North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation 2008

 

25th. Annual Meeting held in Asturias, Northern Spain, between  June 1-7, 2008

 

           Report to SANA Board and MFC  from NGO delegate Ian Calcott

 

 

The three salmon caught on an early June morning were lying on a tray and,  bright as silver buttons and weighing between 10 and 12 lbs, would have graced the  “fishing” book on any Scottish river beat.

 

But this was in Northern Spain, once an Atlantic salmon angling country of  considerable note...sadly, now among the last of the most southern parts of the fish’s wide range.

 

Yet, because the local authorities in the northern section of Spain are determined to preserve their ancient salmon heritage, it was fitting that the NASCO conference this year took place in Asturias - the province where four rivers produce 90% per cent of the total annual Spanish rod catch … 2273 fish in 2007.

 

This may seem a modest figure by, say,  Scottish or Norwegian standards in modern times but not a reason for us to be complacent. It stands as a tribute to the people - employed and volunteers - who are trying hard to preserve and improve the situation in Spain.  It is also a strong indicator of the value of NASCO in the diverse and complicated matters of  international North Atlantic salmon fishery management, conservation and mutual co-operation.

 

There are those who have questioned the value of NASCO over the years with the usual query: “What has it ever done for us?”

 

Without giving them a two-hour dissertation, the only reply is: “If you think things are not too good now, they would  be a damn sight worse without NASCO.”

 

Having said this, it must be admitted that, as with any inter-Governmental Organisation, progress can seem painfully slow at times - often with the best of the  informative discussions taking place outwith, rather than within, the diplomatic arena of the Council Chamber. But we moved ahead pretty briskly this year.

 

NASCO has maintained its admirable reputation for transparency and the NGO Group was able to participate fully in most of the official proceedings.  Group Chairman Chris Poupard (European Anglers Alliance) again did a splendid job in the Council and various Commissions, pushing home points the NGOs wished to make and responding swiftly to criticism or opposition from Government delegations.

 

The NGO statement to the opening session of the Council stressed various points which we believed merited further attention while acknowledging the progress made in several ways.

 

 

 

LOCATION

 

The meeting was held in the 280,000-populated historic coastal town of Gijon  in Asturias on Spain’s north Atlantic coast. The surrounding countryside is very “green” and the scenery (and rainfall) not unlike many parts of Scotland  and temperatures are only slightly higher. The salmon mentioned above were taken from the River Narcea which was visited during an excellent and informative  post-conference tour which included a visit to a big modern hatchery.

 

Member countries represented at NASCO  were Canada, Denmark (in respect of Greenland and the Faroe Islands), the European Union (which currently has 27 Member States), Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States of America. Representatives from 13 NGO organisations also attended.

 

“NEXT STEPS”

 

One of the key moves in recent years has been the “Next Steps” process through which  individual countries had to produce Implementation Plans (IPs) which would openly state their salmon fisheries management and conservation strategy in line with NASCO agreements. These were reviewed by an Ad Hoc group, which included NGO representatives, and some IPs were found to be deficient in certain respects. Chris Poupard  praised the way in which individual jurisdictions had responded to “constructive criticism” in revising their plans and making considerable improvements in later versions.

 

In addition the Parties were asked to draw up Focus Area Reports (FARs) to provide more detailed plans on fishery management in their jurisdiction and representatives from 14 countries gave presentations on these at a Special Session at this year‘s conference.

 

Next year the Parties will be asked to provide FARs  on salmon habitat protection, restoration and enhancement.

 

MARINE MORTALITY

 

Still no sign of a rainbow on the horizon in relation to why we are losing so many salmon  at sea.

 

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) says there are no indications of an improvement in marine survival - a situation which  has led to a huge reduction (up to 75% in some cases) of smolts returning as grilse or MSWs compared to 30 or more years ago.

 

It is thus encouraging that the SALSEA (Salmon at Sea) project is gaining momentum with extra finance coming in to further vital research into various aspects of the salmon’s behaviour - and fate - in the marine environment throughout  the North Atlantic.

 

 

 

Canada is giving $800,000 in equivalent “ship-time” and scientific staff, with additional co-operation from the USA, for research cruises in the North-West Atlantic (where marine survival seems to be worse than in the North-East). The European Union  has pumped “a few million euros more” into projects and  the TOTAL  Foundation in France has joined in with a 200,000 euros contribution for research cruises in the Faroes region. In addition, the Scottish-based Atlantic Salmon Trust has pledged £150,000 over the next three years.

