recommend that this proposal should be implemented as soon as possible.

3.8 Prior to the adoption of Water Framework Directive all relevant Departments should, as a matter of urgency, assess the implications of the new Directive in detail. In particular, urgent consideration should be given to how existing arrangements will have to be altered to address the new measures, including the implications of the new monitoring requirements (see also 4.6 below).

Government departments should urgently carry out a detailed assessment of all the implications of implementing the forthcoming Water Framework Directive. This should include a review by DoE EHS of their current water quality monitoring programme.

3.9 The introduction of new mechanisms and monitoring arrangements may have substantial resource implications. The relevant Government Departments should be sufficiently resourced to meet their obligations under the forthcoming Directive. Key Departments affected will be Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development, Regional Development and Culture, Arts and Leisure.

3.10 Waterways Ireland

A number of key functions relating to the inland waterways will fall to the new cross-border implementation body Waterways Ireland. It is important to ensure that this body's activities are consistent with both fisheries and nature conservation objectives. As the two jurisdictions have different policy and statutory arrangements relating to the environment, we would recommend that this inquiry should emphasise the need for environmental functions to be integrated into Waterways Ireland's remit. This is particularly important in relation to designated sites of international nature conservation importance such as Upper Lough Erne and Lough Neagh/Beg. This will involve close liaison between Waterways Ireland and relevant Government Departments (in particular Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development and Culture, Arts and Leisure).

4.1 Water quality is one of the most significant environmental issues in Northern Ireland. Poor water quality can adversely affect tourism, fisheries, nature conservation and even human health. There is currently widespread recognition of the problems being caused by the eutrophication of our waterways. There is also recognition that while some eutrophication results from sewage, the majority is derived from diffuse agricultural sources.

4.2 Water quality issues can only be effectively addressed through an integrated approach to catchment management as described in section 3 above. Government must progress the preparation and implementation of catchment management plans as a matter or urgency.

4.3 The RSPB welcomed the recent "Proposals for a strategy to control nutrient enrichment" ("Eutrophication Strategy") produced by Environment and Heritage Service. The RSPB submitted a detailed response to this consultation document. We gave the view that a number of key options for addressing water pollution had been omitted. These include:

• Targeted extensification of agricultural land. Extensive farming systems (including organic systems) have a key role to play in nutrient management. An action should have been identified on how agri-environment schemes or capital grants can be directed to encourage strategic extensification of agriculture, for example along floodplains and at the head of catchments.
• Wetland Restoration and Creation. Habitats such as reedbeds and wet grassland have the ability to absorb nitrates and phosphates from agricultural run-off and sewage. Government should promote the strategic restoration/creation of these habitats at key catchments. This would also help in the NI Government to meet key biodiversity targets (see section 6 below).

4.4 In 1998 the Comptroller and Auditor General for NI produced a report "Control of River Pollution in Northern Ireland". This report made a number of key recommendations, mostly relating to the activities of DoE Environment and Heritage Service.

4.5 The report was highly critical of some of the Department's monitoring procedures. In particular it was stated (paras 2.24 to 2.26 of the report) that pollution is worse in smaller streams which are not monitored by EHS. This could provide a misleading picture of water quality in NI.

4.6 According to the report (paras 2.27 to 2.28) EHS now intends to carry out a fundamental review of its monitoring programme. This is particularly important in the context of new monitoring requirements which will be introduced by the forthcoming Water Framework Directive (see 3.8 above). See Recommendation 2.

4.7 The report makes a number of recommendations relating to improved measures to address pollution to our waterways. These include a "polluter pays" strategy and pollution prevention legislation. As the introduction of these measures is likely to directly benefit Northern Ireland's fisheries, the Committee should promote the urgent implementation of these recommendations.

4.8 In 1990 The House of Commons Environment Committee recommended the creation of an independent environmental protection agency because of the "poacher-gamekeeper" problem in relation to water pollution. Government rejected this, stating that the planned privatisation of Water Service would overcome any conflict of interest. Since privatisation has not occurred, the creation of such a body should be reconsidered. The remit of such a body should cover not only water quality issues, but also Government performance in relation to a wide range of environmental obligations.

5.1 Water resource management practices can have serious, often negative impacts on fisheries and wildlife. Even in Northern Ireland, where rainfall is generally high, sensitive management of water resources is required.

5.2 As stated in section 3.5 above, major abstraction proposals should not be progressed without a clear analysis of the impacts of the abstraction on all the other objectives relating to the waterway. In the case of Lough Neagh, an EIA for the project may identify some of the most obvious impacts, but because clear management objective are currently lacking for many aspect of the catchment, it will not be able to measure impacts against objectives.

Drainage of wetlands has had a serious environmental impact in Northern Ireland. The RSPB has carried out detailed research on the decline of breeding waders (lapwing, snipe, curlew and redshank) in Northern Ireland. All of these species are known to have been affected by both major arterial drainage schemes as well as ongoing piecemeal field drainage. For example immediately after the River Blackwater Drainage Scheme populations of waders declined by over 50%. Elsewhere, between two surveys of key sites in 1987 and 1992 lapwing had declined by 30% and curlew by 25%. A recent British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) survey of waders in the wider countryside is likely to point to further dramatic losses across Northern Ireland.

5.4 While grant aid is no longer available for drainage schemes, habitat is still being lost. Agri-environment measures provide one solution. With the right level of payments available, existing wetlands can be retained and restoration of damaged or drained wetland areas is possible. Agri-environment schemes also have an important social and economic function as many Northern Ireland farmers depend upon them to maintain an acceptable standard of living. It is important, therefore, that the resourcing of agri-environment schemes is enhanced to encourage more widespread restoration of damaged wetland areas.

6.1 We welcome the fact that this inquiry is addressing the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. RSPB has a long history of involvement in the Biodiversity process at both a UK and Northern Ireland level. The RSPB has had a major input into the draft Northern Ireland Biodiveristy Strategy.

6.2 While the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy is still in a draft form, there is a range of existing UK-wide species and habitat action plans which Government in Northern Ireland has a key role in implementing. A number of these are directly relevant to the freshwater environment and examples include the action plans for Mesotropic lakes, Reedbeds and Otter. The action plan for the Pollan is of particular relevance to this inquiry.

6.3 Rivers, lakes and their floodplains provide a variety of habitats for wildlife. Important wetland habitats include grazing marsh, reedbed, and fens. These support diverse wildlife communities, many of which have specialist requirements, for example breeding waders, white-clawed crayfish and freshwater pearl mussel. In addition the open waters of lakes can support large numbers of waterfowl, especially in winter.

6.4 As we have stated in sections 4 and 5 above, there are a number of threats to freshwater biodiversity. Wetland habitats important for birds, such as grazing marshes and reedbeds, are still being damaged as a result of land drainage and in recent years have decreased in area substantially. Other threats include poor water quality and in some cases over-abstraction of water.

6.5 The development and management of inland fisheries presents a range of opportunities for contributing to the delivery of Biodiversity Action Plan targets.

Some examples of how the management of inland fisheries can contribute to biodiversity targets are as follows:

• Avoid introductions of fish to mesotrophic lakes. Introductions can alter the natural integrity of lakes through competition with native species and alteration of the natural food web.
• Review fisheries management policy for ASSIs affected by fisheries related impacts and implement site management plans for restoration by 2005.

• The action plan contains a range of actions relating specifically to fisheries management on Lough Neagh, Lower Lough Erne and Upper Lough Erne. The Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure is a lead body for a number of these actions.

RECOMMENDATION 9

Fisheries management has the potential to affect biodiversity both adversely and beneficially. Perhaps the greatest benefit may be derived through the need to address water quality problems. Attaining better standards of water quality will be of benefit to both fisheries and biodiversity. Some aspects of fisheries management could, however, be damaging without careful consideration of environmental impacts. Examples are:

• Introduction to fish into waterways. The introduction of roach is cited as one factor in the decline of pollan (Pollan UK Species Action Plan). It has also been suggested that roach may be a factor in the decline of the common scoter on Lower Lough Erne. This rare duck declined in numbers in the 1970s and now no longer breeds. Any future introductions should be subject to an assessment of the impact of biodiversity.
• Provision of fishing stands and access points. When providing access to fisheries, the Department should ensure that enough shoreline remains free from access to allow waterbirds to breed undisturbed. Sensitive areas of shoreline which support breeding birds should be identified and avoided.

7.1 There is a need for planning policy to recognise the importance of waterways for both fisheries and wildlife. An important proposal in the draft NI Biodiversity Strategy (proposal 34) relates to the need for Area Plans to address biodiversity priorities. RSPB has commented that this should be strengthened to ensure that all new Area Plans contain policies directly to the achievement of biodiversity targets within the plan area. These policies would, therefore, provide for protection and restoration of key habitats within the plan area.

7.2 These policies would benefit both biodiversity and fisheries interests, since they would relate to the protection of a variety of priority wetland habitats from inappropriate development. In addition, section 33 of Planning Policy Statement 2 - Planning and Nature Conservation (PPS2) enables development plans to include policies to protect a wider range of habitats. For example, river banks are specifically mentioned in section 33 of PPS2 as the sort of feature which should be protected. Area Plans have been rather inconsistent in the type of policies they have used to implement section 33. Wider and more consistent use of strong policies should be employed in Area Plans to protect river corridors and lakeshores from inappropriate development.

RECOMMENDATION 11

7.3 Development control decisions must always take into account the availability of adequate sewerage infrastructure. Housing development on sites where there is inadequate sewerage infrastructure could lead to pollution. We support the identification of areas of constraint in development plans (eg Cookstown Area Plan 2010) and urge that this approach is applied to all future plans.

RECOMMENDATION 12

TOP

27 June 2000

The potential for game angling tourism within Northern Ireland is currently an untapped resource. The economic appraisal of the proposed ADSEA project highlights the huge European market that exists for a top quality angling product. However to compete in the market place Northern Ireland needs not only a top quality product but an innovative and exciting concept which would attract anglers to the Province in the first INSTANCE. It is all too evident that the existing fisheries are failing to do this - a problem which is clearly demonstrated by the very obvious annual pilgrimage of local anglers to the South of Ireland.

We believe that the ADSEA project would provide an ideal flagship for game angling tourism in Northern Ireland. It would provide a large scale top quality fishery which would be affordable to all, fill the market niche which has arisen through the major decline in salmonid stocks and enhance our sea trout stocks.

The development of a marine based sea trout fishery has many advantages over the traditional freshwater fisheries:

1. The marine environment is much less susceptible to the effects of minor pollution problems that frequently decimate local water courses.

2. Freshwater fisheries are dependent on a suitable amount of rainfall. Too little and fish will not run the rivers, too much and fishing becomes difficult thus reducing the chance of successfully catching fish. A marine based fishery is less affected by weather conditions.

3. When migratory salmonids enter freshwater systems they are less inclined to feed as they are focused on the reproductive phase of their life cycle; it is while at sea that they are actively feeding to increase body weights.

Thus the rich feeding available at sea confined with the relative stability of environmental factors such as temperature greatly enhance the growth rates of migratory strains of trout relatively to non migratory brown trout.

Angling for sea trout in the sea provides the opportunity to develop a year round wild game fishery, a resource which does not exist in Britain or Ireland. The additional economic benefits resulting from a winter fishery would be considerable and could generate an estimated addition £3-£4 million p.a. tourism earn during the winter season.

Although sea trout angling would occur along the coastline of the target area the project is totally dependent upon enhancement of the natural populations of sea trout. This will require the establishment of a purpose built freshwater sea trout hatchery to support and enhance the depleted sea trout populations while rehabilitation of the various streams and rivers is undertaken. The Funen Sea Trout Project continues to release large numbers of hatchery reared fish to support their ongoing freshwater habitat improvement and pollution control work. Recent funding support for a new hatchery confirms the need for long-term hatchery reared fish to maintain stocks within the fishery.

In general terms the Association consider the following as important to the long term success of salmonid fisheries in Northern Ireland:

1. The Committee should consider mechanisms which would result in an effective and streamlined cross-departmental approach toward the total management of migratory salmonid species. Salmon and Sea Trout are dependent upon both freshwater and marine environments throughout their life.

2. An evaluation of the impact of existing coastal draft net fisheries on migratory salmonids with emphasis on the economics of commercially netting versus game angling. The Funen (Denmark) Sea Trout Fishery has identified commercial netting as the foremost issue of complaint raised by visiting anglers. The management body for the project are considering the total cessation of coastal netting within the Funen area. This they believe would be a major advancement towards the future expansion of the sea trout fishery.

3. Planning policies should discourage future development adjacent to river corridors, lake shores and estuaries. Further pollution of the aquatic environment by new development should be avoided.

4. A programme of action should be developed which encourages the farming community to set aside narrow corridors of uncultivated land adjacent to streams, rivers and open water. Measures which minimise the risk of pollution from over use or misuse of agricultural fertilisers etc should be adopted. There are many habitat protection/improvement measures which could be managed with the co-operation of the farming community. If further information is required, contact the Westcountries River Trust, Bodmin, Cornwall (Tel. 07071 748377).

5. When canalisation has occurred a programme should be developed to restore watercourses back to productive spawning and nursery habitats. We are aware that several of the small streams and rivers in County Down which were historically used by sea trout have been destroyed by agriculturally driven drainage schemes undertaken during the second half of the last century.

6. Water course pollution by whatever means must be significantly reduced if we are to seriously compete in the game angling tourist market. Government must therefore by example demonstrate that protection of the aquatic environment is a top priority by severely penalising polluters thus sending out a clear message. The law must act impartially upon private and public sector offenders.

In conclusion we would ask the Committee to consider the ADSEA project and the opportunities that lie within its development, namely:-

1. Economic regeneration of rural area with an annual income of £6-£10 million to Northern Ireland.

2. Employment to the tourist sector with 250-300 jobs being created.

3. Would help to offset some of the recent unemployment within the target eg textile industries, fishing communities.

4. Diversification opportunities for the farming sector. The project would require an additional 70-100 new self catering units.

5. A truly large scale international flagship project which would act as a catalyst to establish Northern Ireland's reputation as a top quality game angling venue.

6. A true eco-tourism project which would induce and accelerate much needed environmental improvement.

7. Act as a nucleus for cross-community collaboration.

TOP

When the responsibility for pollution of a watercourse is determined, the compensation demanded from the polluter should be sufficient to restore the watercourse to the state that existed before the pollution incident occurred. It must be accepted, however, that in a situation where the indigenous population of salmonids is completely removed by pollution, that unique population can never be replaced. The best option therefore is to take brood fish from the succeeding year's returning fish and replace the progeny in the watercourse. Because the pollution of the river will have killed all the juvenile salmonids present in the watercourse there will be no naturally returning adults for at least the succeeding three years. Stocking the river with wild fish from another wild population should be considered to ensure the effect on the continuity of returning adult salmonids is least affected.

The process for the assessment of damage to fish stocks in the watercourse should be as follows:-

Immediately after the incident a survey must be undertaken to determine the extent of the effect on fish stocks. This should include a count of dead adult fish below the source of pollution, surveys of fish stocks and invertebrates upstream of the source of pollution and a habitat survey below the pollution source. This will allow calculations to be made to determine the stocks of juvenile salmonids affected as well as the adults killed.

