Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome the following officials and invite them to brief the Committee: Mr Colin Armstrong, deputy director of legislation, Ms Kelly Mills, deputy director of regulation and enforcement, Mr Seamus Connor, chief fisheries officer, and Mr Roy Griffin from the inland fisheries policy division. We have three officials.

Mr Roy Griffin (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Good afternoon.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes. Good afternoon. Is Kelly not joining us?

Mr Griffin: Apologies from Kelly.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Not a bother. Thank you very much. We have papers, but, if you would like to brief the Committee, we will move to questions afterwards, if that is OK.

Mr Griffin: Thank you for the opportunity to present the proposal on the amendment to the Eel Fishing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010.

First, I note that the fishery is of ongoing historical importance to Northern Ireland and significant economic benefit to the fishermen and rural communities around Lough Neagh. The eel fishery has worked hard for years to secure protected geographical indication (PGI) status and to develop and maintain that status and its markets. I start by recognising the efforts that the eel fishermen have made to protect their own fishery.

We consider that the measures in the regulations are vital for the protection of the fishery going forward. They have been proposed as a means to support compliance, predominantly with the eel management plan for the Neagh/Bann river basin. We have to note that this is a fishery for what is classified as an endangered species. The Lough Neagh eel management plan is the means to determine the long-term sustainable potential of the fishery. It was developed on the principle that the commercial operation of the fishery is not only possible but of wider benefit to the stock and supports the rebuilding of the wider population. However, that is true only while the terms of the eel management plan are being met.

Under the eel management plan, the commercial fishery undertakes a level of restocking that provides for commercial catch and escape to the wider river system and, ultimately, to the sea. The life cycle of the eel means that the benefits of restocking today may not be seen for between 12 and 18 years. We can see the effects of restocking coming through the system, and the need for action was highlighted as early as 2019 to the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative Society when it was recognised that there would be a decrease due to the historical level of stocking. As the cooperative informed the Committee previously, the reference level for restocking in the eel management plan has been achieved only once since 1988. That is a concern, but I also note that there have been ongoing issues with obtaining stock for the fishery. That has influenced how successful it has been in the past few years.

Since 2021, the situation has deteriorated further, with increased concerns about the level of the catch and the escape level. The value of the eel fishery was once over £3 million a year, and, in the past few years, it has struggled to reach £1 million. That is a reflection of the level of falling catches. The escape level, which is the key measure in the eel management plan, has not been met since 2021. That is based on a three-year rolling average, and it has been below the 200-ton trigger point that requires action to reduce the exploitation of the species. The plan also recognises the role for the Department to implement additional controls. We feel that that is now necessary, hence our proposal.

I will talk a bit about process. We sought scientific advice for possible measures to address our concerns. Those were presented to and discussed with the cooperative in January 2024, and that has led to the proposals that we see today. There has been ongoing engagement on the issue, including detailed discussions led by the Minister, with the outcome that the cooperative agreed to the measures and the need to take action. Throughout that engagement, the cooperative has raised a number of concerns about the implications for its business and the future of the eel fishery, and we have tried to address those as we have progressed. The Minister has also met the cooperative on a number of occasions and provided a number of reassurances throughout the process. For example, the regulations will not be applied until January 2026, and a clear process is set out for how catch limits and lengths will be set, which ensures that the cooperative is fully engaged in the process and will be supported by the best scientific advice.

The Minister most recently met the cooperative on 13 June. He discussed possible financial support and sought to address some of the cooperative's concerns about changes to the assessment and analysis of the silver and brown eel fisheries. The information that has been developed by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and with the support of the cooperative is one of the best data sets that is used in eel assessment, and there is no intention from the Department to reduce that. We want to see the data collection being maintained and supported.

The most immediate risk from not meeting the requirements of the eel management plan is the loss of trade from Northern Ireland to GB. Currently, eels, as an endangered species, require a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) permit to allow trade to GB. Those are issued by DEFRA under a non-detriment finding (NDF). The non-detriment finding requires demonstration that the fishery is sustainable. It is a live document and can be amended at any time, but a formal review is due next year, 2026. That is done by an external contractor, not the Department. We need to make sure that we can demonstrate that the fishery is sustainable or that we have taken remedial action to try to make it sustainable.

