Author: Leslie Long

Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) notes the recent Marine Institute (MI) publication which identifies that sea lice emanating from aquaculture facilities can cause mortality to wild Atlantic salmon.

In this regard, the recent publication (Jackson et al, 2012) concurs with previously published international research (Krkosek et al, 2012 & Gargan et al, 2012). IFI welcomes the fact that there is now a clear acceptance of the negative impact of sea lice on juvenile salmon and the debate can now progress to identify the best methodologies to reduce or eliminate this impact. IFI would also like to see similar progress in relation to the issue of escaped farmed salmon.

In recent years approximately 5% of all juvenile salmon going to sea return back to their native rivers as adults to spawn.

Precisely because natural mortality rates of salmon are high, even a proportionally small additional mortality from sea lice can amount to a large loss in salmon returning.

To put this average 1% reduction in return rates, as reported by the MI, in context, if 3,000 salmon return to a river, and this represents a 5% return rate, a reduction in the return rate to 4% translates into a reduction of 1/5 (20%) of the adult salmon or 600 fewer fish returning. The Board of IFI is concerned that this level of additional mortality has the potential to curtail commercial or recreational salmon fisheries and impact on individual river salmon conservation limits and may be the tipping point between having an open or closed fishery.

The paper identified that just under 40% of released juvenile salmon showed a significant difference in return rate between sea lice “treated” and “non-treated” groups, indicating that mortality from sea lice is significant in 40% of the releases in the study. Unfortunately, there was a significant effect from sea lice in six different bays along the west coast over the study period.

This recent study provides further evidence that salmon will be impacted by sea lice. The location of salmon farms in relation to salmon rivers and the control of sea lice prior to and during juveniles salmon migration to their high seas feeding ground is critical if wild salmon stocks are not to be impacted. The development of resistance to chemical treatment of sea lice and other fish husbandry problems, such as pancreas disease and amoebic gill disease, are likely to make effective sea lice control even more difficult in future years.

Norway, one of the world’s biggest producers of farmed salmon are also seriously concerned about the impact of sea lice emanating from aquaculture facilities on wild salmon stocks and the issue of escaped farmed salmon. In their Strategy for an “Environmentally Sustainable Norwegian Aquaculture Industry” produced by the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs they state:

“Even though salmon lice occurs in wild salmon and sea trout, it is an example of a parasitic disease which has been intensified by the multitude of hosts in aquaculture facilities. In addition to being passed from fish to fish, it can also be spread over long distances by currents”

They further state;

“If delousing in fish farming fails to yield the desired effect on lice figures for wild fish, it may be necessary to consider a reduction in the biomass of the farming facilities (reduce the number of hosts) in the worst-affected areas.”

On the matter of escaped farm salmon, the Norwegian authorities have stated that “scientific comparisons of wild and farmed salmon, and their cross-breeds, has shown that gene transfer from farmed to wild salmon can reduce the latter’s ability to survive. This is why such gene transfer is one of the main problems with escapes“. IFI would like to see similar progress made on the issue of escaped farmed salmon as has been made on the sea lice issue.

IFI are supportive of the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry and welcome all advances in research that will underpin the sustainability of this industry and safeguard wild salmon and sea trout stocks into the future. Recommendations to address the issues of sea lice, escapes, location and scale have been made in IFIs submission to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Galway Bay fish farm development.

Read the full report here

Chairman: ????? ?????The Senator is right about that. The representatives of FISSTA were anxious to address the committee today and to express their concerns on foot of the presentations we have had from the Minister and BIM. We will also be inviting representatives of the Donegal islands and other island fisheries to share their views, because that is part and parcel of the discussion. Deputy Noel Harrington has given an overview of the broader issue and referred to the concerns of the different parties, whether drift-net fishermen, anglers or the aquaculture sector. It is undoubtedly a complex issue. In fact, the more one learns the greater the realisation of just how much one does not know.

Deputies Michael Colreavy and Harrington and Senators Martin Comiskey and Mary Ann O??????Brien raised several specific points to which Mr. Carr may now respond.

Mr. Noel Carr: ?????The Chairman will be glad to know that I have taken notes. I do not want to be a killjoy, but the reality is that aquaculture is not the great white hope that will solve all the problems in coastal communities and replace all the jobs that have been lost there. I am from Carrick – 11 miles from Killybegs – and in 90% of our hinterland, from Burtonport down, all of the jobs are fish factory jobs. We have a crab factory on our river, Errigal Seafood, which produces GB ?????25 million worth of seafood per year. Effluent from that factory goes into the river on a controlled basis, and we can work with that. Fish factories and fish production units can work quite well. Interestingly, this company actually invested in a treatment plant because it recognised that it was necessary for the survival of the river. With EU standards and guidelines and advice, the river was allowed to sustain itself every year. I take this opportunity to congratulate Errigal Seafood on being 50 years in operation. It was founded as a vegetable factory by Father James McDyer as a means of providing local employment for young people. That river has had 555 fish above the quota this year, which is a commendable achievement for the company. It is not a fish farm industry but a seafood production unit and it supports almost 200 jobs in our area.

The answer to the problems we are discussing can be found in that type of enterprise, and we need more of them. Instead of damaging the environment, this type of activity and co-operation protects and respects it. Farmers have shown the same willingness to engage with us. Years ago we had a serious problem with the spawning beds, when it was common for mountains to be overgrazed. Some of us here will remember mountains in Mayo and Donegal specifically where this was a particular problem, with spawning levels very much down. Instead of objecting to the grants coming from Europe, we sought to work with the Irish Farmers Association at that time. It was out of this engagement that the farm waste management scheme was eventually introduced. I am not saying we were responsible for it, but it was partly as a result of lobbying by the European Anglers Alliance in Brussels and everywhere else that the waste management scheme and rural environment protection scheme, REPS, were devised. Our partnership with farmers worked to the advantage of both, with spawning levels restored and farmers receiving the same money, albeit under a different scheme. There are ways that we can work in partnership together to ensure a sustainable environment for all. We have had a great deal of that in the past 30 to 40 years.

I was asked a broad range of questions, but I remind members that I am an amateur in this area. The rod licence costs ??????100 for my area and we pay that to Inland Fisheries Ireland every year, in return for which it works with us to protect the rivers. Whether or not we object to some of the positions it takes, we respect IFI as an arm of the State whose function is to protect our rivers. It also has a role, along with the Irish Marine Institute, in monitoring farms. The regulations are not dissimilar to those in operation in Norway, according to BIM??????s presentation. I do not want to say that what was proposed in this regard is impossible or that it cannot work. However, the way it is currently structured makes things difficult, with BIM saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fish farming sector. We have spoken about the decrease in the incidence of sea lice in the past five years, but the amount of chemicals required to achieve that decrease has grown significantly. This has a serious impact on the environment in a variety of ways and not just on salmon and sea trout. There is a joke that fish farmers should now be called fish ??????pharmers?????? because of the amount of chemicals they use