The restoration of stocks to as near as possible pre-incident levels should be as follows:-

1. Survey the watercourse to ascertain that pollution is no longer present and that invertebrate populations are returning to pre-pollution levels.

2. Catch sufficient adult fish in the autumn after the incident to hatchery produce ova/fry to restock the affected area to pre-pollution levels.

3. Plant ova/fry in water course following spring.

4. In each of the following three years survey the affected areas to determine numbers of juvenile salmonids required to stock to pre-pollution levels.

5. Acquire ova/fry from wild stocks and plant in each of the three years.

The full cost of all the above including staff time should be calculated. Compensation should also include a sum to repay any angling interest affected for the loss of their angling amenity from the date of the incident to the date that full restoration of fish stocks is completed.

Commercial fishing for salmonids off the County Down coast is carried out by tidal draft net operators. The nets may be fished anywhere around the Northern Ireland coastline except within 1 mile of the defined mouth of a designated salmonid river. There are currently six licences for tidal draft nets issued each year, five of which are operated exclusively around the county down coast.

The numbers of fish that these nets catch is reported to DCAL under the terms of the licences, however this information has never in the past been divulged to anyone. Without this information it is of course impossible to assess the effect of these fisheries on the escapement of salmonids to rivers.

ADSEA and its affiliated angling clubs would make the case that these fisheries must be commercially viable, otherwise the operators would not take out the licences. It must therefore follow that the catch made must be significant. Furthermore, clubs affiliated to ADSEA have expended a considerable amount of effort and used SEP funding to improve their rivers in terms of salmonid breeding habitat and stock enhancement over the past 5 years.

It does seem unreasonable that much of the benefit of the clubs' efforts in terms of returning adult fish should be taken by the draft net operators who have contributed nothing to the improvements made.

The current level of fines imposed for pollution offences does not appear to reflect the seriousness of the damage caused to the environment by agricultural and industrial pollution. Also the level of fines in Northern Ireland does not seem to be sufficient deterrent to reduce the number of pollution incidents that occur.

ADSEA therefore considers that the imposition of custodial sentences particularly for persistent offenders should be introduced.

ADSEA'S views on development are as follows:-

1. No building development should be allowed within 5 metres of a river bank.

2. No development including garden curtilage should be allowed that obstructs access by foot along a river bank.

3. Angling interests should be notified in the same way as neighbours are notified of any planning application within 100 ? metres of a river.

4. Wherever possible storm water run off from building developments should not be directed to watercourses as currently practised. Building control regulations should insist on oil traps in all storm water systems where discharge to watercourses is unavoidable.

TOP

15 February 2000

Can I first say that my submission is as an individual but represents the views of many within the Armagh Club and also the Blackwater Enhancement Association Ltd.

I welcome the interest shown by the Committee in the area of Inland Fisheries and I hope that the political stalemate that exists as I write will allow the issues to be explored sooner rather than later. We all need real politics and a return to local accountability.

The general background of Inland Fisheries going back fifty years was of healthy river stocks of Trout and Salmon with net and rod fisheries coexisting. Lakes especially small lakes were generally of little value with small stocks of coarse fish and generally ignored.

Currently lakes are the cornerstone of sport in N Ireland, mostly small lakes where the dangers to a fishery, poaching, water quality, and overfishing can be better controlled and regulated.

It is no coincidence that the commercial fisheries, so called "put and take" are all based on small lakes.

Rivers have suffered from a combined attack on water quality from Agriculture, DOE Water Service and Abstraction.

Firstly;

Agriculture effects water quality in two ways

Secondly:

Sewage works on rivers have also severely affected water quality in two ways;

The Water Service has had a long period of under-investment and will require a huge investment to upgrade to current E.U. Standards. The Committee, like anglers have to realise that even with suitable finances being available the upgrade of the infrastructure will take time.

Coupled with the assault on water quality the bodies charged with protecting fisheries, the FCB, Foyle Fisheries, Environment Branch of DOE, and Department of Agriculture (Fisheries) have also suffered from a lack of resources and perhaps a conflict of interests or trying to serve a number of masters and failing to satisfy any. Surely a well funded central body with a clear remit would be more accountable?

The control of illegal fishing has been less than ideal in the same time period. In a time of political unrest respect for law and order deteriorated in some areas and support for Fisheries Staff from the hard pressed security forces was not there.

To be more positive the last few years have seen a revolution in relation to our rivers. I feel this change has been triggered in no small way by the Salmonid Enhancement Programme promoted by the Department of Agriculture (Fisheries Division) and funded by E.C. Peace and Reconcilliation. The groups I am involved in have been greatly empowered by the scheme and the mood of optimism for the future is palpable. Lack of accountability and apathy had demoralised many and most anglers had given up on rivers in the area altogether. Now, individuals disagree on the way forward but at least everyone wants to see our river fisheries restored. Local empowerment, coupled with regional government accountability will be a powerful engine for change and improvement.

My hope for the future is that the full capacity and potential of the Blackwater River and rivers like it can be utilised. The Blackwater has a spawning capacity of 2/3 of the Foyle System yet only about 40 Adult Salmon were caught in the river last year. The Foyle might have 1000 times more fish yet is only 1/3 larger. Definitely a case of underperforming and unfulfilled potential, yet fifty years ago Salmon and Dollaghan ran the river in large number for 4 months of the year.

Having looked at the background as I see it, can I make some positive suggestions.

Establish a baseline with some criteria which are measurable. The most important measurement is surely adult fish migrating up the rivers to spawn. These fish can be measured in fishcounters on our river systems, many such counters are already in place with more to come under the Salmon Management Scheme. The counters should be on all our major systems close to the sea and then on the major tributaries to track fish as they return to the spawning beds. With the information obtained resources can be targeted and the response to actions can be recorded and measured.

If insufficient fish are leaving the sea then action can be targeted at removing or curtailing netting at sea.

If the fish get to Lough Neagh and never leave it then resources need to be put into controlling netting on the Lough.

If the fish get to the rivers but are unable to reproduce or the fry die before migrating downstream then deal with the pollution, obstructions or habitat problems to solve the issue.

Ideally address all the above at the same time but with finite resources is it not better to target resources where they are required most.

The quantitative approach is the only approach that allows the real issues to be addressed, actions targeted and results successes or failures will be ascertained allowing continuous audit and feedback.

A lot of what I have said is already in embryonic state in the Salmon Management Plan which plans to management catchments as a whole entity. The Water Service is well aware of its difficulty and must surely find the resources to put its own house in order.

Agricultural policy already encourages schemes to reduce nitrate leaching, this could be helped further to protect watercourses with set aside strips along riverbanks without the requirement to fence, a scheme which farmers could accept.

After all, most rivers flow into Lough Neagh, the major source of drinking water for N. Ireland. It is important for everyone that nitrates, phosphates and other pollutants are not allowed to accumulate there.

In summary the future should be based on establishing firstly the current situation using quantitative measurements.

The potential of each river system should be quantified, based on the square yards of spawning available. These figures are already available. The reasons why the potential of these nursery areas is not being realised should be addressed; be they water quality, obstruction etc. and measures taken to resolve the problems.

Returning adult fish will need protection upto the point they are exploited commercially where they can generate maximum revenue for "N.Ireland PLC" and then protected beyond the rod fisheries in the areas of spawning.

The legislation and will to succeed is already present, a viable inland fishery with enormous tourist potential is available currently but in a short time it could be so much bigger and better and a major force for change in the economic regeneration of our Country. Currently Clubs approach to tourism and marketing is parochial and insular and it is very much a case of "hiding lights under bushels" in case visitors spoil the sport for locals or price them out of the market. I know Angling Clubs who deliberately have stopped publicity in major UK fishing magazines for fear of getting too many visitors.

The main problems can be addressed, and I believe that anglers must play their part. Many anglers have come to realise to manage their club lakes as they would like cost a great deal of money. The river systems with all their attendant problems are always going to be expensive to manage yet the rod licence fees are way below what most club members pay for access to a small lake, yet a lot of rivers are free fishing. Most people accept the statement "you get what you pay for", that may be why we are in the state we are in.

Anglers in N Ireland have always had access to cheap sport because the political situation and a degree of parochialism have stopped there being an open market. A peaceful backdrop and an aggressive marketing campaign could radically increase the rental income from the premier angling beats which already exist.

For example season tickets were available giving access to one beat for one day a week over a twelve week period can cost £1600.

Daily tickets costing £100-200 are relatively common.

The rental pricing is set at a level the market will currently bear, this market presently has very few visitors in it. Even now I think it is possible for any competent angler to spend a week in N Ireland at the right time and catch a salmon provided they have access to £1000. In other parts of the UK the figure might be £3000 and the change of getting a salmon would be much less.

I think that a centrally co-ordinated action plan with proper targeting of resources will make real changes. Quantitative assessment will allow auditing of actions, feedback and make the whole programme transparent.

Anglers will accept paying more for a proper system of fisheries management including policing but will not accept paying more money for the same service.

I feel that I have had to make this submission as an individual as anglers have great difficulty agreeing on who is responsible for the current situation and who should pay to change it. We do have economics and costs to consider, many anglers would consider the rivers should be like some branch of the NHS "Free at the point of delivery". In the real world the environment should at least part pay it's way and the principal end user the angler must pay his or her way.

The core of the issue is that so many factors have impacted on our rivers that no one factor is any more to blame than any other and when no one body is responsible no one wants to grasp the nettle and start acting in isolation without the other factors being addressed.

I hope the Culture, Arts & Leisure Committee will grasp the nettle and encourage the revival of river angling, the potential is there to make real changes to the Economics Environment and Recreation of many.

TOP

20 June 2000

1. Exit of surveys of NI ports and airports indicate that around 8,800 angler^s visited NI in 1998, spending in excess of £1 million. Accurate statistics are not available for visiting ROI anglers and overseas anglers accessing from the ROI.

2. NI enjoys a wide diversity of angling waters, with a large proportion under the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's (DCAL) (Inland Fisheries) responsibility and therefore readily available for public usage.

3. For 30 years coarse angling has been one of NI's most successful activity products, attracting mainly GB anglers for annual events like the Fermanagh Classic Fishing Festival and more recently, the Bann Bonanza. However, while competitions are proliferating, the casual/leisure angler appears to be on the wane. Therefore emphasis on product development for access, stands, habitats and environment is important to ensure a sustainable and visitor friendly product.

4. Around eight specialist GB tour operators feature NI in their programmes, covering mostly coarse angling (Appendix A). Six European tour operators feature NI, with a keen interest in pike, although volumes of visitors are now reducing (Appendix B). To this end, comprehensive packaging and marketing are essential to heighten the awareness and availability to visiting anglers.

5. The angling product overall is regarded as of good quality and quantity. The SWOT analysis (Appendix C) indicates a sound product, developed and available throughout the province, but is still well behind the Republic of Ireland where infrastructure, development and marketing are closely co-ordinated.

6. DANI's recent Salmonid Enhancement Programme has greatly contributed to the improvement and quality of the game angling product, providing more tourist rods to visitor anglers. This product availability is now approaching the level where a focused marketing campaign is justifiable.

7. Currently around 8 local operators offer ground handling services, mainly for game angling (Appendix D).

8. There are some 200 angling clubs in NI. The majority of affiliated clubs sell day tickets to visitors. Private fisheries offer some of the best game angling and are gradually opening up greater accessibility to tourists.

9. As the main international marketing body the NITB has identified the importance of a co-ordinated approach and established an Angling Marketing Group comprised of regional and local authority tourism interests, local operators, independent consultants and statutory bodies (Appendix E).

10. Its broad objective is to promote the NI angling product nationally and internationally, establishing NI as a premier angling destination in the international marketplace.

11. Having a mature product and established angling destination, NI requires some repositioning to increase visitor levels. A wide variety of fish, including some unique species prevalent only to NI, in a clean green environment, are important marketing assets.

12. International perceptions of Ireland suggest a land full of lakes and rivers with an associated pre-conception of being a good angling destination. The angling message therefore has credibility.

13. The main issues affecting the marketing and promotion of tourism angling are:-

• provision of angling information at local, regional and national levels
• availability of information through internet
• integrated marketing and product development
• threat of pollution
• access from agricultural riparian owners
• complicated system of licences
• under-valuation of the game angling product
• potential of year round sea trout angling
• impact on holiday anglers of sighting commercial netsmen

14. The following issues are highlighted as recommendations for action for the Committee to consider for inclusion in their report -

(a) Access from agricultural riparian owners

(b) Tourist rod licence

(c) Development of sea trout angling

Kingfisher (Germany)

Andree (Germany)

Fishermen's Travel Club (Switzerland)

Eric Wacheux (France)

Vlunchtende Visser (Holland)

Petra (Belgium)

The Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland (FCB) is a Non Departmental Public Body established under the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, ("the Act") and the Fisheries (Amendment) (NI) Order 1983. Its sponsor body is the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, DCAL, (formerly the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland)

Under the provisions of the Act, the FCB was responsible for the conservation and protection of the salmon and inland fisheries of Northern Ireland other than the fisheries of the Londonderry area which were the responsibility of the then Foyle Fisheries Commission (FFC)

Under the changes brought about by the devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the creation of North/South Implementation bodies, the FFC was replaced by the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission which assumed responsibility not only for the fisheries of the Londonderry area but also of the Carlingford (Newry) area which had previously been within the jurisdiction of the FCB. This change was implemented without consultation with the FCB and without any apparent regard for the implications for the FCB in terms of lost revenue.

The Board consists of not more than 24 persons drawn from a range of interest groups, appointed by the Head of the Department of Culture, Arts & Leisure. See Appendix 1.

The Board appoints an Executive Committee, consisting of not less than three or more than six, Board members, one of whom is the Chairman or Deputy Chairman, which is responsible to the Board for monitoring and reporting on policy implementation, financial and any other matters delegated to it by the Board. See Appendix 2.

The day to day operations of the Board are managed by a team led by the Chief Executive (who reports to the Board and the Executive Committee) supported by the Deputy Chief Executive, the Fisheries Conservation Manager and the Financial, Personnel and Administrative Support Manager. These officers are responsible for the permanent staff of 15 Fishery Conservation Officers and 5 administrative staff. See Appendix 3.

1.4 Finances

The FCB, as constituted under the Act, is a self-financing organisation. Its primary sources of income are licence duties on anglers, commercial fishermen and dealers and its agency work in bailiffing DCAL public angling waters and in river monitoring and pollution control work for the Department of the Environment, Environment and Heritage Service. The Department is also acting as the agent of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission in the Newry Area on a temporary basis until such times as the Commission has staff in place to undertake these duties. See Appendix 4.

Members of the Board (other than the Chairman and Deputy Chairman) do not receive any emoluments.

