START   |   IMPRESSUM   |   SATZUNG   |   KONTAKT   |   SITEMAP      

Infos

Sie sind hier: Kampagnen > Irland > Treibnetzfischerei > Orri Vigfússon, Chairman, NASF

Brief von Orri Vigfússon an die Vereinten Nationen

January 31, 2006

Director, Division for Ocean Affairs
and the Law of the Sea
Office of Legal Affairs
Room DC2-0450
United Nations
New York, New York 10017

I write to bring to your attention a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to ask for your assistance in achieving compliance. I am writing on behalf of a coalition of organizations in France, Germany, England, Wales, Spain and other countries who have unsuccessfully sought to use the provisions of Article 66 of the Law of the Sea Convention to protect the limited and endangered stocks of wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo Salar) that originate in their rivers. These fish are being intercepted by nets licensed by the Irish Government. The organizations that are members of our coalition and other organizations that are supporting this specific request to the Division are listed in Exhibit A.

The wild Atlantic salmon is an anadromous and highly migratory fish. Salmon originating in the rivers of Europe migrate to their main feeding grounds in the fishery zones of Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands to feed. The fish then return to their native rivers to spawn. The habitual return route followed by the majority of the wild Atlantic salmon stocks of Europe takes them through the coastal waters of the Republic of Ireland. Despite the advice of international fishery scientists and many years of protests from our coalition and others, the Irish Government persists in licensing a very large-scale drift net fishery that specifically targets these mixed migratory stocks. Studies have shown that in recent years a large proportion of the salmon originating in our coalition countries are taken by these Irish nets.

For the last 20 years the future of the Atlantic salmon has been in jeopardy throughout its range. There is still a minority of rivers in our coalition countries that contain sustainable stocks, but the numbers of their fish are dwindling rapidly. Extensive and costly domestic efforts are under way to rebuild these stocks and to reintroduce salmon in certain rivers where they are extinct or close to extinction. Tragically, however, the Irish nets take the very fish that are most needed to spawn and support these restoration efforts.

The Irish drift net fishery is scientifically classified as a „mixed-stock salmon fishery“, a practice that is uniformly deplored by scientists and conservationists because there is no way that nets in this type of fishery can avoid taking fish from seriously depleted river stocks like those of our coalition countries.

Article 66 of the Law of the Sea addresses how countries should deal with migratory anadromous fish such as the Atlantic salmon. It recognizes (in paragraph 1) that the countries of origin (where the fish are spawned) „have the primary interest in and responsibility for such stocks“. This applies in all locations the fish visit during their migratory journey. Other countries to whose waters anadromous fish may migrate („host countries“) are specifically required to cooperate with the countries of origin „with regard to the conservation and management of such stocks“. The Irish government has failed to do this.

The intention of the Article is to prevent a temporary host country decimating the migratory stocks of other countries while ignoring their claims that their stocks are imperilled. This is what the Irish Government continues to do. On behalf of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund (NASF) and conservation organizations in France, Spain, Germany, England and Wales, I wrote a letter to the Irish Prime Minister on November 15, 2002, formally requesting that the Irish Republic should not set netting quotas for Atlantic salmon in its waters „without full consideration and attention being given to the protection of salmon that originate in France, Spain, Wales, Germany, England, Denmark, Sweden, Scotland and Northern Ireland“. This letter is attached as Exhibit B.

We were invited to meet with the Irish Marine Minister on February 11, 2003. The meeting was cordial and constructive. We left the meeting feeling that our claim was well received and that the Minister and his Department were prepared to cooperate with our coalition as Article 66 requires. The Department's own notes of this meeting (part of Exhibit F) are consistent with our favorable reaction. While the Minister indicated he had some issues with our suggestion that Ireland might consider using buyouts to end commercial netting and that he wanted to await a report then being prepared by Ireland's Marine Institute on the impact of Irish netting on other countries' salmon stocks, he stated that Ireland takes its obligations under international law very seriously and that he would fully consider NASF's views, would welcome quota recommendations from our coalition and would maintain contacts through a designated member of his staff. (The notes also demonstrate that the Marine Minister had little appreciation for the seriousness of the problem. He is recorded as having said that preliminary results indicated that the Irish nets were not preventing non-Irish stocks from returning to their native rivers „in large numbers“. Thus he acknowledged that Irish nets were taking non-Irish fish, but seemed to be saying that this netting would be inconsistent with Article 66 only if it prevented fish returning to their native countries „in large numbers“. He ignores the fact that there were not enough fish left in the rivers of our coalition to return „in large numbers“.)

Following this seemingly successful meeting, I wrote to the Marine Minister on March 7, 2003, expressing delight at his willingness to work with the coalition in accordance with the provisions of the Law of the Sea and suggesting certain action. This letter is attached as Exhibit D. Enclosed with this letter were various reports and comments from other countries demonstrating the effect the Irish nets were having on their rivers. See Exhibit E. Subsequently, our coalition submitted proposed management principles the Irish Government could employ in setting quotas and a specific proposal on how the coalition might cooperate with the Irish Government in a working relationship.

