NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON CONSERVATION ORGANISATION
24th Annual Meeting – Maine, USA – June 3-9, 200
Report to SANA Board and MFC from NGO delegate Ian Calcott
After the noted successes and breakthroughs at the 2006 conference, it is disappointing to report that this year’s meeting was not one of the “finest hours” in the organisation’s history.
It had its moments but, to be blunt, too much time was spent discussing one issue submitted by the EU, which, at the end of the day, is unlikely to save a single salmon. (But more of that story later)
At the close of the meeting, NASCO President Dr Ken Whelan felt bound to say that if the conference proceedings on this particular issue were marked as a school report card it would read “must do better.”
NGO Chairman Chris Poupard (European Anglers Alliance) went even further, suggesting that, on a points scale, it would rate “zero.”
However, many positive and promising moves developed at the meetings of the Council and the three Commissions (West Greenland, North American and North-East Atlantic)…and NGO participation was unprecedented.
In last year’s report it was explained that the much greater NGO involvement at official sessions was part of the “Next Steps” process which began three years ago. The nature and volume of NASCO’s work has changed since its inception but it has a splendid record of transparency and accountability compared to most, if not all, other International Treaty Organisations.
A vital part of the “Next Steps” process meant that Governments had to prepare implementation plans which would put their domestic salmon management and habitat protection arrangements into a framework consistent with NASCO agreements and guidelines. They were supposed to include timescales and commitments.
Governments sent in their plans to be scrutinised by an Ad Hoc Review Group which included the NGO Chairman.
Some of the countries were not too happy with the Group’s findings, thought they were being “named and shamed” and, so to speak, toys were thrown out of some prams.
But NASCO Secretary Malcolm Windsor stressed to the meeting that it wasn’t a report card and it wasn’t a “beauty parade of who was good or who was bad.” The plans had to contain vital elements that were in the NASCO guidelines. And some of them just didn’t do that.
Most Parties reacted positively to the criticism and the Council agreed that they should have until November 1 to revise their plans which will then be re-assessed by the same Review Group.
Ken Whelan said: “The development of these implementation plans is of critical importance for ensuring the protection of wild Atlantic salmon. They establish benchmarks for how each country is meeting its international obligations. I believe what we have done is unprecedented in regional fisheries management organisations.”
LOCATION
The conference took place in picturesque Bar Harbor, Maine, a small coastal town where many of the large Colonial-style houses are, or were, owned by America’s rich and famous.
Countries represented at NASCO were Canada, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, United States and the European Union. In addition, delegates from 20 organisations attended as NGOs.
DRIFT NETS & MIXED STOCK NETTING
In its opening statement to Council, the NGO Group congratulated the Irish Government on its decision to end its huge salmon drift net fishery at the close of last season – a decision we have campaigned for over the past 20 years. Ireland also introduced other strict conservation measures including the closure of many of its rivers for salmon fishing.
The NGO chairman declared: “Ireland took a difficult political decision with significant economic and social consequences. But they put salmon conservation first. That message should be uppermost in our minds this week.”
(Since the closure of the bulk of the North-East England drift nets, Ireland was operating the only remaining large-scale drift-net operation in Europe. It was known to take fish bound for England, Wales and some south-west Scottish rivers plus Germany, France and Spain. Other European countries, with fragile salmon stocks, could also have suffered.)
The NGOs turned their attention to the continuing problem of mixed stock fishing at the North East Atlantic Commission (NEAC) and urged Parties to do more to phase out their remaining mixed stock net fisheries …and there are still a lot of them all over Europe.
For years the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) has urged a reduction in all forms of interceptory mixed-stock salmon fishing. It has declared that the current situation of low wild salmon abundance in the North Atlantic means that any harvesting of fish should take place only in estuaries and rivers which are above their conservation limit.
Giving the NGO statement, Chris Poupard said: “While we acknowledge the major steps which have already been taken in many countries, it is a fact that the coastal fisheries remaining are responsible for taking some 40 to 50% of the total catch in the NEAC area.
“In terms of numbers of fish caught, the culprits are, in descending order, Norway, Scotland, England & Wales and Ireland/Northern Ireland.
“We call on the Parties to establish a timescale for closure of these fisheries. We appreciate that this may involve some pain, it may involve legislation and it may involve public and/or private sector funding. But this is precisely the kind of detailed commitments we believe the Parties should be developing in their implementation plans.”
SALSEA/MARINE MORTALITY
NGOs called on Governments to increase their support for the SALSEA project which is researching salmon mortality at sea and expressed disappointment at the apparent lack of commitment of some Parties.
The programme is managed by NASCO’s International Atlantic Salmon Research Board (IASRB) and the main aim is to solve the mystery of what is happening to salmon at sea after they leave their home rivers as smolts…and why marine survival has declined by as much as 75% over the past 30 years.
Ken Whelan said: “Finding out why Atlantic salmon are not surviving their sea journey to return to home rivers for spawning is a huge task that cannot be accomplished by one country alone.”
Indications are that the highest mortality seems to occur in the post-smolt stage, early on in the marine-life phase rather than later – although it is thought mortality might also have been severe among the “skinny grilse” which were a common feature last year in all of those countries classified as carrying the Southern European 1SW component.