2.1 The Board recommends that the enhancement of the inland fisheries throughout Northern Ireland should be implemented as a matter of urgency

2.2 The Board is greatly concerned at the deterioration in water quality throughout the inland fisheries of Northern Ireland and recommends that this issue should be addressed urgently through effective education and enforcement processes

2.3 In the view of the Board, it is essential that core funding should be provided to support the management, operations and administration of the Board

2.4 The Board is concerned at the fragmentation of responsibility for the conservation and protection of the inland fisheries in Northern Ireland, both within Government and outside. The Board recommends that consideration should given to the rationalisation of roles and responsibilities in this area

2.5 The Board recommends that the current system of licences and permits required to fish throughout Northern Ireland is simplified

2.6 The Board is strongly of the view that the Public Angling Estate should remain within the public domain and that its management and development should be adequately resourced. The Board would be prepared to enter into discussions with other appropriate bodies with regard to the future management and development of the Public Angling Estate

2.7 The Board recommends that coarse fisheries should be developed in appropriate waters in Northern Ireland for the benefit of local and tourist anglers

2.8 The Board is fully in support of the Salmon Management Plan and would welcome a similar approach to the management of eel stocks, backed by appropriate scientific research and monitoring in both cases

2.9 The Board recommends that ways of maximising the tourist potential of shore fisheries should be investigated

2.10 The Board recommends that its structure should be reviewed at an appropriate time in the future to ensure that it represents the most effective vehicle for the delivery of the Board's functions

The Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland (FCB) is a Non Departmental Public Body established under the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 and the Fisheries (Amendment) (NI) Order 1983.

Its sponsor body is the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, DCAL, (formerly the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, DANI)

2.1 The FCB was established in 1966 following the Parr Committee's recommendations on the administration of inland fisheries, many of which were embodied in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (the Act). The Act provided for DANI to have overall responsibility for inland fishery matters including angling development. The FCB was given responsibility for the conservation, improvement and protection of fisheries. The Board comprised representatives of the various angling and commercial fishery interests.

2.2 In the middle to late 1970s, the Department came under increasing pressure from angling clubs to look again at the arrangements for administering inland fisheries. It established a committee to review the effectiveness of the Act and its implementation by DANI and the FCB. The Black Report (majority and minority reports) was submitted in 1981.

2.3 The majority recommendations were that an Inland Fisheries Board (IFB) should be established (excluding the Londonderry area) which should take over the inland fisheries functions of DANI and the FCB.

2.4 The minority recommendations were that DANI should retain responsibility for the management and development of public angling waters and should take over responsibility for the conservation and improvement of fish stocks from the FCB. An advisory body should be established to assist and make recommendations to DANI on salmon and inland fishery matters.

2.5 The Government decided to reject both majority and minority reports. After consideration of the Black Report and other proposals, the Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (the Order) was implemented which provided for an expansion of representation on the FCB and the creation of an Executive Committee with responsibility for monitoring and reporting on policy implementation and financial and any other matters delegated to it by the Board.

2.6 During the House of Commons debate, the Government indicated that it would consider whether DANI's public water management functions might be transferred to the FCB again, depending upon the extent to which:-

• the FCB proved that it was able to act effectively in carrying out its statutory functions of conservation and protection
• the FCB was able to show that its members could work together as a team
• there was agreement within the FCB that it would be appropriate to take on this responsibility

2.7 The 1992 Policy Review Group on the provision of public angling in Northern Ireland concluded that pending the outcome of the next review of the FCB, there should be no radical changes in the responsibilities of DANI and the FCB.

2.8 The role and responsibilities of the FCB were therefore the subject of considerable debate. As part of its overall management of public funds and in the context of the Government Reform Initiative, DANI commissioned Price Waterhouse to undertake a review of the FCB. See Section 3 below

2.9 In November 1995, Price Waterhouse recommended the enhancement of the FCB and the gradual movement of executive functions from DANI to the Board. In the first instance this would involve the management of the public angling estate and Movanagher Fish Farm.

2.10 The FCB agreed to accept the transfer of the management of the public angling estate and Fish Farm subject to fully satisfactory arrangements being reached regarding finances, staffing and new management and Board structures.

2.11 Subsequently the then Minister, Lord Dubs, took the decision that the public angling estate should remain within Central Government.

2.12 Changes affecting the administration of fisheries in Northern Ireland were brought about by the devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the establishment of new Departments and North/South Implementation Bodies. Under these changes the new Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) was made responsible for sea fisheries and the new Department of Culture, Arts & Leisure (DCAL) for inland fisheries. See Appendix 6

The Foyle Fisheries Commission was dissolved and replaced by the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC). The FCILC is responsible for the fisheries of the Londonderry and Newry Areas. The Newry area fell within the jurisdiction of the FCB before devolution. The FCB is continuing to act as the agent of the FCILC in the Newry area on a temporary basis until such time as the Commission has staff in place to undertake these duties.

3.1 The findings of the 1995 Review of the FCB are summarised in this submission as the Review represents the most recent independent consideration of the Board's role and responsibilities.

3.2 The terms of reference of the Review were as follows:

• to review the functions conferred upon the FCB by the Fisheries Act (NI) 1966 and assess if they remain essential to Government and DANI policy objectives
• Mindful of Government commitments to privatisation and contracting out of functions to consider whether the FCB remains the appropriate and cost-effective means of performing those functions found to be essential

3.3 The Review found:

• the work of the FCB could not be considered in isolation from other organisations involved in the protection, conservation and promotion of inland fisheries, particularly DANI
• there was potential for confusion amongst anglers by the involvement of two agencies
• the protection and conservation work of FCB is closely linked to the management and development work of DANI
• the work of DANI in relation to angling development, while accepted as valuable, has been tainted by a perceived lack of sensitivity in relation to drainage development which has coloured relationships between the Department and the angling community
• the FCB has played an active role in communicating the needs of the angling community in relation to development issues to Government and vice versa
• the roles of DANI and the FCB become of increased importance given the potential for development
• an overall consensus existed that the functions carried out by FCB remain important
• changes were required to the structure and operation of the Board

3.4 The options for change considered in the course of the Review were as follows:

Option 1

To maintain current FCB/DANI/DOE roles and develop a change programme for FCB

Option 2

To remove executive functions from the FCB and return them to DANI. An advisory council is retained which reports directly to the Department.

Option 3

DANI focuses on policy and legislation areas. The majority of executive functions in relation to protection, management, development, conservation and regulation are passed to an enhanced FCB.

Option 4

The enhancement of the FCB and the gradual movement of executive functions from DANI to the Board. In the first instance this would involve the management of the public angling estate and the management of the fish farm

3.5 Each option was assessed and evaluated in terms of credibility, feasibility and acceptability. On the basis of this assessment the Review recommended that Option 4 - the phased enhancement of the FCB - represented the best model for future service delivery.

3.6 Stage 2 of the Review formulated a strategic plan for the FCB and drew up a Business Plan for the public angling estate and Movanagher Fish Farm as a unit for transfer to the FCB.

3.7 As noted above, (paras 2.10, 2.11), the FCB agreed to the proposed transfer of functions subject to fully satisfactory arrangements being reached in reached in relation to finance, staffing and structures. The then Minister, Lord Dubs, subsequently took the decision that the Public Angling Estate should remain within Central Government.

3.8 The FCB has however implemented, or is in the course of implementing, a number of the elements of the strategic plan formulated in Stage 2 of the Review. which are within its control. The changes which have been implemented or which are in the course of implementation, have been funded from within the Board's existing resources or in the case of computerisation, with 50% assistance via Interreg funding.

Changes implemented:

• development of a Corporate Plan (3 years)
• development of a Business Plan (1 year)
• appointment of Chairman/Deputy Chairman
• development of job descriptions for existing and new posts
• introduction of monthly management meetings
• appointment of Fisheries Conservation Manager (new post)

Changes in the course of implementation:

• development of key individual performance measures
• implementation of computerised accounting system
• development of monthly financial reports
• introduction of computerised approach to budget setting
• development of budgetted balance sheet and cashflow statement
• enhancement of Chief Executive's report to Board

Changes held pending agreement on future role, responsibilities and funding of FCB:

• separation of FCB Board from Advisory Council
• establishment of Advisory Council
• appointment of new Board Members as appropriate
• introduction of monthly Board meetings
• establishment of sub-committee structure of Executive Board
• decision on preferred organisational model
• appointment of further new members of staff where appropriate

4.1 The Board recommends that the enhancement of the inland fisheries throughout Northern Ireland should be implemented as a matter of urgency

The conservation and protection of inland fisheries is obviously of paramount importance to a conservancy body but in the view of the Board, these functions are closely linked with the development of such fisheries.

The Board endorses the recognition at the 1992 Earth Summit of the importance of biodiversity and shares the widespread concern over its current decline. The effective management of inland fisheries can make a significant contribution to halting and potentially reversing this decline in respect of aquatic ecosystems. The Board believes that the enhancement of inland fisheries in Northern Ireland would play an important role in countering the escalating pressures from such activities as agriculture, industry, urbanisation, transport etc.

The enhancement of inland fisheries throughout Northern Ireland would also make an important contribution to the maximisation of the economic, social and recreational benefits to be derived from these fisheries. In terms of tourism alone, the potential is significant. According to figures published by the Scottish Tourist Board, (UK Residents Fishing Holidays in Scotland 1998) some 100,000 fishing holiday trips were taken in Scotland by UK residents in 1998 (2% of the total holiday market). Expenditure on these trips amounted to £74 million (7% of the total holiday expenditure) with an average expenditure per trip of £740. This does not include similar expenditure by overseas visitors. The Board has been unable to obtain comparable data for the Republic of Ireland but Bord Failte has published figures (The Failte Business 2000, The Role of Tourism in Economic Growth) which indicate that in 1998, a total of 139,000 overseas visitors engaged in angling activities, 84,000 of whom were from Britain. The potential impact on local economies of tourism is obvious. New and improved facilities would be enjoyed not only by visitors but also by local residents, while the revenues spent by visitors would make a positive contribution to the quality of life in every community. In addition the enhancement of inland fisheries would be of benefit to local anglers and encourage interest and increased participation in angling again with potential economic and social benefits.

The Board supports the need for fisheries to be managed on a fully sustainable basis and is of the view that the enhancement of inland fisheries throughout Northern Ireland would facilitate the achievement of this aim.

The Board would wish to emphasise the importance of habitat improvement in the protection of our natural heritage. The enhancement of inland fisheries throughout Northern Ireland would facilitate such improvement. The Board recognises the contribution in this context of the work which the then Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland was able to carry out.

The Board believes that the enhancement of inland fisheries throughout Northern Ireland should be supported by more effective liaison and communication, particularly with and between those bodies with responsibility for matters such as planning policy, drainage and pollution.

4.2 The Board is greatly concerned at the deterioration in water quality throughout the inland fisheries of Northern Ireland and recommends that this issue should be addressed urgently through effective education and enforcement processes

The decline in water quality in inland fisheries throughout Northern Ireland is recognised. The role of the FCB in pollution control is vital both in terms of reactive and proactive activities. The success of initiatives such as the Salmon Management Plan, and the realisation of successful fisheries management on a fully sustainable basis, hinge largely upon pollution control.

Eutrophication - the process of nutrient enrichment by which a water body gradually changes from a nutrient poor to a nutrient rich state - is considered to pose the single most widespread threat to water quality in Northern Ireland. In most cases eutrophication is a consequence of human activities which lead to increased losses of nutrients from land to water. Of the substantiated pollution incidents investigated by the FCB during the year ended 31 December 1998, 89% related to agricultural pollution. While the overall number of substantiated incidents showed a decrease over 1997, the number of agriculture-related incidents increased.

The Board concurs with the aims expressed in the consultation document "Eutrophication in Northern Ireland's Waters" issued by the Department of the Environment, Environment and Heritage Service. The Board also accepts that any strategy to improve the water quality of the inland fisheries of Northern Ireland must take account of the needs of industry and agriculture, the protection of public health, the preservation of amenity and the conservation of flora and fauna as well as the conservation of fisheries. In the view of the Board it is essential that the surplus of nutrients being input to land and escaping to open waters is reduced. It is accepted that this is likely to be a lengthy and potentially costly process. The Board recognises and supports the efforts of the Countryside Management Division in terms of raising awareness and education in this area. Direct and indirect management actions by the appropriate Government Departments must continue and be developed and informed by research and on-going monitoring. It is also the view of the Board that such actions must be supported by the rigorous and effective enforcement of legislation, together with the imposition by the courts of appropriate penalties upon conviction.

While wishing to avoid unnecessary repetition, the views and comments expressed in relation to the enhancement of inland fisheries above are also valid in relation to the importance of improving the water quality of inland fisheries and the potential benefits to be derived from such improvement.

4.3 In the view of the Board, it is essential that core funding should be provided to support the management, operations and administration of the Board

The FCB, as constituted under the Act, is a self-financing organisation. Its primary sources of income are as follows:

Licence duties 40%

Bailiffingservices 13% Agency work
DCAL

PollutionControl/RiverMonitoring 47% Agency work
DOE

Further detail is given in Appendix 4.

Other sources of income include (1998):

£K

Fines and Costs 17

Settlement of fish kills 5

Sale of seized equipment 0.2

Interreg Grant 5

Expenditure in 1998 totalled £832K. A breakdown is shown in Appendix 5.

The Board is dependent upon the revenue it earns from agency work to remain financially viable. Historically the Board has aimed for an annual increase in licence duties in line with the rate of inflation (RPI). In the current year, the Board reluctantly increased duties by 3%. Even so, the income and expenditure projections for 2000, prepared in 1999, show an out-turn in the range from break-even to a deficit of £9K depending on the growth realised in the sale of licences. This deficit will increase significantly following the loss of a predicted £30K in revenue in a full year following the inclusion of the Newry Area in the jurisdiction of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. Currently the Board is continuing to act in the Newry Area as agents of the FCILC until that body has its own staff in place (estimated to be in May/June 2000). The Board has offered to continue to act on behalf of the FCILC in the Newry Area on a permanent basis since it is firmly of the view that such an approach would represent the most cost-effective mechanism of service delivery. The response of the Commission is awaited.

The Board cannot continue to sustain a deficit year on year. It would be possible to fund the predicted deficit for the current year from accumulated surpluses but such resources are finite and in the absence of the provision of core funding, there would inevitably be implications in the future for the number of staff which the Board is able to employ.

The Board has actively sought agency work in order to survive and there is no doubt that the services it provides on behalf of other organisations are vital. However the deployment of its scarce manpower resources on agency work has meant that the Board has been unable, in its view, to devote sufficient resources to its statutory responsibilities under the Act. In the absence of core funding this situation can only worsen over time. The Board cannot emphasise the need for core funding too strongly if it is to deliver effective enforcement of the fisheries legislation. The Board would of course, be keen to continue to undertake work on behalf of other agencies. However the provision of core funding would enable it to employ sufficient resources to provide high quality, cost effective services across all its functions.

There is however also a point of principle which the Board feels should be considered. The Board has remained consistently of the unanimous view that it is unacceptable that the Board should be required to fund the discharge of its statutory functions almost exclusively from the proceeds of licences, whether commercial or angling. It is not only unacceptable in principle, it has proved to be impossible in practice.

To its knowledge, the Board is the only body in the UK which is committed to the discharge of statutory duties without subvention from public funds. The FCB is being discriminated against in this regard and through it, its customers and stakeholders.

The Board is also concerned that the absence of core funding is constraining it from improving the service which it offers or contributing to initiatives which would be of great value. The Board would wish to draw the attention of the Committee to three examples which it feels are representative of the difficulties facing the Board:

1. Salmon Tagging Scheme

Following consultation with DCAL, the FCILC and the Fisheries Authorities in the Republic of Ireland, it was proposed that a carcass tagging scheme for salmon and sea trout should be introduced to operate for the whole of the island. It was hoped to introduce the scheme with effect from 1 January 2000.