On January 14, 2005, we received a letter written on behalf of the Irish Marine Minister and dated 3 April 2003. This letter is attached as Exhibit F. The previous two paragraphs are included to explain why we waited so long to bring this matter to your attention and our shock and surprise when we finally received the letter. Up to that date we had thought we were working together with the Irish Government to take joint action to save the few remaining coalition salmon. The letter refutes in unequivocal terms any interest on the part of the Minister or the Irish Government to work with our coalition. We were told that the Irish Government had the „strongly held view“ that all salmon in its territorial waters are a „national asset“. Theclear implication was that this national asset was under the exclusive jurisdiction of Ireland and that Ireland had no obligation to consider the interests of others in establishing quotas, even the countries of origin of many of these fish. Ireland would exploit this asset as it alone sees fit. We submit that the letter is totally inconsistent with Article 66 and is, in and of itself, a clear violation of its provisions.

Consistent with the Irish Government's position as expressed in the letter, quotas were established for 2003, 2004 and 2005 without any participation by our coalition and with no consideration of how these quotas were destroying our coalition salmon stocks.

The Law of the Sea Convention advocates the resolution of conflicts through negotiation between the parties. We have made every effort to come to an amicable agreement with the Irish Government over a period of more than three years. While we have been attempting to exercise our rights under Article 66 in correspondence and discussions with the Irish Government, the Irish nets have actually been increasing the proportion they take of the total salmon catch of the „Southern European Region“ -- the region designated by the international scientific body, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), to cover Ireland, the UK, France, Spain, Germany and Denmark.

According to statistics from ICES and the Central Fisheries Board of Ireland, ten years ago the Irish nets harvested 26% of the total Southern European salmon catch. Recently these nets have been harvesting well over 50% of the catch. The relevant figures are set forth in Exhibit G.

Let me put the Irish situation in context. It is universally acknowledged that Atlantic salmon are in serious jeopardy and that drastic measures are essential to preserve the species. The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) has taken action to reduce interceptory fishing for Atlantic salmon on the high seas, but NASCO is impeded from exercising jurisdiction inside the fisheries jurisdiction of its member countries (which include the Irish Republic).

Every country, apart from the Irish Republic, has either banned drift netting for Atlantic salmon or is completing the phase-out of this form of commercial fishing. All these other countries also enforce very stringent domestic conservation and restoration policies. The efforts of NASF and like-minded conservation organizations have virtually eliminated commercial interceptory fishing (netting and long-lining) within the primary feeding grounds of Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands by means of commercial conservation agreements. The United States has designated the Atlantic salmon an endangered species and strictly prohibits any kind of fishing for Atlantic salmon. England, Wales, Canada and Norway have all either terminated quotas or assisted conservation organizations to buy out quotas and thus take the nets out of production.

It is ironic and indeed tragic that many of the fish that are saved by these conservation measures simply end up in the Irish nets. While nearly all the other countries that are home to the Atlantic salmon are taking appropriate and drastic measures to restore salmon stocks, the Irish Government continues to permit drift netting, allocates quotas for mixed-stock catches, increases the proportion of the EU salmon stocks it allows its nets to take and actually profits from the conservation efforts of the other Atlantic salmon-producing nations.

Your Division is the body the United Nations has entrusted with the responsibility for monitoring compliance with the Law of the Sea Convention. We would ask that the Division undertake an immediate study of this situation. We believe that the obligations of the Irish Government under Article 66 are clear and unequivocal.

We submit that the failure of the Irish Government to cooperate on matters pertaining to the conservation and management of the European salmon stocks that migrate through its waters is likewise a clear and unequivocal violation of Article 66 and thwarts its purpose. We stand ready to meet with representatives of the Division at the earliest opportunity and to provide any other information the Division may require or think helpful. We also ask that if any element of a valid complaint is missing from this submission, the Division please advise us so we can make any necessary revisions.

On behalf of the NASF Coalition,
Orri Vigfússon, Chairman, NASF

Footnotes

1. There has never been any real question that Irish nets take salmon native to other countries in substantial numbers. England, Wales, Scotland, France, Spain, Norway, Denmark and Germany have tagging programs which identify salmon from their rivers. Statistics have been kept since 1985 on the number of these tagged fish caught in Irish nets. These statistics appear on page 13 of a report recently released by the Standing Scientific Committee of the National Salmon Commission of Ireland attached as Exhibit C (the SSC Report). It should be recognized that typically these countries have tagged fish irregularly and only in limited numbers. Also, it can be assumed that only a small percentage of the tags of fish caught in Irish nets are actually turned in by fishermen. The numbers in the SSC Report are unquestionably substantially less than the actual number of non-Irish fish caught in Irish nets. Note that in the SSC Report a committee formed by the Irish Government has finally admitted „on the record“ that its nets take foreign fish.
2. We have no explanation why the letter was not received shortly after it was purportedly sent. We do not mean to suggest that it was not sent promptly. A copy was finally obtained by NASF after we contacted the office of the Irish Ombudsman and asked for a response from the Irish Government to our letters of November 15, 2002 and March 7, 2003. They somehow located the letter and faxed us a copy on January 14, 2005.
3. For similar reasons, the problem is not a matter that can be addressed through the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. As in the case of NASCO, the provisions and authority of the CFP are not applicable to the 12-mile wide coastal zones of the EU member nations. Article 66 is the only provision of international law that gives one country jurisdiction over its native fish within the territorial waters of another country.

nach oben     zurück zur Startseite