WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Freshwater fishing in Ireland: ongoing disturbance of the natural balance in the Western Lakes Region.
Date: 2001-02-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Ireland, fishery management, freshwater fish, freshwater fishing, pollution control measures

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/9

It may be assumed, lastly, that all road safety measures, whether general or specific, serve to provide
children with greater protection.

(1) OJ C 96, 27.3.2001.
(2) COM(2001) 389 final.

(2001/C 364 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: ongoing disturbance of the natural balance in the Western Lakes

Region

Can the Commission confirm that, in the Western Lakes System in Ireland (cid:129) which consists of
1.
Lough Corrib in County Galway and Lough Mask and Lough Carra in County Mayo and the associated
rivers in the western region, together with Lough Arrow in County Sligo in north-west Ireland (cid:129) the
number of trout and salmon has declined sharply over the past 20 years or so?

Can the Commission also confirm that that decline in numbers is a consequence of the canalisation
2.
of natural watercourses and of the reclamation and draining of areas in the direct vicinity of the lakes and
the associated river systems, with the result that there is now less space for fish swimming up rapidly
flowing streams?

3.
To what extent is the continuing decline in trout numbers also a consequence of pollution by
phosphates of agricultural and domestic origin, of overgrazing by sheep on neighbouring hills, of
acidification as a result of the planting of conifers on slopes which drain into the lakes region, of erosion
and as a result of encroachment on spawning grounds in rivers and of the fact that many game anglers,
contrary to international custom, do not throw back the fish they catch but kill and eat them?

4.
In the period since European subsidies began to be granted in 1996, what has been done to improve
water quality and restore spawning grounds with a view to protecting trout stocks in the lakes referred to
in point 1?

5.
Is the Commission aware that European subsidies have been used for the deployment of gillnets, the
main objective of which is to catch pike between February and the end of April in the shallow spawning
grounds where they gather to breed?

6.
Can the Commission confirm that trout, perch, whitefish, otters, diving waterfowl and other animals
living in, on and near to the lakes also get caught up in these gillnets and that some of them die a painful
death after vainly struggling for hours to free themselves?

Is such use of gillnets, which upset the balance of nature, compatible with the status of specially

7.
protected area under the Wild Birds Directive?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

1.
According to the information received from the WRFB, the stock surveys of Loughs Corrib, Mask
and Carra in 1996 indicated to different degrees that the wild brown trout stock was not optimal and that
pike (an introduced species) stocks particularly in Lough Corrib were very significant. The scientific advice
was that several measures were needed to ensure that stocks improve. These were as follows: to repair
feeder and nursery streams and their habitat; to control and eliminate pollution sources; to reduce the
stock of predatory non-indigenous species. Salmon stocks are subjected to different pressures in the marine
environment.

As indicated by the NWRFB, insofar as Lough Arrow is concerned, a fish stock survey carried out in 1994
revealed a 50 % reduction in stocks of wild trout compared with similar surveys in 1979-1980.

C 364 E/10

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

As per the WRFB, the canalisation of rivers and streams reduced fish numbers in feeder streams. This
2.
aspect of engineering works was a target of the development programme and considerable work has
ensured that previously drained channels are now producing considerable numbers of trout and salmon fry
and parr. There is ample space for trout and fast flowing water is necessary for salmon parr production.

According to the NWRFB, in the case of Lough Arrow, the decline was not attributed to canalisation of
natural watercourses and the reclamation and draining of areas in the direct vicinity of the lakes and
associated rivers systems. The decline was attributed to increased pike stocks and poor quality habitat in
many of the inflowing streams. The development project set out to address the habitat problem. The
increasing of pike control activities was not funded under Community programme.

The WRFB maintains that the decline in trout numbers has been reversed by the development works
3.
undertaken under
the programme. Overgrazing and afforestation can put additional pressures on
a salmonid catchment, the overall plan addresses these aspects as well as the issue of the predatory fish
species in the lakes. The fact that anglers, many of them local people, have always fished for trout on these
lakes is part of the cultural heritage of the West of Ireland. These people have always caught and eaten the
fish as part of their diet. In addition the Fisheries Board in question is actively promoting catch and release
of trout by anglers.

According to the NWRFB, with the exception of overgrazing by sheep, all of the factors outlined may have
contributed to the reduced trout stocks on Lough Arrow.