The scheme is regarded as an essential element in salmon management. The current emphasis in the approach to salmon management is to allow sufficient fish upstream to spawn by limiting the time available and the gear permitted for fishing. The proposed new system would support the Salmon Management Plan by providing information on exploitation, thereby ensuring that the number of fish available for capture is the surplus after spawning requirements have been met. This allows for faster response if stocks are threatened. Given the very poor survival of salmon stocks internationally, a flexible system is urgently required to manage Ireland's salmon stocks. The scheme was not introduced on 1 January 2000 for two reasons, the first being that the necessary legislation was not in place. However perhaps of greater significance in the longer term, the Board is not able to implement the system without the necessary funding. An application for funding, estimated at £44K, was made by the Board to the then Department of Agriculture, Fisheries Division. This application was refused on the grounds that the Act does not provide for the Department to offer grant aid to the Board and in any event, the Fisheries Division had no surplus funds at that time. This is very different to the position in the Republic of Ireland where it is understood that the Department of Finance approved a sum of £750K for the introduction of the scheme in the first year and subsequent funding of £497K and £493K for years 2 and 3 respectively. The Board now wishes to implement the scheme within its jurisdiction with effect from 1 January 2001 but the funding position remains unresolved. The effectiveness of the scheme as an island-wide initiative would be severely compromised if it could not be introduced in the FCB's jurisdiction. (See also Recommendation 4.8 below)

2. Concessionary Licences

The Board has received representations on behalf of a number of groups such as the disabled and old age pensioners, requesting that consideration be given to the issue of concessionary licences at reduced rates. Although the Board is sympathetic to such requests, the consequent loss in revenue precludes consideration of the introduction of concessionary licences in the absence of core funding.

3. Recognition of FCILC Licences on specified waters

It has been suggested that the FCB and the FCILC should "recognise" each other's licences on certain specified waters on the boundaries of their respective jurisdictions. The FCB could not, in the absence of core funding, agree to such a proposal given the consequent loss of revenue. This issue is referred to further under Recommendation 4.5 below.

4.4 The Board is concerned at the fragmentation of responsibility for the conservation and protection of the inland fisheries in Northern Ireland, both within Government and outside. The Board recommends that consideration should given to the rationalisation of roles and responsibilities in this area.

Changes affecting the administration of inland fisheries were brought about by the devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the establishment of new Departments and North/South Implementation Bodies.

Within Government, the sponsor body of the FCB is the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. A summary of DCAL's responsibilities in respect of inland fisheries is shown at Appendix 6. DCAL is also responsible for the assessment and issue of fish culture licences for all inland fish farms.

The potential for confusion amongst anglers caused by the involvement of two bodies (the then Department of Agriculture and the FCB) was identified by Price Waterhouse during the 1995 review of the FCB.

Under the new arrangements, the sponsor body of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is the new Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). DARD is also responsible for the assessment and issue of fish culture licences, shellfish fishery licences and marine fishery licences for all fish farms in the sea.

The potential for duplication of effort is obvious as is the potential for the formulation of conflicting policies and policy objectives with the involvement of two Ministers, two Departments and two Non Departmental Public Bodies. This administrative structure seems particularly excessive given the size of Northern Ireland.

The potential for confusion identified by Price Waterhouse referred to earlier is now further compounded by the creation of the FCILC. The FCB has responsibility for inland fisheries in Northern Ireland except those in the Londonderry and Newry Areas which are the responsibility of the FCILC. However the functions of the FCB are limited essentially to conservation and protection whereas the FCILC has responsibility for the promotion of development of Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough for commercial and recreational purposes and the conservation, protection, management and development of inland fisheries together with the development of marine tourism and development and licensing of aquaculture in its areas.

The Board recommends that serious consideration should be given to the establishment of a more coherent structure, particularly within Government, to support inland fisheries throughout Northern Ireland.

This recommendation is similar in spirit to that contained in Para 4.4 above.

Currently if an angler wishes to fish in the FCB area, s/he requires a game or a coarse fishing rod licence, which may be valid for a season, 8 days or 1 day in the case of a game fishing rod licence or a season, 8 days or 3 days in the case of a coarse fishing rod licence.

If an angler holding an FCB licence wished to fish in waters inside the jurisdiction of the then Foyle Fisheries Commission, s/he could do so on payment of a supplement.

Confusion regularly arises among anglers especially those who wish to fish on waters on the boundaries of jurisdictions (including those on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) due to the differing licence requirements. This situation is compounded by the inclusion of the Newry area, formerly the responsibility of the FCB, in the FCILC's jurisdiction. Tourist anglers are likely to find the current arrangements particularly confusing. Simplification of the current requirements would remove such confusion.

As noted in relation to Recommendation 4.3 above, a pragmatic solution to simplify at least part of the above would be for the FCB and FCILC to recognise each other's licenses on specified waters. The FCB, while acknowledging the benefit of such an arrangement to anglers (particularly to those who now have to pay twice to fish waters which used to be covered by one licence) and deploring the complexity of the current arrangements, could not agree to such a proposal in the absence of core funding, given the consequent loss of revenue.

In addition to the above, if the angler wishes to fish DCAL's Public Angling Estate, s/he must purchase a Permit. Joint permit/licences are available valid for 8 or 1 day(s) in the case of game fishing and 8 or 3 days in the case of coarse fishing.

Prior to the passing of the Act, the Parr Committee was appointed to advise on inland fisheries in Northern Ireland. It recommended that a Central Fisheries Authority should be established and that its powers and responsibilities should include, inter alia,:

• the improvement of fishing waters and fisheries
• the improvement and development of facilities for fishing
• the acquisition of ownership of fishing rights and other property
• co-operation with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and other interested bodies
• the making of general or local byelaws dealing with close seasons, duties, methods of fishing etc subject to the approval of the Ministry
• striking and collection of fishery rates

The Government did not accept the Parr Committee's recommendation for a Central Fisheries Authority but decided that the then Department of Agriculture should be responsible for the supervision and protection of fisheries and for fostering the establishment and development of fisheries other than those in the Londonderry area, and the FCB was to be responsible for the conservation, protection and improvement of the salmon and inland fisheries other than those in the Londonderry area. The reasons given were that the main duty of the previous Boards of Conservators had been the conservation and protection of fish stocks and the Department planned to undertake research which was felt to fit closely with development.

As noted in the Report of the Black Inquiry (1981), "Soon after the FCB was established it became apparent that the financial provisions for its operation laid down in the Fisheries Act were insufficient to allow it to carry out functions other than the conservation and protection of fisheries .." The majority Black recommendations were that an Inland Fisheries Boards should be established, excluding the Londonderry area, which should assume the inland fisheries responsibilities of the then Department of Agriculture and the FCB. This Report was rejected in favour of increased representation on the FCB and the creation of an Executive Committee (see Section 2 above)

In November 1995, Price Waterhouse, who had been commissioned to undertake a review of the FCB, recommended the enhancement of the FCB and the gradual movement of executive functions from the Department to the Board (see Section 2 above).

Inquiries and reviews have consistently recommended the transfer of the management and development functions associated with inland fisheries to a fishery authority whether to a Central or an Inland Fishery Board or in the case of Price Waterhouse to an enhanced FCB. The FCB has agreed in the past and continues to agree with such proposals in principle but only on the basis that satisfactory funding arrangements are put in place. The FCB also recognises that in the albeit short length of its existence, DCAL appears to be prepared to devote more effort to the management and development of the Public Angling Estate than had been experienced previously. This does not of course guarantee that additional resources will be made available. The Board is however fully in support of the Department's bid for new EU structural funds to develop water-based tourism including an angling development programme.

The Board would welcome discussion with other appropriate bodies regarding the future management and development of the Public Angling Estate and the funding arrangements necessary to support such activities.

4.7 The Board recommends that coarse fisheries should be developed in appropriate waters in Northern Ireland for the benefit of local and tourist anglers

The Board notes with interest that, following investigations by DCAL and the DoE, an application for a licence to introduce carp into Ballyroney Lake has been granted.

The Board considers that the potential offered by the development of coarse fishing in Northern Ireland has not been exploited and recommends that coarse fisheries should be developed in appropriate waters throughout Northern Ireland for the benefit of local and tourist anglers.

4.8 The Board is fully in support of the Salmon Management Plan and would welcome a similar approach to the management of eel stocks, backed by appropriate scientific research and monitoring in both cases

The Board notes that the Atlantic Salmon is included in a Report prepared for the WWF Pan-European Ecological Network and Species Team by the WWF-UK (Species Alert! Natura 2000: a last chance for European biodiversity) which highlights the decline of certain species. The Report states that "Stocks of wild atlantic salmon are declining rapidly and international scientific advice and available data on salmon populations indicate that this trend is set to continue. This decline is a serious threat to the species as countries are reporting that the spawning stock in many of their rivers are far below numbers which scientists recommend will keep genetically distinct populations."

The Board reiterates its concern regarding funding for the implementation of the salmon tagging scheme referred to in Recommendation 4.3 above.

The Board welcomes the investment which has been made possible under the Salmon Management Plan. The Board firmly believes that appropriate scientific research and continued monitoring of the information available through the Salmon Management Plan is vital.

The Board recommends that a similar approach should be adopted to the management of eel stocks.

4.9 The Board recommends that ways of maximising the tourist potential of shore fisheries should be investigated.

The Board feels that the North Antrim Coast in particular provides opportunities for the development of tourism associated with shore fisheries.

It may also be possible to provide sea angling facilities from such bases since it is understood that sea angling off the North Coast is highly regarded throughout GB.

The Board recognises that its current structure may not facilitate optimum effectiveness of the management of Board activities in the future.

An alternative to the current structure would be to form a smaller Board supported by an Advisory Council. The Board would however be concerned to preserve the breadth of representation which currently exists.

The Board is also of the view that the management and staffing structures of the Board should be reviewed in the light of future decisions on the role and responsibilities of the Board and the resources available to it.

5.0 Conclusion

The Board regards the inland fisheries of Northern Ireland as one of its most important assets and is proud of the contribution which it makes to their conservation and protection. The Board welcomes the opportunity for a thorough review of the arrangements supporting the management and conservation of the inland fisheries of Northern Ireland and has endeavoured to submit considered and constructive recommendations to the Committee, which if implemented, would go a considerable way towards alleviating the very real concerns of the Board in respect of some matters. The Board would be happy to supply any further information which would be of help to the Committee.

The Head of DCAL may appoint two further representatives, or the Board may recommend appointments. Currently these positions are vacant.

A further appointment to the Executive Committee has been deferred.

DCAL is responsible for:

• inland fisheries commercial development, including issuing permits to traditional Lough Erne commercial fishermen, encouraging the development of the inland commercial catching and processing sector and maintaining the lease of the commercial fixed net eel fisheries in Lough Erne and the Quoile Basin
• the conservation and protection of salmonid and freshwater fisheries and habitat, including negotiating agreements on fish passes and water abstraction proposals affecting the passage of fish, surveying salmonid habitats and populations, providing technical and fishery interest advice in the design and implementation of environmental works, regulating commercial exploitation and the management of recreational fisheries, and operating the Bush Salmon Station to service and support salmonid research, enhancement and rehabilitation measures
• the development of salmon and freshwater fisheries, including rehabilitation and enhancement works and projects, supporting the development of derelict waters, the development of coarse fisheries and angling and provision of advice, information and support to angling clubs and fishery owners on the development of angling waters
• the public angling estate, including securing and sustaining title and access to fisheries, providing and maintaining structures at angling waters, managing angling waters, producing fish for stocking at the Movanagher Fish Farm and promoting the use of the angling estate.

16 October 2000

Under Section 170 (1) of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 as amended ("the Act"), any of the following persons can appoint Private Water Bailiffs:

• any person who by virtue of any fishing rights in any lake or river has an interest in the preservation of the fish therein.
• any persons who have united themselves into a society for the preservation of any fishery in any lake or river
• the owner of any salmon fishery on the sea coast
• the licensee under a shell-fish fishery licence
• any licensees under such licences who have united themselves into a society for the protection of their shell-fish fisheries

for the protection of the fisheries in any such lake or river or the tributaries thereof or on such part of the sea coast or for the protection of that shell-fish fishery or those shell-fish fisheries.

The authority of a Private Water Bailiff applies only to the waters named in his warrant. The Board does not have the power to extend this authority.

Section 172 of the Act gives general powers to authorised persons (which includes Private Water Bailiffs unless otherwise stated). These powers are as follows:

An authorised person may for the purposes of protecting the fisheries at any time:

• enter into and pass through or along and remain on the banks or borders of any lakes, rivers or the tributaries thereof
• with boats or otherwise enter upon such lakes or rivers
• enter upon and examine all weirs, sluices, mill dams, fish passes, mill races and watercourses communicating with such lakes or rivers and pass along the same
• stop, enter and search any boat which has been or is engaged or is about to be engaged in fishing
• examine all standing, floating or other net whatsoever
• examine all fish and fishing engines found in any place which by this Act he is authorised to enter and for that purpose open any package found in such place and containing or suspected of containing any fish or fishing engine
• seize any unlawful fishing engine or any lawful fishing engine which is being unlawfully used
• seize any fish in the possession of a person found or suspected of committing an offence under any statutory provision relating to fisheries or any fish which have been or are suspected of having been unlawfully captured
• seize any other thing whatsoever by means of, or in relation to, which offence under any provision of this Act has been or is suspected of having been committed
• do all such other acts and things as he is authorised to do under the Act

A Private Water Bailiff does not have the authority to enter any enclosed garden or any dwelling house or the curtilage thereof except where the ordinary road or passage to any weir, dam or dyke traverses such garden or curtilage. (A Justice of the Peace may grant a warrant to one of the Board's Fishery Conservation Officers to enter an enclosed garden or dwelling house or the curtilage thereof where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the provisions of the Act or associated legislation has been committed.)

The Board supports the work of Private Water Bailiffs in carrying out the above by providing guidance on the offences which Private Water Bailiffs are most likely to encounter, on appropriate courses of action in various circumstances and on occasions when a Private Water Bailiff should contact the local Fishery Conservation Officer or FCB Headquarters. Senior officers of the Board are available to give talks to Private Water Bailiffs and to provide advice on dealing with situations as and when they arise.

Private Water Bailiffs appointed under Section 170 of the Act to protect the waters named on their warrants have long considered that they should be more actively involved in the investigation of water pollution incidents as part of their role in protecting the fishery.