ICES is still unable to report any improvement in the low marine survival rate but a special session examining research at sea in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans raised some interesting points.
A few years ago Pacific salmon stocks seemed to be in decline in some areas but they have suddenly improved to be classified all over as “good” – except in Southern Alaska. Pacific Ocean scientists said there had a “regime change” at sea and, although Pacifics (7 different species) were getting smaller, “a major change in the Ocean is very favourable at present for Pacific salmon.”
Is our “regime change” in the North Atlantic going in the wrong direction?
GREENLAND/FAROES
Agreement was reached to continue the closure of the commercial fishery at West Greenland which harvests salmon originating from North America and Southern Europe.
Under a multi-annual agreement, the fishery will be limited to around 20 tonnes (about 5500 fish) for domestic use in Greenland.
During the past few years there has been no commercial fishing in West Greenland under a deal brokered by the North Atlantic Salmon Fund. That agreement has just been renewed for the next seven years. However, as in previous years and under a NASCO arrangement, there is an allowed subsistence fishery.
The Faroe Islands mixed-stock fishery will continue to be managed in a precautionary manner in accordance with scientific advice. Although the Faroese maintain their right to fish, there has been no salmon fishery in the area for the past few years.
CATCHES
The provisional catch of wild salmon by all methods in the North Atlantic area last year was 2001 tonnes, continuing the “lowest on record” trend. The estimated unreported catch was 670 tonnes.
The provisional total for Scotland was 164 tonnes, well below the 2005 final figure of 215 tonnes. Of the North East Atlantic countries, only Norway, Russia and Finland showed an increase in catch last year.
These totals do not include salmon and grilse caught and returned by anglers and it must also be remembered that netting in its various forms continues to decline in many areas, thus reducing the global catch.
(Detailed Scottish catch statistics for the preceding year are released by SEERAD in the autumn.)
Catch and release in rod fisheries has become increasingly common – though not in all countries. About 153,000 salmon were released by anglers in the NASCO countries in 2006. Percentage C&R figures in 2006 varied between 82% in Russia to 18% in Iceland. There is now no commercial or recreational fishing in the United States (where the salmon is listed as an endangered species in several rivers) and severe restrictions – or river closures - are imposed on many waters in Canada
GYRODACTYLUS SALARIS
NGOs continued to stress the Gs threat posed by World Trade Organisation regulations coupled with EU trade and fish health rules.
While most of the recent welcome Gs publicity has focused on the dangers of anglers accidentally introducing the parasite into the UK and Ireland from abroad, the fact is that in Scandinavia and other European countries the transfer and movement of live fish is known to be the source of the Gs introduction.
In Scotland we do not want, and will continue to oppose, the introduction of live smolts from Norway. But Gs could enter the UK from other sources – big carp smuggled into Southern England from Europe, for instance.
Inevitably, the “free trade” rules are complicated but the NGOs asked the EU for an update on the current situation.
AQUACULTURE
At last year’s conference NGOs said that because of the industry’s poor record over escapes – and the consequent threat of disease and danger to the genetic integrity of wild stocks - we believed that the development of sterile fish was the only realistic solution to the problem.
Well, as this year’s meeting opened, Norway (with 900,000 escapes last year) announced it was starting a programme to develop sterile fish. Naturally, we welcomed the move but pointed out that the salmon farming industry was resistant to the idea which could take many years to develop and introduce.
We added that if the industry’s “zero tolerance” policy towards fish farm escapes was to work, containment facilities would have to be improved. The number of escapes in Scotland was less than in Norway but still considerable and the trend was at best steady and not downwards.
(The production of farmed salmon in the North Atlantic area in 2006 was 817,100 tonnes – a small increase on the previous year. Norway (73%) and Scotland (17%) were the biggest producers).
AND FINALLY…
To go back to the beginning … and, in brief, the hassle caused by an EU proposal to get NASCO to agree to a “performance review” – an external review process currently being sought by the United Nations in all Regional Fishery Management Organisation
Most of the other Parties resisted this idea, arguing that the “Next Steps” process probably met most of the criteria and that they were reluctant to see the timetable delayed or disrupted.
The resulting attempts at compromise solutions caused huge tensions at the meeting and wasted large amounts of time.
But, during the process, the Head of the EU delegation asked for a meeting to brief and lobby the NGO Group – another first in the long history of our involvement at NASCO.
Finally, with the EU saying it was “very disappointed,” the Parties agreed to look at various aspects and consider the matter again in 2008 – having heard the NGO Chairman suggest it was important that they found ways of dealing with such matters in future without disrupting NASCO business.
And that business, of course, is to “ promote the conservation, restoration, enhancement and rational management of salmon stock in the North Atlantic.”
* * *
The MFC wishes to thank Aberdeen and District Angling Association, SANA Life Member Mr Frank Dunnet, the Elgin and District AA and the Federation of Highland Angling Clubs for donations which assisted in the attendance of a SANA representative at this international conference.
Ian Calcott
MFC Chairman
June 2007