Agri-environment measures in the rural development plans aim to encourage farmers to respect good
farming practices, to remunerate them when they go beyond these practices and to reduce the pollution,
mainly in nitrates. They also include actions to reduce density of animals.

4.
According to the information provided by the WRFB, in any areas where water quality problems
have been identified, remedial measures are being actively pursued. The development plan 1996-1999 was
focused on stream development and the vast majority of the funding was invested in maximising trout
production. Spawning and nursery grounds were restored where necessary and the result has achieved its
objective with enormous increases in juvenile trout numbers in developed stretches of rivers. This is
supported by a vast amount of scientific information gathered, both before development, and after
development on fish stock numbers and compared against the necessary controls, etc.

The operational programme for tourism was aimed at restoring spawning grounds with a view to
protecting trout stocks in Lough Arrow. Responsibility for water quality in the lake rests primarily with
Sligo and Roscommon County Councils and with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
Fisheries Board has only very limited powers in relation to water quality issues. For example, it may bring
prosecutions in respect of specific offences but it has virtually no powers in regard to preventive measures.
The Board does, however, carry out pollution inspections on a regular basis in the Lough Arrow
catchment with view to identifying specific problems and these are dealt with as appropriate. A much
wider programme, involving the local authorities, EPA, farming community etc. is desirable and should be
spearheaded by the local authorities.

As indicated by the WRFB, the introduced pike species must be controlled as has been clearly
5.
demonstrated by the scientific advisors to the programme. Pike are caught and removed and where
possible transferred alive to non-salmonid waters by different methods including drum nets, gill nets and
electro-fishing. Insofar as Lough Arrow is concerned, Community subsidies have not been used for the
deployment of gill nets for the catching of pike.

6.
As stated by the WRFB, the gill nets are designed to catch pike and perch, the careful placing of the
nets ensures that any by-catch is minimised. Other animals would only rarely be caught. The timing of
placement and the locations used are designed to minimise the possibility of catching anything other than

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/11

the target species. The number of wild foul caught is minuscule, even compared to the number of wild
foul taken by the pike alone. As stated above, Community subsided gill nets are not used on Lough Arrow.

7.
According to the WRFB, the balance of nature in Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra was upset by the
introduction of pike. Current efforts are to try and maintain the indigenous species in these lakes. These
lakes are of enormous importance as one of the last refugees of fast growing wild brown trout in alkaline
waters and need to be maintained as salmonid waters. This is also the desire of the vast majority of Irish
people who have lived and grown up in this area and for whom the lake, and wild brown trout in
particular, is part of their heritage.

In the NWRFB(cid:146)s view the use of gill nets does not upset the balance of nature. Gill nets are used to control
pike that are not a native species. They are removed by gill nets because they prey on trout, which are
a native species.

(2001/C 364 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0512/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Comparability of social statistics between the European Union and the USA

When the Commission publishes studies on the level of the total tax or social security burden in the
various Member States and the USA, the comparisons (cid:129) generally expressed as a percentage of GDP (cid:129)
consistently show the levels to be higher in Europe than in the USA.

However, given the appreciable differences in welfare cover between Europe and the USA, are such
comparisons relevant? Apart from the public programmes (such as Medicare and Medicaid), social security
in the USA remains largely in the private sphere, or is based on corporate schemes. Millions of Americans
of working age have no sickness insurance and do not contribute to a pension fund. Is the Commission
able to put an approximate figure to the American social welfare deficit? Would it not help improve the
comparability of welfare spending figures on both sides of the Atlantic if non-compulsory, private social
expenditure in the USA were taken into account and, in particular, if an assessment were made of the
shortfall in social security contributions by the Americans?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2001)

The Commission has addressed the issue of net expenditure on social protection in its 1997 and 1999
Reports on Social Protection in Europe on the basis of the study conducted by the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to estimate (cid:145)net social expenditure(cid:146) (1). The 1999 Report
on Social Protection in Europe states that (page 70) (cid:145)these estimations tend to be country-specific and so
there is a question about their comparability across the Union(cid:146). The estimates published in the report refer
to some Member States.

The OECD study contains these estimates for the United States too. The Commission is sending direct to
the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat a table with these data, which show that, using
OECD terminology, the overall level of (cid:145)gross public social expenditure(cid:146) is lower in the United States than
in the Member States for which data are available, while, on the other hand, (cid:145)net total social expenditure(cid:146) is
quite similar in the United States and the Member States. The main difference is that public schemes play
a more important role in the Community whilst in the United States private provision plays an important