There are however considerable difficulties in involving Private Water Bailiffs in the investigation of pollution incidents:

• the danger of causing conflict between the owners or occupiers of fisheries and the employers of Private Water Bailiffs e.g. an Angling Club which may lease the fishery from or need access over land owned by the alleged offender
• the difficulty of providing the type of evidence required to substantiate a prosecution
• The Board undertakes the investigation of pollution incidents of an agricultural nature on behalf of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of the Department of the Environment. The annual Forward Work Plan agreed with the EHS requires that the professional training needs of the Board's Fishery Conservation Officers are identified and progressed. The Board does not have the resources to provide appropriate training for Private Water Bailiffs. The Board cannot comment upon whether the EHS would be willing to do so. Any proposed extension of the work of Private Water Bailiffs into the investigation of pollution incidents would require consultation with, and the approval of, the EHS who audit the Board's staff periodically to ensure their continuing sampling competence
• Three water samples are required as evidence to substantiate a prosecution in relation to a fish kill or where the source of the pollution is unknown (in which case a number of different discharges may have to be distinguished and sampled appropriately) - one upstream of the suspected source, one at the suspected source and one downstream. All three samples must be taken by the same person. Since the authority of a Private Water Bailiff applies only to the waters named on his warrant, difficulties could arise in taking the upstream or downstream sample if the sampling point(s) falls outside the Private Water Bailiff's area of jurisdiction
• Similar difficulties may arise in interviewing an alleged offender residing outside of a Private Water Bailiff's area of jurisdiction
• the high cost of laboratory analysis

In addition to the above, a number of other issues would be of concern were the Board to enter into some form of arrangement whereby Private Water Bailiffs undertook pollution investigations on its behalf on a volunteer basis. Field staff involved in sampling waters and effluents can encounter a wide range of conditions and be subject to various hazards. The duties of the FCB with regard to the health and safety of its staff can be effectively addressed through the employment relationship. A similar responsibility would fall to the FCB for Private Water Bailiffs working on its behalf which would be difficult to discharge in the context of a "looser" relationship. For example, on a purely practical point, in addition to appropriate training, it is important that sampling personnel should have adequate protective clothing and equipment. The FCB does not have the resources to provide protective clothing and equipment other than to members of its staff. Insurance for Private Water Bailiffs in the event of accident or assault whilst working on behalf of the FCB is also of concern. Again the FCB does not have the resources to meet any increased premium which may be necessary. The Board would also be concerned that the use of Private Water Bailiffs in the investigation of pollution incidents would result in an administrative overhead which would add to the pressures already faced by the Board's limited number of management and clerical staff.

The Board recognises however that Private Water Bailiffs can be of considerable assistance in preventing damage to fisheries from polluting discharges. Private Water Bailiffs who are frequently on the waters under their jurisdiction may well be the first to observe any new discharge to the waterway. They may also be the first to observe a change in a permitted discharge. All such discharges or changes should be reported immediately to the local Fishery Conservation Officer or to Board Headquarters. If exceptionally a sudden discharge is observed, the extent of which has caused or appears likely to cause a fish kill, and there is no time to follow the reporting procedure, the FCB provides guidance to Private Water Bailiffs on obtaining a bucket sample of the discharge. This should only be done as a last resort as it may be difficult to substantiate a prosecution on this basis.

The Board values the work of Private Water Bailiffs in providing a bailiffing service and in identifying potential and actual sources of pollution on the waters within their areas of jurisdiction and respects the local knowledge which is amassed through their experience of those waters.

However in the opinion of the Board, any benefit derived from the use of Private Water Bailiffs on its behalf in the investigation of pollution incidents would not be commensurate with the difficulties which would be created. The Board also feels that consideration of the use of Private Water Bailiffs could prove a distraction from what the Board considers to be the very strong case which it has advanced for additional resources. The employment of sufficient manpower to carry out the Board's functions would, in the Board's view, be more effective than reliance on volunteers who, despite their undoubted commitment, the Board would not have the ability to deploy to optimum effect.

As the Committee is aware, the EHS is considering undertaking the investigation of all pollution incidents "in-house". If this approach is implemented, the use of Private Water Bailiffs would become a matter for the EHS.

In conclusion, the Board does not feel that the use of Private Water Bailiffs to investigate pollution incidents on its behalf is a feasible solution to the lack of manpower resources available to it. The Board remains firm in its belief that the provision of adequate core funding is essential to enable it to provide high quality, cost effective services across all its functions.

22 June 2000

1. This submission sets out the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's existing policies regarding the management and conservation of salmon and freshwater fisheries, with particular reference to the issues which have been highlighted in the Committee's terms of reference.

2. The Department's statutory remit is contained in the Fisheries Act (NI) 1966, as amended. Under the provisions of the Fisheries Act the Department is responsible for the supervision and protection of inland fisheries, including salmon and for fostering the establishment and development of fisheries, except for the Foyle and Carlingford areas which are the responsibility of the Loughs Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC). To meet its statutory remit the Department exercises a range of functions which are detailed in the 1966 Act. In summary the main functions are:

• The conservation and protection of salmon and inland fisheries and habitat.
• Regulating and assisting the development of salmon and inland fisheries.
• Providing a range of public angling facilities for both local residents and tourists.
• Regulating and assisting the development of an efficient commercial fisheries sector.
• Regulating and promoting development of aquaculture businesses in inland waters.

The Department's policies in relation to each of these functions is described below.

3. The Department is currently in the process of bringing forward some amendments to the Fisheries Act in the Fisheries Amendment Bill 2000. A summary of the proposed amendments is attached at Annex A.

4. The conservation and protection of salmon and inland fisheries functions include the implementation and enforcement of a range of statutory measures to protect fish stocks, particularly young and breeding fish stocks, and regulation of both angling and commercial fishing.

5. While the Department has overall policy responsibility for conservation and protection of salmon and inland fisheries, (except those in the FCILC area), responsibility for the enforcement of the measures lies with the Fisheries Conservancy Board (FCB) which is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body, sponsored by DCAL. Section 26 of the Fisheries Act empowers the FCB to make byelaws with the approval of the Department for the conservation and protection of fisheries, except eels which the Department retains direct responsibility for. Accordingly the Board is responsible for recommending new or adding to existing conservation measures such as the proposed Salmon Tagging Scheme (see paragraphs 19 to 21).

6. The Board is also the licensing authority for both angling and commercial fishing, except in the FCILC area, and its costs for conservation and protection work are partially met from income derived from the sale of licences. A licence is required by law for each fishing rod used by anyone over 18 years of age to fish anywhere in Northern Ireland, except for sea angling. (Under the age of 18, a rod licence is required only if game fishing in the FCILC area.) Licences are issued either by the FCB or the FCILC depending on the area the angler wishes to fish. A reciprocal arrangement enables licence holders in each of the licensing jurisdictions to fish in the other area on payment of a supplement.

7. The Department's policy is to seek to achieve the long-term sustainability of abundant wild salmon populations to enable local communities, both angling and commercial fishing, to benefit from the resource. It is recognised that there is an important balance to be struck between development of angling and assisting the commercial sector and conservation and protection of fish stocks to ensure a healthy industry can be sustained into the future. The exploitation of wild salmon fisheries is strictly controlled through regulations made under the provisions of the Fisheries (NI) Act 1966 (and the Foyle Fisheries Act 1952 in respect of the Foyle and Carlingford area).

8. Salmon fishing rights in fresh water are mainly in private ownership or leased by angling clubs. Salmon angling exploitation is regulated through close seasons and restrictions on the type of fishing methods permitted.

9. The two main commercial methods of salmon exploitation in Northern Ireland are drift net fishing and fixed bag and draft net fishing. The main commercial fisheries are located off the North Antrim and Londonderry coastlines. All commercial salmon netsmen are required to hold licences. In the FCB area the number of drift net licences issued is capped at 11 but only half of these are fished regularly. On average 12 fixed bag net, 6 fixed tidal draft net and 6 draft net licences are issued for salmon fishing in the sea and tidal areas. The rights to fish fixed bag and draft nets were established under 19^th century salmon legislation and are herediments (property rights). The number of draft net licences is capped at 6. The commercial season in the FCB area is from 18 March to 15 September although the timing of the main salmon runs effectively curtails the season to around late May to the end of August. Fishing is restricted to 5 days per week and there are also restrictions on the length and depth of nets, on boat size and the use of mono filament net is prohibited.

10. Salmon are protected during the upstream migration to spawning areas and their return as smolts to the sea. Legislative provisions require, inter alia that weirs should have fish passes and where water is abstracted and returned to the river, grids and gratings should be installed to protect salmon and smolts.

11. The Department is advised by Fishery Scientists in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on issues concerning stock status and other scientific matters which is essential to inform policy decisions. DARD scientists operate the River Bush Salmon Project which is a long-term scientific project concerned with the ecology and conservation biology of Atlantic salmon. The necessary base-line data, on which the success of the research programme depends, is derived from fish counts obtained from the operation of a number of specially designed fish traps which intercept smolts (juvenile salmon migrating to the sea) and adults returning to their home river to spawn. This research programme has led to the recognition of the River Bush as an "index river" by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The programme provides ICES and the Department with a long running time series data on annual smolt production, exploitation rates, adult returns and spawning escapement, providing essential information for both management action and further research.

12. DARD scientists are also examining genetic diversity in local wild salmon populations. The results of this work are used on an ongoing basis to inform policy on stocking and transfers of fish. These activities are carried out in a way that as far as possible takes account of conservation of natural genetic diversity. Advice on the impact of artificial rearing of salmon and the potential impact of escaped-farmed salmon on wild populations has also been derived from this research.

13. The problems facing salmon survival are multi-factorial. They include poor in river habitats resulting in a scarcity of spawning and nursery areas for egg and fry; predation of young salmon by cormorants (a major problem), herons, otters and of adult salmon by seals, water quality problems arising from agricultural and industrial pollution; exploitation by commercial fishermen; possible problems in the marine environment; poaching and angling exploitation.

14. Considerable effort has been made in recent years to improve stock status for example, through the Salmonid Enhancement Programme (which was funded under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation) which grant-aided angling clubs to inter alia, improve in river spawning and nursery habitat. The Department is seeking further funding to continue this work under an angling development programme in the next round of EU Structural Funds.

15. The balance of advice from DARD until recently was that stock status was judged to be relatively good. Adult numbers were not showing a decline in the rivers where there are long-term counter/trap data. A trend for a reduction in freshwater survival in the River Bush was of concern and steps have been taken to identify and address the causes. Research showed that conservation efforts should be concentrated to improve freshwater habitat and this was pursued through the Salmonid Enhancement Programme. However, during the last two years, a sudden and serious decline in marine survival of wild salmon has been noted. If this trend persists the balance of advice from DARD will change and further restrictions on exploitation may become necessary to ensure conservation of salmon stocks.

16. Due to concerns about declining populations of wild salmon stocks, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) and its contracting parties (which includes the EU Member States) have agreed to adopt a precautionary approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of salmon. The precautionary approach is based on the concept that salmon management measures should be aimed at maintaining all salmon stocks in the NASCO convention area above their conservation limits. This requires the setting of specific spawning targets for individual rivers and the monitoring of stocks against those targets so that action can be taken where there is a danger of a stock falling below its target.

17. The Department is currently working with the Fisheries Conservancy Board and Fisheries Scientists in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in the implementation of a Salmon Management Plan, which entails the creation of a database on the status of stocks in each catchment in the FCB area. The ultimate objective of the management plan will be to ensure that in most rivers in most years, sufficient adult salmon are spawning to meet specified conservation targets. Fish counters are being installed in the main rivers in the FCB area to obtain data on target compliance. The proposed Salmon Tagging Scheme (see paragraphs 19-21 below) should provide accurate information on the numbers of salmon taken by commercial fishermen and anglers and has the added advantage of curtailing poaching. This approach is consistent with the NASCO precautionary approach to salmon management.

18. The information collected should identify areas that need to be addressed. A similar system has operated in the FCILC area for some 30+ years and has achieved considerable success in maintaining and improving sustainable salmon populations.

19. In 1995 the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources in the Republic of Ireland established a Salmon Management Taskforce to review problems in sustaining wild salmon populations and their exploitation. The Salmon Management Taskforce report which was published in 1996 identified a number of measures to improve the management and conservation of wild fish stocks. They included a proposal to introduce a carcass tagging programme. It was recognised that for the scheme to be successful, similar schemes would need to be implemented simultaneously in Northern Ireland (to ensure that ROI illegally caught fish could not be sold in Northern Ireland). The Fisheries Conservancy Board, The Foyle Carlingford and Irish Light Commission, the Fisheries Boards in the Republic of Ireland and the relevant Departments have been liaising on the development of detailed proposals for the implementation of salmon tagging schemes in their respective jurisdictions.

20. The concept behind carcass tagging is that all salmon and large sea trout killed would be marked with an identifiable, irremovable tag and that all catches would be recorded in log books. The advantage of this approach include:

• It would provide accurate information on numbers of fish caught, which in turn would aid assessments of fish survival and stock abundance. It should also significantly reduce poaching, as it would be illegal to sell or have possession of fish which have not been tagged.
• It will also introduce greater transparency in the levels of exploitation by the different fishing groups. (The Department receives returns provided on a voluntary basis from the commercial fishermen but has failed to obtain data on angling catches.)

21. While it is the intention of the various fishery conservation organisations to implement proposals from 1 January 2001, the Department has not yet received finalised proposals from the Fisheries Conservancy Board for approval.

22. Under Section 15 of the Fisheries Act (NI) 1966 the Department operates Regulations - the "Eel Fishing Regulations (NI) 1979 and subsequent amending regulations, 1982 and 1984 which lay down certain provisions for the management, conservation, protection and improvement of eel fisheries of Northern Ireland, except those in the Foyle and Carlingford Areas. Under these byelaws, restrictions are applied to the fishing season, to boat lengths and to the type and size of nets used and also the minimum size of eel which can be lawfully fished. The size limit for commercial eel fishing is 30cm and any undersized eels caught must be returned to the waters from which they were taken. It is therefore illegal to fish for glass eels in Northern Ireland and this restriction also applies in the Republic of Ireland. All eel fishermen are required to hold a licence issued by the Fisheries Conservancy Board.

23. The main commercial eel fisheries in Northern Ireland are Lough Neagh and Lough Erne. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure owns the fishing rights in Lough Erne and the Department controls the commercial eel fishing effort through a restriction in the number of permits issued. The Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-Operative Society as owners of the fishing rights control eel fishing in Lough Neagh. Commercial fishermen also require licences from the Fisheries Conservancy Board.

24. There have been serious concerns about the decline of eel fisheries in many parts of Europe over the past two decades. After a period of relative abundance, the numbers of glass eels entering rivers from the sea began to decline dramatically in the early 1980s. Although the decline may have slowed or stopped in recent years, there has not yet been any sign of a significant recovery. Eels may spend up to 20 years or more in fresh water before maturing and emigrating to sea as silver eels to spawn and therefore the reduced glass eel recruitment could result in a period of reduced silver eel emigration for at least the next two decades. Based on scientific advice on status of eel stocks throughout Europe the ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management have recommended that fishing mortality should be reduced and a stock recovery plan agreed and implemented. This advice has been forwarded to the European Union but the EU has not yet determined any definite course of action.

25. The Northern Ireland eel fisheries are very significant in UK terms and the Department would wish to have a central role in any negotiations with the EU should an international approach to the management of eel stocks be contemplated. The Department's officials are liaising with MAFF and scientific staff from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development who participate in the ICES Working Groups with a view to influencing developments, to protect NI's valuable commercial eel fisheries.

26. The Department is aware of the concerns which have been expressed about the impact of hydro-electric power developments on the conservation and protection of fish stocks. There are specific provisions in the Fisheries Act which place obligations on hydro generation developers and others such as fish farmers to provide measures for the protection of fish. The main requirements are the construction of a fish pass on weirs, closure of the water abstraction channels during certain periods each week and when the plant is not operating and installation of grids at the intake and discharge points. The Act does not provide powers to limit the volume of water abstracted nor does it address the de-watering of the channel between the intake and discharge points.