 

NASCO President  Dr Ken Whelan (Ireland) said: “Uncovering the reasons wild Atlantic salmon are dying in great numbers at sea is perhaps the most important step NASCO and its members can taken for the species. The realisation of co-ordinated international research programmes across the North Atlantic demonstrates an incredible level of international co-operation and commitment.”

 

As has been said in previous years, it may well be that even if we do find causes  associated with high marine mortality we may not be able to do much about it if sea temperatures, changing currents, etc. are involved. But we must continue trying  to discover the problems…and look at other possibilities nearer home. For instance, questions have been posed asking if declines in marine survival might coincide with changes in the biological characteristics of juveniles in freshwater: ie a reduced fitness to survive when they migrate as smolts.

 

MIXED STOCK FISHING…and other things

 

This has always been a prime subject for NGOs at NASCO. Now that the drift-nets have ceased operations, the targets in our sights are the mixed stock coastal net fisheries (MSF) - with Norway, Scotland, England/Wales and Northern Ireland taking the biggest catches.

 

At the meeting Chris Poupard said the NGOs and others were becoming “increasingly frustrated” by the lack of will of certain Parties over MSF.  The EU had “powerful tools” to  deal with Member States (as it had done with the Irish drift nets issue) - and could even tackle non-EU Norway’s coastal operations. The EU thought the comments “very unfair,” stressing that it did have a commitment  and was “working hard” on the matter.

 

ICES has said that MSF presents particular threats to stock status. Its report states that 38% of the catch in the North East Atlantic Commission area comes from coastal fisheries in home waters. (The Scottish coastal net fishery figure is around 30%.)

 

And it has recommended  that the precautionary approach is to fish only on rivers where stocks are at full reproductive capacity.

 

However, a word of caution.  NASCO’s definition of MSF is a fishery exploiting a significant number of salmon from two or more river stocks.

 

 

It could be argued that, in the interests of conservation, this should relate not only to the coastal fixed-engine nets but also to certain estuarial netting and in-river angling.

 

What about MSF in a big river catchment like the Tay? An angler at, say, Stanley could be fishing for discrete stocks of salmon bound  for any of the sizeable tributaries of the main stem river above that point - including the Isla, Ericht, Tummel, Lyon, Garry, Tilt, or Dochart.

 

At various times of the season, and without a robust Catch-and-Release policy, a disproportionate number of discrete stocks heading for any of the Tay tributaries could be lost by angling activity.

 

To an angler, perhaps the above takes the definition of  MSF too far. After all, in-river fishing can, or is supposed to be, managed - unlike fixed engine netting where the captured salmon might be bound for half a dozen individual catchments many miles apart and where the loss of 20 fish to a small river might have more detrimental significance than the loss of 200 to a bigger one.

 

When Ireland ended its infamous drift-net fishery after years of pressure to do so, many anglers thought they would reap the bonus of the “surplus” salmon and grilse now free to return to their natal rivers.

 

 However, after the sea fishery was closed on “conservation” grounds - that was the given reason - the Irish Government also introduced additional conservation measures which resulted in many Irish rivers being closed to angling or estuarial netting. These were rivers falling  below their “conservation limit” - defined by ICES as the number of spawners that “will achieve long-term average maximum sustainable yield (MSY).”

 

In Scotland scientists at FRS are currently working  to establish “meaningful” Conservation Limits for all Scottish catchments and these would be used to set management targets.

 

The Scottish FAR presented to NASCO re-stated that Scottish Government Ministers have said they will “support” the buy-out of MSFs on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. What that means is they will not “object” because, so far,  they have made it clear they will not use public money to aid the purchase of the private heritable titles of salmon fishery owners - at sea or inland.

 

The FAR also dealt with another aspect which has to be considered under any precautionary approach in regard to salmon management and conservation - socio economic factors.

 

This is a hugely complex issue - involving a host of problems which differ from country to country - and a NASCO Group, involving NGO participation, is working on the project.

 

But already it has emerged that the value of the Atlantic salmon, just for its existence “in a river near you,” is seen by the general public to be worth more than the current income from rods or nets.  Its value as an iconic species may be of great importance in future moves to protect and enhance our salmon stocks. (In England  and Wales a recent study put the “existence” value of wild salmon at £350 million.)

 

The  Scottish FAR  reveals that latest available capital value of salmon rod fisheries in Scotland is some £550 million with an annual angler spend of nearly £62 million. The “industry” supports almost 2000 full-time job equivalents and the value of a rod-caught salmon (even if it is released alive) is worth infinitely more to the economy than a net-caught fish (which is definitely dead).