In the longer term, the UK publishes reports every three years on the performance of the eel management plans. In the most recent report, which covered 2020-23, the difficulties with meeting the compliance targets were noted, and there was an indication that some remedial action would be taken. In the longer term, we need to make sure that we deliver on that and take action to address the loss, otherwise we could run into a longer-term failure of the fishery.

In summary, we propose the regulations to protect the long-term future of the eel fishery. The measures discussed and agreed with the cooperative are the revision of the two fishing seasons; setting catch limits for the brown eel fishery and the silver eel fishery; and the power to set a maximum catch length to protect large females. The measures will not come into effect until the 2026 fishery season.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you for that.

I know that it will be picked up when it is being tidied up, but there is a typo at regulation 2(2):

It is a minor typo. It drew me to look at the regulation in more detail, because I am interested in that.

The maximum landing size for eels is measured from the snout to the tail. The regulation states:

There is no reference to the minimum size, or is there?

Mr Griffin: There is a minimum size for eels. It is set at 40 cm.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The minimum size is set, but the maximum size is annually adjusted.

Mr Griffin: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. I get that. Thank you. It is an interesting point.

Last week, we received correspondence from the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative Society, and we had an excellent session with it a number of weeks ago. It was one of the best sessions that the Committee has had. The cooperative has raised a number of concerns. One that it has raised with us is that, despite the importance of understanding the number of eels, this season's planned and agreed sampling schedule is to be reduced, and there will be more reliance on retrospective data. What is the rationale for that? Can you explain why that is the case this year?

Mr Seamus Connor (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): On the data required for the CITES NDF and for the International Council for the Exploration of the Ocean (ICES), we are fully meeting our requirements. In fact, as Roy mentioned, we are one of the few countries that provides all the data that is required for ICES.

The issue arises from our sampling the fish, and it is more about the analysis of the catch. For example, we look at the analysis of the catch, which has remained fairly static over the past number of years. There are two methods to catch: they can use a draft net or a long line. Depending on the bait, more juvenile eels may be attracted than with other types of bait, and it affects the composition of the sample. We have decades of data, and nothing has changed.

There was a particular issue with the anaesthetic that we used, and there are limited options for us to use. Clove oil is particularly effective on eels, and it is authorised by the likes of the Food Standards Agency (FSA). It has no withdrawal period. Some of the other chemicals are not as effective and will have a withdrawal period of a number of days.

AFBI reviewed the entire data set and concluded that we do not need to carry on with as much sampling as had been done. We still meet the requirements, which is the key bit, around stock analysis: what is there, what juveniles are coming in and what is escaping, which is probably the critical one. We fully meet the requirements. I have no issues with the changes in sampling. There might be a perception that we are stepping back. The Department has an evidence and innovation project on Lough Neagh to look at some of the wider issues that may impact on eels, such as zebra mussels and some of the food that is used. We are also providing funding for a new PhD student to start this year. That research will look at broad-head eels — the cooperative maybe mentioned the broad-head eels — in Lough Neagh and Lough Erne. The new PhD student will focus specifically on some the issues there. I can assure the Committee that we have no issues with the data.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): From a position of confidence as opposed to —.

Mr Connor: Yes. There might be a perception that we are somehow stepping back on that, but we have decades of data. We often refer to Lough Neagh as being data-rich, and we have a huge amount of data there not only from the fishery itself, which is unique in many respects, but from the science. We are one of the few people who provide all the requirements for ICES.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is a fascinating piece. It is really interesting.

Mr McGlone: I have one question. To be clear, has the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative Society bought into all this? Has it been consulted? Is it in agreement with the way forward?

Mr Connor: Yes.

Mr McGlone: OK. That is grand.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. That was brief. We are content. Thank you very much for your presentation.