27. It would be impossible to frame legislation for the protection of fish stocks which would fit every location and accordingly the Fisheries Act provides for the Department to grant exemption permits in cases where it is satisfied that acceptable alternatives and in many cases superior protection measures can be provided. This facility enables modern fishery protection measures to be adopted with the developer's agreement to suit individual site characteristics. Such measures include the installation of electric barriers, angled screens, fish by-pass channels and in some instances flow management regimes.

28. The Fisheries Conservancy Board (and the Foyle Carlingford and Irish Light Commission) are responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Fisheries Act and the conditions contained in any exemption permits are complied with and they have powers to prosecute offenders.

29 The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment have recently published a report entitled "Small Hydro Electric Schemes - Impact on River Fisheries in Northern Ireland". The terms of reference of the study were to evaluate the effectiveness of measures already taken at 6 existing small hydro schemes to mitigate their impact on fisheries, to identify any shortcomings in such measures and to draw up general recommendations for existing and future developments. The report concluded that there were many examples of best practice in terms of design and operation across the six sites monitored. Some 300 potential impediments to fish migration were investigated and of these twenty issues were found to be of concern. Twelve of these were minor and eight were of significant concern. However, all twenty issues have been or are in the process of being resolved. The main finding of the Report was that hydro development can be sustained in rivers without adverse impact on fish stocks if the proper protection measures are put in place and the developer complies with the protection regime.

30. Following the public consultation period, DETI will issue Government's response to the Report. The Department will consider those recommendations within its remit in a positive light.

31. Inland fisheries have benefited in recent years from investment of £4.9m under the Salmonid Enhancement Programme (SEP) funded from the Water Based Tourism measure of the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. This investment resulted in improvements to in-river habitats for trout and salmon, enhancement of stocks and improvement of access facilities for anglers. The Department is seeking further funding for an Angling Development Programme under the next round of EU Structural Funds 2000-2006 to extend this work. The Department is also participating in two cross-border EU funded projects - the Erne Salmon Management Plan and the Erne Eel Enhancement Programme.

32. Fisheries Technical staff are available to advise any interested parties or angling clubs on a wide range of fisheries matters including stocking levels for their waters and on setting up club hatcheries to enhance their own waters.

33. The Department supports the maintenance of biodiversity in the aquatic environment through the encouragement of good fishery management, habitat restoration and enhancement. The Division's technical staff provided advice on habitat restoration to fishery owners and engineers on site to enhance biodiversity and benefit fisheries in and around waterways during construction and drainage operations. In policy formation the Department takes into account the development needs and potential of the commercial fisheries, aquaculture and recreational angling sectors.

34. The current policy of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is to prohibit the introduction of non-native fish species into Northern Ireland waters. The aim is to prevent the introduction of disease and to protect native species from displacement from their natural habitats and their possible extinction.

35. The Environment and Heritage Service of DOE has a similar policy which is implemented through the Wildlife (NI) Order 1985. The Order prohibits the release into the wild of any animal which is not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland.

36. The Department has had representations from the Northern Ireland Carp Anglers Society to review policy to allow the development of carp fisheries in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Carp Anglers Association are seeking the introduction of common carp.

37. The Department is currently considering, in consultation with the Environment and Heritage Service and other relevant interests, a possible change in policy to allow the controlled introduction of common carp into specified sites with appropriate measures to protect native stocks and providing that the imported stock is from a certified disease free farm or stock, with each proposal to be considered on a site by site basis. [A final decision on this has not yet been reached.]

38. Under the provisions of the Fisheries Act the Department has powers to acquire by agreement fishing rights in any inland waters, for the purpose of developing or improving facilities for angling. The Department currently has a public angling estate comprising 62 waters located throughout Northern Ireland. There are 30 still-water trout fisheries, 10 stretches of game fishing river, 7 coarse fishing loughs, 6 river and canal venues for coarse angling, 4 still water fisheries with mixed coarse and game stocks, 3 stretches of river for mixed fishing as well as the renowned coarse and game fisheries on Upper and Lower Lough Erne.

39. The Public Angling Estate provides salmon, sea trout and wild brown trout angling in rivers and loughs and stocked brown and rainbow trout angling in reservoirs and loughs. Coarse angling is available on rivers, canals and loughs including match fishing venues on Lough Erne, the Upper Bann River and a series of smaller specially adapted and stocked lakes. The Department is also developing a dedicated pike fishery in County Fermanagh. Some rainbow trout waters are open throughout the year and other waters are available for the fly fishing specialist.

40. The Department issues a range of permits for fishing in the public angling estate and the prices are announced at the beginning of each season. Many of the fisheries have access for the disabled and the Department issues concessionary permits to disabled anglers. A Season Game Permit costing £53 for the 2000 season enables anglers to fish all of the waters in the Estate. Most game waters are open from 1 March to 30 October and some stocked rainbow trout waters are open for eleven months of the year. Excellent salmon and sea trout angling can be found on the Rivers Bush, Roe, Mourne, Shimna and the Ballycastle Rivers. Additional day tickets, bookable in advance, are required for the three restricted salmon beats on the downstream stretches of the Bush. Additional day tickets are also required for the Shimna, Mourne and Ballycastle Rivers. Some tickets are available free and others are available at a reduced price to holders of DCAL Game Fishing Permits.

41. The Department operates a trout production farm at Movanagher on the Lower Bann River which produces in excess of 100,000 brown and rainbow trout annually for stocking into the public angling estate. The stocking policy of the Department is designed to meet the angling demand. A regular census of usage is carried out on many Department waters which allows an estimate of angling demand to be made. This measure of demand is correlated with the basic environmental and productivity information which is maintained for each fishery to decide the stocking level of each water.

42. The Department is also responsible for managing the salmon hatchery at the River Bush Salmon Station. The ova and fry produced from the hatchery are used for stock enhancement and re-instatement in the River Bush and other waters in the Public Angling Estate. Staff also operate the fish traps at Bushmills to provide records of fish counts and access to fish for tagging and scientific evaluation. The hatchery was recently extended, partially funded by SEP, and is available to angling clubs who wish to bring brood stock from their river to the hatchery. The eggs produced from the brood stock are then planted back into their native rivers. Egg survival in a hatchery is much higher than in the natural environment.

43. There is a significant commercial inland fishing industry in Northern Ireland concentrated mainly on Lough Neagh (eels, perch, bream and pollen), Lough Erne (mainly eels and pike) and also in waters off the North Coast (mainly salmon). The commercial industry is worth some £4m per annum providing full-time or part-time employment for some 500 people. The largest sector of the industry is the eel fishery in Lough Neagh which is controlled by the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative Society and Toome Eel Fishery.

44. The Department operates a freshwater Fishing Vessel (Grants) Scheme (NI) 1982 for the provision of grant-aid towards new fishing boats and engines to support the commercial fishing industry. The Department's technical staff also offer advice and assistance to the sector with regard to quality of product, handling of product and marketing.

45. The Department has been approached on a number of occasions in recent years about a compensation scheme for ceasing commercial salmon fishing in the FCB area. The Department recognises the commercial fisherman's traditional right to fish and the provision of a compensatory scheme to reduce commercial effort is not part of current policy. However the Department is aware of the recommendations contained in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review which was commissioned by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in GB. One of the recommendations is that "the phase out of mixed stock salmon net fisheries in England and Wales should be accelerated and to achieve this compensation should be offered to netsmen to encourage them to leave these fisheries on a voluntary basis as soon as possible". The Department is awaiting the outcome of this review and will consider the position here.

46. If further restrictions on salmon exploitation are necessary, it is likely that measures to reduce exploitation by commercial fishermen will be among the options considered. The Department will be looking to the Fisheries Conservancy Board to put forward proposals.

47. The Department is responsible for the development and regulation of aquaculture businesses in inland waterways. The industry currently comprises some 25 rainbow trout farms, 2 rainbow trout hatcheries and one salmon hatchery. The industry produces some 1,000 tonnes of trout per annum valued at £2m. A Fish Culture Licence is necessary to operate a fish farm and the conditions prescribed in the licence are designed to ensure that good standards will be maintained in relation to husbandry, hygiene, fish welfare, disease control and environmental impact. Technical staff provide advice to the industry as necessary.

48. In assessing an application for a Fish Culture Licence the Department will take account of the impact of the proposal on existing fisheries, whether there are other users of the site and if these interests will be affected, whether the species to be farmed is indigenous and appropriate to the area and if the proposal meets with the requirements of the EU habitat's directive. If the Department is minded to grant a licence it is required to publish, at the applicant's expense, notice of the application in at least two newspapers in order to give local interests and the public an opportunity to express their views on the proposals. This procedure provides a basis for those outside and inside the industry to query new operations and provides an open, participative and effective system of control within the aquaculture sector.

49. The Assistance to Fish Farming Scheme (1973) provides grant aid assistance for the establishment, development and improvement of fish farms, for both sea and inland farms. However the scheme is outdated and is about to be revoked. The Department will be liaising with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (which is responsible for sea based aquaculture) on the development of replacement schemes.

50. The Planning Service has an obligation to consult other statutory bodies and agencies where it receives planning applications which could impact on the responsibility of those authorities. Inland Fisheries Division is a statutory consultee in relation to proposed developments in the vicinity of Inland Waterways and technical staff provide Planning Service with advice on remedial measures if any development is likely to have an adverse impact on the fisheries environment. Planning Service can include such measures in the conditions for planning approval. However the onus is on the Planning Service to identify the relevant statutory bodies for consultation in each case.

51. Under the provisions of the Drainage Northern Ireland Order 1973, the Rivers Agency of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has a duty to protect fisheries in the execution of drainage works. Regular meetings take place between technical staff of Inland Fisheries Division and Rivers Agency to agree the fishery protection measures to be implemented. Such works may include the installation of fishery groynes to create deep pools for fish; placing of spawning gravel in suitable rivers; planting of trees and bushes along river banks to provide shading for fish and to attract insects for food and construction of fish passes to enable fish to reach upstream spawning areas. Care is also taken to minimise disturbance to fisheries by undertaking drainage operations on spawning rivers outside the main spawning season.

52. The development of Inland Fisheries is dependent on good fresh water habitat and good water quality. Overall responsibility for water quality in Northern Ireland rests with the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of the Department of the Environment. EHS protects the aquatic environment through a range of activities including water quality management planning, controlling effluent discharges, taking action to combat or minimise the effects of pollution and monitoring water quality. Inland Fisheries technical staff participate in a Water Quality Management Committee which is chaired by EHS and brings together all the relevant Government Departments and Agencies with an interest in water quality. The Fisheries Conservancy Board carries out pollution monitoring work on behalf of EHS and it has statutory powers to prosecute for pollution offences.

53. The Department believes that in the context of continued peace and stability, there is considerable scope to develop and market the angling product with the specific objective of increasing the number of angling tourists to Northern Ireland. The majority of anglers are local residents as evidenced by the distribution of licence and permit sales. Sales of fishing licences in 1998 were as follows:

54. In the FCB area the majority of visiting anglers were coarse anglers (83% as opposed to game anglers (17%). Coarse angling as a tourism product is much better developed than the game angling tourism product. The Province hosts a number of major international coarse angling events such as the renowned Lough Erne Classic Competition, which attracts many visitors from Britain and Europe on an annual basis. Other venues for international match events are being developed.

55. There is no definitive data on the value of angling to the Northern Ireland economy. However it is widely recognised that visiting anglers generate significant spin-off benefits through their spending activities on accommodation, food, drink etc. A study commissioned by the Northern Regional Fisheries Board entitled "Recreational Sports Fisheries: A Contribution to Socio-Economic Improvement in Donegal" gives estimates of spend per trip per visiting angler by origin as follows:

The situation in Northern Ireland is probably not that different from Donegal.

56. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has identified angling as one of five key product areas for investing in a specific targeted marketing and promotion campaign and Fisheries Division is represented on the Board's Angling Product Marketing Strategy Group to take this forward. In parallel with this the angling product needs to be developed to command an international reputation. This requires significant investment and development to date has been constrained by inadequate resources. The Department is seeking additional funds to invest in the public angling estate to improve both access and the quality of fishing. As mentioned earlier in the paper, the Department is also seeking EU funding for an Angling Development Programme which will be used primarily to grant-aid investment in private fisheries.

The Northern Ireland Assembly Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee Inquiry into Inland Fisheries has the following terms of reference:

1. To examine existing policies in Northern Ireland concerning the management and conservation of salmon, trout, eels and freshwater fish.

2. To report to the Assembly making recommendations to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) and/or others on actions which would improve Inland Fisheries in Northern Ireland.

The inquiry will take particular account of:

• The need to maintain, and where appropriate enhance, biodiversity;
• The need to maximise the economic, social and recreational benefits derived from salmon and freshwater fisheries, taking account both of the interests of local communities and local factors and traditions; and
• The need for management of fisheries to be on a fully sustainable basis, taking account of the precautionary approach.

The inquiry will also consider factors that may affect the development and sustainability of these fisheries i.e.

• Planning policy in respect of industrial and housing developments along river corridors and lake shores;
• Drainage;
• Pollution; and
• Tourism.

The inquiry will examine the institutional arrangements for the regulation and management of these fisheries including the role of the public sector and the need to involve all interested parties.

Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) welcomes this opportunity to provide comment to the Northern Ireland Assembly Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee Inquiry into Inland Fisheries. We especially welcome the recognition of biodiversity and sustainability as significant issues in relation to the work of DCAL. In many ways healthy fish populations are indicative of healthy aquatic environments and in that sense the objectives of EHS and DCAL are the same.

EHS is an Executive Agency of the Department of the Environment. The Service's responsibilities span the built heritage, environmental protection and the natural heritage. The Service takes the lead in implementing the Government's environmental policy in Northern Ireland and contributes to policy development by providing expert advice to the Department's Environmental Policy Division.

EHS carries out a range of activities which promote the Government's strategies on sustainable development, biodiversity and climate change whilst also achieving its overall aims to protect and conserve Northern Ireland's natural heritage and built environment, to control and regulate pollution and to promote wider appreciation of the environment and best environmental practices.

In carrying out its responsibilities EHS seeks at all times to take an holistic approach to environmental issues but recognises that for reasons of clarity it is at times useful to present information as discrete packages. Within the wide diversity of EHS it is the activities of water pollution control and conservation protection that align most closely with the remit of the Committee's Inquiry into Inland Fisheries. To facilitate the Committee this statement of evidence is presented in two chapters;

1. Conservation Protection, and

2. Water Quality.

1.1 The legal basis

In Northern Ireland sites are designated for nature conservation purposes under national, European and international legislation and conventions.

1.2 Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (as amended).

The Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands Order makes provision with respect to nature conservation, enjoyment and conservation of the countryside, and amenity lands. It provides the basis for designating a network of Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs), National Nature Reserves, Nature Reserves and Marine Nature Reserves. It also allows for the designation of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks.

1.3 The EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (92/43/EEC)(The Habitats Directive) is a major EC measure in the field of nature conservation. Its overall objective is to promote the maintenance of biodiversity (i.e. the variety of natural wildlife), by taking account of economic, social, cultural and regional requirements. It gives effect to site and species protection measures both through the establishment of the Natura 2000 (European Sites) network, including the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and by modifying certain articles of the Birds Directive so that provisions relating to the protection and management of SPAs are virtually the equivalent of those for SACs.