 

With the  Scottish Freshwater Fisheries scene undergoing a transformation, this is a story that will run for some time…

 

AQUACULTURE

 

It would be putting it mildly to say that NASCO’s  association with the International Salmon Farming Association over the years has had its “difficulties.”

 

The background is complicated but the most recent problem stems from the farming industry’s assertion that it had achieved the condition where it posed no threat to wild salmon. This did not go down too well - particularly among the NGOs.

 

NASCO had suggested a joint technical Task Force of experts to try to sort out various difficulties but the ISFA had not commented on this proposal and had instead  called for a full meeting of the joint NASCO/ISFA Liaison Group in 2009.

 

Only recently was an NGO representative allowed to join this Group but at this year’s NASCO meeting Chris Poupard said going ahead with the ISFA suggestion “would be a waste of time.”

 

NASCO Council agreed that, while it wished to continue dialogue with the industry, it was not ready to reconvene the Liaison Group until best practice recommendations were agreed on how to address continuing impacts of salmon farms on wild  salmon stocks - particularly via escapes and sea lice.

 

It will go ahead with the Task Force - to include an NGO - and invite the ISFA to attend.

 

  1. The total production of farmed salmon in the North Atlantic in 2007 was  a record 947,000 tonnes - over 100,000 tonnes up on the previous year. Chile and others produced around another 400,000 tonnes. 

 

CATCHES

 

Even allowing for the cutbacks in netting effort which obviously reduces catch totals, the overall downward trend of salmon abundance in the North Atlantic continues. ICES reported that the provisional total catch for 2007 was 1533 tonnes - 507 tonnes down on the up-dated catch for the previous year…and again “the lowest on record.”

 

The biggest proportion of the total  (1394 tonnes) was taken  by countries within the North East Atlantic Commission area, which includes the UK and Ireland.  The provisional Scottish total was 159 tonnes, 33 tonnes down on the 2006 final total of 192 tonnes.  (These catch totals do not include fish returned under angling C&R.)

 

Some other key “catch” points:

 

  1. Because of the downward abundance trend, the end of drift netting and the introduction of other conservation measures in estuaries and rivers, the catch for Ireland slumped from 326 tonnes in 2006 to 85 tonnes last year. 
  1. Norway, which during the conference said it  would “have a problem” over an end to MSF for “socio economic factors” (mainly in Finnmark), had its lowest catch since 1998 - down from  932 tonnes in 2006 to 767 tonnes last year.  There are “substantial reductions” in MSF this year but last year’s low catch was “a serious warning signal.”  (Up to 90% of the spawning stock in some Norwegian salmon rivers is now of farmed origin)
  1. C&R shows an increasing upward move although it is still at a low rate in some countries. An estimated 178,500 salmon were reported to have been released around the North Atlantic last year - up 11,000 on 2006 .  C&R return rates in 2007, from those countries reporting, varied between 19% in Northern Ireland to 90% in Russia.
  1. Scientists are looking at post C&R mortality, although earlier Scottish surveys have suggested a survival rate as high as 90%. 

 

GREENLAND & FAROES

 

Once again to protect declining salmon populations, Greenland and the Faroe Islands agreed to manage their salmon fisheries in a precautionary manner in accordance with scientific advice. No fishery has taken place in the Faroes since 2000 and West Greenland will be limited to an internal consumption catch of 20 tonnes.

 

During the meeting Denmark (for Greenland and the Faroe Islands) re-iterated its claim that other countries should be doing more to curtail their MSF catches because of the restrictions on fishing agreed by Greenland and the Faroes.

 

This was a view shared and expressed at the meeting by the NGO Group.

 

 

BRIEFLY…

 

Much time was wasted at last year’s meeting by EU persistence in trying to push through agreement to hold a NASCO “performance” review to conform with a United Nations resolution. Most Parties said : “Hold on, we’re doing that already with ‘Next Steps.’”

 

The EU still wants one but, without too much fuss this year, the Council agreed to set up a Review Group in 2010 to see if the current NASCO moves, on completion, are “relevant in accordance with the spirit” of the UN resolution.

 

AND FINALLY…

 

Your delegate didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. NASCO received an application for NGO status from the Irish Seals Sanctuary…

 

The NGOs  made their feelings clear. Salmon and seals don’t mix too well - and it’s the salmon who come off worst!

 

The Council agreed to seek more information from the Seals Sanctuary as to “compatible objectives” and will decide next year on the application.

 

                             *                   *                 *                  *

The MFC wishes to thank Aberdeen and District AA, Mr Allan Dunnet, 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 2008