1.4 EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC): (The Birds Directive)

Provides for the protection, management and control of all species of naturally occurring wild birds in the European territory of Members States. It requires Member States to take measures to preserve a sufficient diversity of habitats for all species of Wild Birds naturally occurring within their territories in order to maintain populations at ecologically and scientifically sound levels, and requires Member States to take special measures to conserve the habitat of certain particularly rare species and of migratory species, including the designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

1.5 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (the "Habitats Regulations").

These regulations give effect to the 1979 EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive) and to the 1992 EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the "Habitats Directive"). These Directives provide for the designation of Special Protection Areas and classification of Special Areas of Conservation respectively.

1.6 The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitats (The Ramsar Convention) requires Contracting Parties to designate suitable wetlands for inclusion in the Ramsar List and to formulate and implement their planning so as to promote the conservation of wetlands on the List and also, as far as possible, the 'wise use' of all wetlands in their territory.

1.7 ASSI declaration

The Department has a statutory obligation to protect special sites for their natural heritage and earth value in Northern Ireland by declaring them as Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (as amended).

EHS has begun the process of designating a suite of sites, including rivers and lakes, as ASSIs. The selection of ASSIs is described in 'Guidelines for the selection of Biological ASSIs in Northern Ireland'. In Northern Ireland (as of March 1999) there are 146 lakes designated in whole or in part as ASSIs covering a total area of 43,869 Ha (Lough Neagh forms the largest portion of this area at 38,500 Ha). The first two rivers to be designated as ASSIs in Northern Ireland were the Cladagh (Swanlinbar) River and the Upper Ballinderry River in 2000. Stretches of other rivers and smaller watercourses are also included in ASSIs.

1.8 ASSI management

Landowners within ASSIs are given reasons why their land has been designated and are supplied with a list of notifiable operations which have the potential to damage the interest for which the sites were declared. Generally landowners are able to manage their land as before but where they intend to carry out any notifiable operation they are required to consult with EHS. At this stage EHS may be able to give consent but if there is risk of damage EHS may enter into negotiation for a management agreement to safeguard the site. EHS is currently reviewing the ASSI management agreement system. Other government agencies are also required to consult with EHS over proposed activities likely to affect ASSIs. This includes activities that might affect water quality or quantity both upstream and throughout the catchment beyond the boundaries of the designated site.

1.9 SPA and SAC site protection

It is a requirement of the EC Birds Directive and the EC Habitats Directive that a representative proportion of habitats and species of community importance within each member state be protected within Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) respectively. Designating sites as SPAs or SACs brings an enhanced level of protection beyond that which applies in ASSIs. Two key differences are that:

a) Competent Authorities (those with statutory responsibilities) must review existing consents, licenses and permissions. If these could significantly damage the site, the Competent Authority must take such action as is necessary to ensure that the site is not damaged.

b) Competent Authorities may not allow an activity that will damage the nature conservation interest of the site unless there is no alternative and there are "imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature".

There are other differences described more fully in The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 A Guidance Note, EHS. A copy is provided at Annex A.

As a competent authority EHS takes into account the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive when consenting to new activities on freshwater SPAs and SACs and is reviewing existing consents to ensure they are not having a significant effect. Other competent authorities have the same responsibilities for activities for which they give consent.

1.10 SPA and SAC designation

EHS has begun the process of proposing a suite of rivers and lakes as SPAs and SACs in Northern Ireland where they contain habitat types and/or species which are rare or threatened within a European context. Once approved by the European Commission these will form part of the Natura 2000 Network of European protected areas. In Northern Ireland (as of March 1999) 140 lakes are designated in whole or in part as SPAs or SACs covering a total area of 43,823 Ha. (As for ASSIs above Lough Neagh forms the largest portion of this area at 38,500 Ha).

EHS will submit to the European Commission additional freshwater sites as candidate SACs (the Cladagh (Swanlinbar) River and the Upper Ballinderry River) and additional qualifying features for some existing SACs including Upper Lough Erne. If these are acceptable to the Commission they will be formally designated and added to the Natura 2000 network.

1.11 Ramsar site designation

Sites are designated as Ramsar sites where they meet the criteria for designation under the Ramsar Convention. Lough Neagh and Lough Beg together and Upper Lough Erne are the two freshwater Ramsar sites in Northern Ireland.

1.12 Watercourse maintenance in designated sites

Rivers Agency has a responsibility to avoid causing damage in carrying out its watercourse maintenance works in rivers or lakes designated as ASSIs, SACs or SPAs. To ensure that watercourse maintenance is executed in a way that sustains the interest for which these sites were declared EHS and Rivers Agency jointly prepare Watercourse Maintenance Agreements for rivers within, or impacting upon, designated sites.

1.13 Water quality standards for designated sites

For some designated freshwater sites the existing water quality may already be acceptable to meet the conservation objectives set for the features of those sites. However, where features for which the designated site was declared require an additional water quality standard for them to remain in a favourable condition, these standards will apply. The targets may be set in general terms as a water quality class or may include targets in relation to specific parameters, for example, suspended solids, phosphorus or pH.

1.14 The role of the planning system

Rivers and lakes have considerable nature conservation, landscape and amenity value. However it will remain the case that of the total freshwater resource only sites of the highest quality will be protected through formal designation as statutory sites of nature conservation importance. To provide protection for the overall freshwater resource EHS uses the planning system administered by the Planning Service, which provides a means of regulating the development and use of land in the public interest.

1.15 Planning Policy Statements

Regional policies on particular aspects of land-use planning that apply to the whole of Northern Ireland are normally issued through Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). The contents of PPSs are taken into account in preparing development plans and are also material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals. PPS 2 'Planning and Nature Conservation', which sets out regional planning policies for the hierarchy of sites of nature conservation importance, is of specific relevance to the conservation of the countryside including rivers and lakes. Where Planning Policy Statements are updated or new ones prepared EHS liases with Planning Service to ensure that the conservation and landscape importance the countryside, including rivers and lakes, is addressed.

1.16 Development plans

Development plans may be in the form of area plans, local plans or subject plans. EHS liases with Planning Service to ensure that appropriate protection is afforded to rivers and lakes in development plans. Statutory sites and features are generally identified in development plans. In addition, Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SLNCI) or Local Landscape Policy Areas (LLPA) are designated together with local policy statements aimed at ensuring that rivers and lakes and their special significance are not adversely affected by development. Where rivers, streams or lakes bound or cross development sites, local policy statements may be included to draw attention to the need to retain, protect and integrate these in an appropriate manner into the design and layout of development proposals.

1.17 Development control

Where development proposals have the potential to impact on the conservation value of rivers or lakes, EHS gives advice to Planning Service on how to respond to these proposals. Careful consideration is given by EHS to the implications of development proposals on the nature conservation, landscape and biodiversity value of rivers and lakes. Often planning permission is only granted subject to conditions or a planning agreement to mitigate any adverse impacts.

The Convention on Biological Diversity requires the development of national plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan was published in January 1994 and has been progressed into a number of detailed habitat and species action plans. Following on from this a consultation document "Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy Proposals June 1999 (Annex B) was published by the Government's advisory group on biodiversity, the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group. The Group is to make its final recommendations to Government in autumn 2000. When it does EHS will give a clear indication on how action plans in relation to habitats and species, including freshwater ones, will be taken forward.

1.18 Species Action Plans

Species action plans with targets and proposed actions at a UK level have been published for the following species that also occur in rivers and lakes in Northern Ireland:

• Otter Lutra lutra
• Allis shad Alosa alosa
• Twaite shad Alosa fallax fallax
• White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes
• Freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera
• River jelly lichen Collema dichotomum

The Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy Proposals recommended a specific Northern Ireland species action plan for freshwater pearl mussel and, additionally, proposed a species action plan for river water crowfoot Ranunculus fluitans, a rare species in Ireland. The freshwater pearl mussel is notable because it formerly occurred in populations of several millions in many of our rivers. In such numbers the species played an important part in improving water clarity by filtering it. It is thought that drainage activity, poor water quality and pearl fishing have all played a part in drastically reducing the range and numbers of pearl mussels. Recent surveys show very few populations left, and of these there are low numbers of individuals, which show no signs of successful reproduction.

1.19 Habitat Action Plans

UK habitat action plans are being prepared for the following freshwater habitats:

• Chalk rivers
• Turloughs
• Mesotrophic lakes
• Eutrophic standing waters
• Marl lakes

The Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy Proposals recommended a habitat action plan for rivers. A decision on whether to commit to a habitat action plan for certain types of rivers will be taken by Government in the context of its response to the final strategy recommendations.

1.20 The Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (September 1979):

Carries obligations to conserve wild plants, birds, and other animals, with particular emphasis on endangered and vulnerable species and their habitats. The provisions of the Convention underlie the EC Habitats Directive as well as the UK's wildlife legislation, including the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

1.21 The Wildlife Order

Important freshwater species such as otters, crayfish, river water-crowfoot and birds are protected under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Under the Wildlife Order it is also an offence to deliberately introduce to the wild any non-native plant or animal species that are not normally resident in Northern Ireland. It is the responsibility of the police to enforce the Wildlife Order where offences have been committed. To help them in this work the police have a Wildlife Liaison Officer who works closely with EHS staff. To help raise public awareness of the law in relation to protected species and in relation to releasing non-native plants and animals to the wild, EHS plans to publish an updated Wildlife Order explanatory booklet.

1.22 Control of introduced species

If a species of plant or animal is introduced to a place where it does not naturally occur it is variously referred to as introduced, non-native, exotic or alien. Several species of fish have been introduced for angling or aquaculture. Historical stocking of salmon and trout from sources other than local populations and the escape of farmed salmon has caused a reduction in genetic diversity amongst certain local populations. Further introductions of non-native species could be damaging by upsetting the ecological balance of plant and animal communities, by competing directly with local fish species and other wildlife or by spreading diseases. Freshwater systems are amongst the most vulnerable to introductions and rivers provide an ideal route for the spread of such species.

To help prevent the introduction and spread of non-native freshwater fish, invertebrates and plants to freshwater systems EHS provides advice to other government Departments and agencies. DCAL and DARD also have various responsibilities relating to fisheries and agriculture to control introductions of plants and animals to prevent the spread of disease. In exceptional cases, where it can be demonstrated that the introduction of non-native species poses no risk to native species or the integrity of natural habitats, EHS, in consultation with DCAL and others as necessary, may issues licenses under the Wildlife Order to introduce non-native species.

Zebra mussels colonised Lough Erne in the mid-1990s and have now become firmly established. Because of the way they grow and feed, zebra mussels have the potential to alter significantly the natural ecological balance of lakes. To limit the spread of zebra mussels to other lake and river systems, EHS has set up a zebra mussel control group bringing together all interested parties, including DCAL, to run a public awareness campaign.

The Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy proposals recognized the threat to biodiversity posed by introduced species and made clear the need for an all-Ireland review and cross-sectoral approach. EHS will consider this proposal in the context of its response to the final strategy recommendations.

1.23 Predator control

In some situations cormorants and otters are perceived as a threat to fishery interests. Research in GB has shown that whilst cormorants (and other fish eating birds and mammals) may have local impacts on fish populations there is no evidence for widespread fish population declines attributable to predators. Where fishery interests wish to manage cormorant impacts on fish populations EHS encourages non-lethal measures including scaring. In exceptional cases, where non-lethal methods have been shown to be ineffective, EHS issues licenses under the Wildlife Order to shoot small numbers of cormorants within specified limits.

1.24 Background

Rivers and lakes are attractive features of our countryside and many users wish to have access. There is a weak tradition of rights of way in Northern Ireland so established walks are relatively rare. Under the Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 district councils have duties and powers to promote access to the countryside. EHS supports district councils in this work.

1.25 Balancing access provision with environmental protection

EHS has a dual role in protecting the environment and promoting public access and the enjoyment of the countryside. The development of bankside or water-based access along rivers usually involves building physical structures such as car parks, paths, and jetties. In building such structures there is the potential to damage freshwater features of conservation value. Also, the activity generated by enhanced access provision has the potential to disturb wildlife and cause environmental damage such as bank erosion and vegetation trampling.

In recognition of the need to foster public access in an environmentally sustainable way EHS, in partnership with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, has now established the Northern Ireland Countryside Access and Activities Network. The network is based on the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Countryside Recreation Strategy published in 1998 and its aims include ensuring that the recreational use of rivers and lakes is managed in a way that reduces conflict between the various users and that environmental damage caused by such use is minimised. The network has a small team of dedicated staff.

1.26 Relationships with district councils

Many district councils are actively involved in promoting countryside recreation and tourism activity. This sometimes involves developing and promoting access along rivers and lake shores for anglers and walkers. To support this work EHS provides information and advice to district councils in exercising their duties and powers under the Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. EHS also grant aids individual projects promoted by district councils under the Access Order. EHS assesses such applications in the context of countryside access strategies prepared by district councils for their respective areas and relevant EHS criteria.

1.27 Conservation advice

EHS holds, or has access to extensive information on the Northern Ireland countryside and has a range of countryside duties and responsibilities. Using this information EHS provides nature conservation advice to other Government Departments, organisations and the general public.

1.28 Grant aid

Under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands Order EHS provides grants to organisations and individuals to encourage the conservation and enhancement of key elements of the countryside and its wildlife, and the provision of facilities which help as wide a range of people as possible to enjoy and appreciate our natural heritage.

1.29 EHS River Conservation Strategy

EHS has put a draft River Conservation Strategy out to public consultation with a view to publishing in November 2000 (Annex C). The Strategy recognises that rivers are an important resource for, inter alia, water-based recreation, water abstraction, and hydro-electric generation and have an important drainage function. The underlying principle of the Strategy is that rivers should be used in an environmentally sustainable manner that supports commercial and recreational needs whilst protecting their natural and built heritage values. The overall aim of this Strategy is 'to protect and conserve the environmental and heritage qualities of rivers, and facilitate their sustainable use'.

1.30 Drainage and flood defence

The Rivers Agency is responsible for drainage and flood defence in Northern Ireland. Rivers Agency manages designated watercourses on a rolling program and issues a comprehensive watercourse maintenance program every year for consultation. Rivers Agency carries out an Environmental Assessment of all proposed major flood defence schemes under the Drainage (Environmental Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1991, as amended in 1998. EHS is a consultee to Rivers Agency on the annual watercourse maintenance program and flood defence schemes.

1.31 Fisheries enhancement and river restoration

Under the Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, Rivers Agency has a specific duty to carry out fishery mitigation measures where their watercourse maintenance or flood defence work impacts on fisheries. Rivers Agency carries out this work in partnership with the DCAL, Inland Fisheries. EHS will encourage Rivers Agency to become involved in further restoration projects and will work with them to identify locations, partnerships and mechanisms through which enhancement and restoration can be achieved on rivers of high nature conservation or amenity value.

Under the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) has responsibility for protecting the aquatic environment by preparing water quality management plans, controlling effluent discharges, taking action to combat or minimise the effects of pollution, and monitoring water quality. The importance of water quality and quantity to the ecology and sustainability of fish populations is self evident. Because groundwater generates the baseflow for rivers and lakes, and because the migratory life cycle of some fish species includes marine waters, this chapter of evidence will refer to all components of the water environment.

2.1 Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972

EHS has a duty to promote the conservation of the water resources of Northern Ireland and the cleanliness of water in waterways and underground strata. In performing this duty, EHS is required, under Section 2 of the Act, to have regard to the needs of industry and agriculture, the protection of fisheries, the protection of public health, the preservation of amenity and the conservation of flora and fauna.

The new Water (NI) Order 1999 repeals and re-enacts with amendments the Water Act. The water quality provisions of the Order will come into effect in 2000/01.

2.2 Controls over Discharges

The Water Act provides for a system of statutory consents for discharges to water (Section 7) or into underground strata (Section 8) of trade effluent or sewage or any other noxious or polluting matter. Consent is refused where a discharge would result in unacceptable pollution. Where consent is granted, conditions are imposed and the discharge is regularly monitored to ensure compliance with consent conditions.

2.3 Unconsented Discharges

The Water Act makes it an offence to knowingly or otherwise discharge polluting matter to surface or groundwater (Section 5).

2.4 Discharges from Sewage Treatment Works

Under the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (as amended) responsibility for drinking water supplies and the treatment of sewage rests with the Water Service which is an agency of the Department of Regional Development. Being part of the Crown, the Water Service is not bound by the statutory discharge consent requirements of the Water Act. Water Service sewerage systems are, however, subject to the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations (NI) 1995 and under these regulations standards for 37 of the largest waste water treatment works will be in place by January 2001. In addition EHS proposes to set standards for all Water Service discharges and place these on a public register. Currently there are 155 waste water treatment works and 25 water treatments works on the public register. Registered standards are also set in order to control intermittent and emergency discharges from sewerage systems. Water Service operates 970 sewage treatment works of which 840 serve populations of less than 1,000 people. All private waste water treatment works and discharges from single dwellings i.e. septic tanks, however, require a Water Act consent.

2.5 The Prevention Pollution (Erne system) Regulations (NI) 1994

These Regulations make it an offence to operate craft in Lough Erne and the NI portion of the Erne-Shannon canal system which are capable of discharging sewage directly to waters of the Lough. Similar regulations apply in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) for the remainder of the Shannon catchment.

2.6 The Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations (NI) 1990

Under these Regulations EHS audits the agricultural use of sewage sludge in order to ensure that sludge is appropriately treated and that metal levels in soils are monitored and controlled.

2.7 FEPA (Disposal at Sea)

EHS is the licensing authority under Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) for the disposal of certain materials, such as dredged material, at sea. EHS licenses all such disposal within 12 miles of the coast of Northern Ireland and also licenses any ship loaded in a Northern Ireland port with material for disposal anywhere at sea (Section 5). These licensing requirements extend also to construction works below high water mark (for example, extensions to harbours).

WQU has responsibilities to implement the requirements of a large number of EC Directives, which have been transposed into Northern Ireland law by the making of Regulations. A full list of those relating to water quality is provided in Annex D.

2.8 75/440/EEC: Council Directive concerning the quality required for surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States

This Directive has two purposes: to ensure that surface water abstracted for use as drinking water reaches certain standards; and that it is given adequate treatment before being put into public supply. EHS has listed 53 such abstractions and audits Water Service monitoring data for compliance.

2.9 76/464/EEC: Council Directive on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community

This Directive sets a framework for the elimination or reduction of pollution of inland, coastal and territorial waters by particularly dangerous substances. It sets out two lists (Annex E) of potentially dangerous substances selected on the basis of their toxicity, persistence and capacity for bioaccumulation. Discharges of both List I and List II substances require authorisation by EHS through the discharge consenting process under the Water Act.

List 1 substances are considered to be more dangerous, and a number of related Directives apply (82/176/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 85/513/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and 88/347/EEC). All substances belonging to List I which do not have agreed limit values and quality standards are to be treated as List II.

EHS currently monitors for List I and List II substances at 11 'background' points on major rivers and 5 points in estuarine/marine waters, as well as in the effluent from a number of industries and waste water treatment works.

2.10 76/160/EEC: Council Directive concerning the quality of bathing water

The Department has identified 16 coastal bathing waters as coming under the scope of the Directive. These, and a further 10 bathing waters (Annex F), are monitored for bacteriological quality each year during a defined bathing season. While the Directive relates to both coastal and freshwaters no freshwater sites are monitored under the programme. In 1999 all 16 identified bathing waters complied with the Directive.

2.11 78/659/EEC: Council Directive on the quality of freshwaters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life

The Department has designated 1062km of rivers as salmonid and 129km as cyprinid under this Directive. Lower Lough Erne (110km²), Upper Lough Erne (43km²) and Lough Neagh with Lough Beg (397km²) have also been designated as cyprinid. Further designations are planned which will approximately double the length of designated rivers and upgrade the designation of Lower Lough Erne from cyprinid to salmonid. Annex G tabulates compliance with the Directive since 1995.

2.12 91/676/EEC: Council Directive concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

This Directive seeks to reduce or prevent the pollution of water caused by the application and storage of inorganic fertiliser and manure on farmland. It is intended both to safeguard drinking water supplies and to prevent wider ecological damage in the form of the eutrophication of freshwater and marine waters generally.

All known areas of land which drain into waters identified in this way and contributing to pollution must be designated by Member States as 'nitrate vulnerable zones' (NVZs). In Northern Ireland three areas relating to groundwater were designated as NVZs in 1999 and Action Programmes have been established (Annex H).

2.13 91/271/EEC: Council Directive concerning urban waste water treatment

This Directive sets minimum standards for the collection, treatment and discharge of urban waste water from municipal waste water treatment works and certain industrial sectors in order to protect the environment from the potential adverse effects of such discharges. It also required that the disposal of sewage sludge to sea be phased out by the end of 1998.

The Directive sets out a time table by which towns and villages ('agglomerations') with a population equivalent (pe) greater than 15,000 are required to have collecting (sewerage) systems by the end of 2000. Others have to comply by 2005 or have appropriate treatment in place. Higher standards of treatment are required for discharges to particularly sensitive areas eg waters subject to eutrophication, and surface waters with high nitrate levels that are intended for the abstraction of drinking water.

In 1995 the Department identified the Lough Erne and Lough Neagh catchments as sensitive to eutrophication and phosphorous removal was required to be installed at 15 of the largest waste water treatment works in these catchments by the end of 1998. The Department has more recently declared its intention to identify Inner Belfast Lough as sensitive to eutrophication and nitrogen removal has been incorporated into the design of the two major waste water treatment works which serve the Greater Belfast area.

2.14 79/923/EEC: Council Directive on the quality required of shellfish waters

In 2000, following public consultation, the Department designated 8 new shellfish waters under this Directive and has set mandatory values for concentrations of metals and organohalogenated substances in the water column and in the shellfish tissue. Previous to this only one area had been designated, in Strangford Lough, which complied with the standards set. The standards are listed in Annex I.

2.15 80/68/EEC: Council Directive on the protection of groundwater against the pollution caused by certain dangerous substances

In order to protect exploitable groundwater sources under this Directive both direct and indirect discharges of dangerous substances are to be prohibited or regulated. A List I and List II of families and groups of dangerous substances are given in an annex to the Directive. The lists, however, vary from those of the Dangerous Substances Directive.

2.16 Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of Water Policy - EC Water Framework Directive (Joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 30 June 2000)

This Directive is designed to promote an integrated approach to groundwater and surface water protection within river basins. It is considered to be the most significant development in water legislation since the EC was formed. Through implementation of the Directive, Member States will be required to manage water quality to achieve 'good status' by 2015. The Directive will repeal a number of existing directives, such as the Freshwater Fish Directive, but this will not lead to a lessening of standards. Indeed common opinion is that standards will be improved.

2.17 Water Pollution Control Agencies

Within EHS, duties under the Water Act and FEPA and the regulation of Water Service are carried out by the Water Quality Unit (WQU), one of five functional units making up the Environmental Protection Directorate (EP). Organograms of EHS, EP, and WQU are included in Annex J. The Service takes the lead for implementing the Government's environmental policy in Northern Ireland. EHS contributes to policy development by providing expert advice to the Department's Environmental Policy Division. Water Quality is currently the largest functional unit with EHS with some 55 scientific and administrative staff.

2.18 Laboratory services

Routine laboratory services and specialist field sampling are provided by the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU) at Lisburn, an Agency within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry (DETI). The cost of these services for the period April 1999 to March 2000 amounted to £1.9 million. Other non-routine laboratory services are carried out on behalf of WQU by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's Agriculture and Environmental Sciences Division (AESD). WQU also funds short, medium, and long term research directly by contract or through SNIFFER (Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research) and QUESTOR. SNIFFER's annual report is attached at Annex K.

2.19 Agency Field Services

Key field services are supplied through the four Group Environmental Health Committees and Belfast City Council. These full time services involving 8 Environmental Health (Rivers) Officers (EH(R)Os) supported by 20 Water Quality Inspectors (WQIs) include; compliance sampling and inspection at consented industries, private sewage treatment works, and Water Service waste water and water treatment works; pollution investigation as authorised officers under the Water Act; processing of consent applications for discharge of sewage effluent from single dwellings; proactive pollution control programmes and; supervision of on site operations for pollution clean up. In the period April 1999 to March 2000 these services were provided at a total cost of £1.15 million.

2.20 Fishery Organisations

The Fisheries Conservancy Board of Northern Ireland (FCB) and the Loughs Agency (LA) both provide routine river sampling services and investigate pollution incidents as authorised officers under the Water Act. In the period April 1999 to March 2000 the cost of these services was in the order of £630,000.

2.21 Water Act Consents

EHS deals with an average of 2750 applications every year for discharge consent under the Water Act. Of these, about 100 involve trade effluent, waste disposal sites and fish farms and the remainder relate mainly to discharges from septic tanks serving domestic dwellings.

Currently EHS checks the compliance with the conditions set for some 550 active trade consents. EHS reviews discharge consents as necessary to ensure that consent conditions are appropriate for the trade process and the environmental needs of the receiving waterway.

2.22 Water Service Regulation

EHS sets discharge standards for new and upgraded Water Service waste water treatment plants and water treatment plants as required. In April 1997 standards for 133 existing waste water treatment works with a population equivalent (pe) greater than 1,000 and, more recently, standards for 25 water treatment plants were placed on the public register. EHS are currently reviewing the standards for works with a pe between 1,000 and 250. Compliance against these standards is assessed regularly and the information also placed on the public register.

EHS is also drawing up standards for the regulation of discharges from Water Service combined sewer overflows on sewerage systems using a methodology devised for use across the UK. Studies using the method are currently underway with Water Service for 15 towns.

2.23 Waste Disposal Sites

The Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 provides that a waste disposal licence may not be issued unless a Water Act discharge consent (if required) has been granted. EHS require all discharge consent applications for sites for the disposal of domestic, agricultural, commercial and industrial wastes to be accompanied by a hydrogeological assessment of the site. It is EHS policy that all sites for these categories of waste should be engineered and operate as containment sites. Consents include conditions as to the type and quantity of waste, site permeability, site engineering and containment measures, drainage, monitoring of leachate and its disposal, and monitoring of water in underground strata and adjacent waterways.

The main purposes for water quality monitoring activities are as follows:

1. quality classification;

2. checking for compliance with EC Directives, international conventions and national agreements;

3. monitoring the impacts of eutrophication;

4. monitoring the effects of specific discharges;

5. provision of data to the UK Environmental Change Network (ECN);

6. provision of data to the UK Acid Waters Monitoring Network; and

7. specific studies.

2.24 River Monitoring

Most major river systems have been chemically monitored by the Department since the early 1970s. EHS continues to be committed to the chemical and biological monitoring of all significant waterways in line with national and international classification schemes and agreements. Descriptions of the General Quality Assessment (GQA) schemes for chemical and biological classification are provided in Annex L.

In 2000 those rivers in the main arterial network having a mean width of more than 3.0 metres will be monitored both biologically and chemically for General Quality Assessment (GQA) parameters. This programme will be augmented by limited macrophyte surveys at approximately 430 sites at nationally defined intervals. Together this will classify approximately 4,500 km of waterways. The main arterial network will also be monitored chemically as required by local, national and international legislation and agreements.

The quality of minor watercourses (1.5-3.0 metres in width) will be assessed biologically based on annual samples from approximately 180 sites. This will result in a further 1.000 km being classified biologically. In effect, this programme will double the length of rivers previously monitored and classified.

The river chemical and biological classifications during the last five years are set out in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

EHS also monitors rivers in relation to the requirements of the relevant EC legislation described. EHS is committed to a programme of research to develop river water quality classification systems to fully meet the needs of the EC Water Framework Directive.

2.25 Lake Monitoring

To date, lake monitoring by EHS has involved a small number of stations limited to Lough Erne, Lough Melvin and Lough Neagh. In the late 1960s, in response to the growing eutrophication problem of Lough Neagh, the Freshwater Biological Investigation Unit was established. This organisation has now been subsumed into AESD. However, AESD's work on lakes is still singularly focused around eutrophication. In relation to the EC Water Framework Directive, EHS is currently carrying out research to provide a raft of monitoring tools which will enable lakes to be routinely classified for water quality management purposes. Meanwhile EHS will continue to monitor lakes under the programmes currently in place.

2.26 Groundwater Monitoring

Groundwater in Northern Ireland has limited use as a potable supply with only an estimated 8% of public drinking water being taken from groundwater sources. The reliance on surface water supplies and the usually plentiful rainfall in Northern Ireland has meant that historically groundwater as a resource has not been a high priority in terms of study. Monitoring therefore has been largely limited to potable abstractions used in public supply.

During the mid 1990s, EHS commissioned the British Geological Survey (BGS) to undertake a Hydrogeological and Hydrogeochemical Reconnaissance Survey and to produce both a Hydrogeological Map and an Aquifer Vulnerability Map for Northern Ireland. The base sampling for this work led to the identification of areas to be considered under the Nitrates Directive and the identification of some 75 sites, mostly private sources, to be used as a routine groundwater quality monitoring network. Sampling of this network began in 2000. The BGS study has also formed the basis for EHS to prepare a statement on 'Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater in Northern Ireland' which will be published in 2000. The public consultation document is provided in Annex M.

2.27 Marine Monitoring

EHS maintains an extensive network of estuarine and coastal water monitoring points around Northern Ireland. The 40 stations include 7 stations which are part of the UK's National Monitoring Programme which sets the protocols for best practice in marine monitoring. These protocols are applied at all Northern Ireland sampling sites. A copy of the Northern Ireland Regional Report of the National Monitoring Programme is attached at Annex N.

EHS is currently developing a water quality classification scheme for estuarine and coastal waters. The old National Water Council classification scheme which had been used until 1990 is no longer appropriate for management purposes. The new Northern Ireland scheme will be applied to 2000 monitoring data.

2.28 Pollution Incidents

A Key Performance Target for EHS in its 1999/2002 Business Plan was to "Bring about a 10% reduction in the number of 'high' and 'medium' severity water pollution incidents by the year 2000 on 1996 figures". Table 3 shows the total number of substantiated pollution incidents, recorded by sector category, for the years 1996 to 1999. Table 4 shows, for the same period, a breakdown of these incidents on the basis of severity. The definitions of 'severity' are listed in the EHS report 'Water Pollution Incident and Prosecution Statistics 1999' (Annex O). The reduction in the number of incidents achieved since 1996 was 17.4%. EHS's new target is to achieve a 20% reduction in the number of high and medium severity incidents by 2003 based on 1996 figures. A report on pollution and prosecution statistics is presented each year to the Northern Ireland Water Council.