The Joint Committee met at 2 p.m.

Members Present:

*In the absence of Deputy M. Brady.

DEPUTY NOEL O'FLYNN IN THE CHAIR.

Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy: Presentation

Chairman: I welcome representatives of the fishing industry who are attending this meeting to make a presentation to the committee on the issues we face during the forthcoming reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I advise everybody that the following format will apply: the various organisations will make a joint presentation, led by Mr. Pat Keogh, chief executive officer of Bord Iascaigh Mhara, on the substantive issues facing the industry during the CFP reforms. The presentation should not exceed more than 15 minutes. Following the presentation, I will invite representatives of each organisation to identify the issues of interest to them. Each presentation should not exceed five minutes. There will be an open question and answer session following the individual presentation. It is intended that this part of the meeting should conclude not later than 3.30 p.m.

The meeting will be suspended for five minutes, and on returning we will hear a presentation from the Common Fisheries Policy review group, the BIM Marine Institute. This will be followed by a question and answer session, due to conclude not later than 4 p.m. The meeting will again be suspended for five minutes at that point and will hear from the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and representatives of the Department. Following the Minister's presentation, there will be a question and answer session to conclude no later than 5 p.m.

Before I call on Mr. Keogh to make his presentation, I advise members of the committee that while Mr. Keogh is the CEO of BIM, he has been closely involved in the Common Fisheries Policy review group, headed by Mr. Pádraic White. The group, established by the former Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Michael Woods, has worked closely with the entire fishing industry, including fishermen, scientists, processors, exporters, chandlers, suppliers and net makers As Mr. White is unable to attend today's meeting, Mr. Keogh has agreed to make a presentation on the substantive issues that are faced by the industry during the CFP reforms. We will hear from BIM again later in the meeting when it makes another presentation to the committee, along with the Marine Institute. I call on Mr. Keogh to address the committee.

Mr. Keogh: I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a presentation to the committee on behalf of the CFP review group. It is a timely presentation as the review of the common fisheries policy will come to a critical stage in the next six weeks. I appreciate that the committee found it possible at its inaugural meeting last week to give us the opportunity to make a presentation. I convey formally the apologies of Mr. Pádraic White, who has to chair a board meeting of St. Luke's Hospital this afternoon and consequently cannot be here.

I intend to give a brief introduction of the work of the group. I will give a brief background sketch of the Common Fisheries Policy review. My colleagues on the review group, four fishing industry organisations, will take four key concerns which have been identified by the group as being of critical interest to Ireland in the review. The first issue that will be addressed by Mr. Frank Doyle of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, is the allocation of resources and the share of quotas given to Ireland. The second issue that will be looked at, in the form of a presentation by Seán O'Donoghue of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, is access to the 50-mile Irish Box. The third issue, which is at the heart of what the CFP should be about, is the fishing fleet, technical conservation measures and controlling mortality rates and this will be discussed by Lorcán Ó Cinnéide. The fourth and final contribution will be given by Mike Fitzpatrick of the Irish South and West Fishermen's Organisation on the socio-economic importance of the fishing industry to Ireland in particular.

As the Chairman mentioned, the national strategy review group was established by the then Minister, Deputy Michael Woods, in December 1998. It is widely representative of State and industry interests. Representatives of the Irish South and East Fishermen's Organisation, which was quite recently established but which has not been admitted to the review group, are present today. I stress again that the review group is a ministerial group and that Mr. Pádraic White is its chairman. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, BIM, the Marine Institute, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association are represented on the group, as are the three producers' organisations I mentioned earlier, the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and the Irish South and West Fishermen's Organisation. A number of other organisations and individuals are listed on the slide shown here, including Mark Killilea, the former MEP. The group's secretariat has been provided by BIM for the past four years.

The review group set out to develop strategies and policies for the review of the CFP and to do so in a co-ordinated fashion, to bring about a co-ordinated and unified approach on the part of all the State and industry interests. It has done that fairly successfully in the past four years. The group's objective was to contribute to our thinking, not only during the review of the CFP but also prior to it, and, critically, to enhance the prospects for sustainable Irish and EU fisheries in the next 20 years and beyond. It also aimed to enhance the prospects for coastal communities throughout the island of Ireland and its offshore islands.

The fishing industry is terribly important. I will put up a slide for the benefit of the committee that indicates the level of employment generated by the fishing industry. A total of 6,100 people are employed as part of the national fishing fleet, as well as 2,600 in aquaculture, 4,000 in fish processing and 2,000 in ancillary service industries, making a total of 14,690 workers. If the fishing industry was removed from Ireland, at least 25,000 jobs would be lost in coastal regions when one includes spin-off employment associated with the industry. The areas to which I refer are among the most remote in the country and there are few alternative job prospects there. The final value of annual seafood sales in Ireland amounts to £550 million at the final point of sale. It is a significant industry in terms of value, but its real significance is its peripheral location.

I stress, as part of the background to my remarks about the Common Fisheries Policy, that agreements were signed by the six original member states before Ireland, Denmark and the United Kingdom joined the EU in 1973. They determined that the basis of a common policy was to give open access to a common resource. That has been the difficult basis on which the CFP was subsequently built. I remind the committee that the six to 12-mile zone, which came into effect in 1973, initially for ten years before subsequently being extended, is a derogation from the open access regime which existed before 1973. The principle of relative stability was determined with reference to the base years between 1973 and 1978. Some modifications were made to the principle in the form of the Hague resolution of 1976, which allowed us to double our catch from an extremely low base of about 75,000 tonnes. The Hague resolution and the Hague preferences have been applied to our quota shares in the meantime.

The new Common Fisheries Policy will be determined over the next six weeks and it is of crucial interest to Ireland in ensuring that over the next 20 years or more account is taken of the key concerns which the review group has identified. My colleagues from the fishing industry organisations will go through those issues and address each of them in turn.

Mr. Doyle: I thank the chairman and the members of the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. This is a critical issue and we face the most important six weeks of the fishing industry's existence. If we do not get it right this time, we never will and we will be locked in forever to what we have got.

If one looks at Ireland in the context of Europe, one gets a general picture of where we stand. We are an island off the west coast of the community, out in the Atlantic. We comprise a very small percentage of the land area, a little over 2%, we have 11% of the total community sea area and we have 5% of the fishing quota. That does not give the whole picture because we do not fish in the whole community, we only fish in part of it. Since the current policy was introduced 20 years ago, there has been a very strong sense of inequity and unfairness in the Irish fishing industry, particularly among fishermen. The area of direct concern is the sea area contiguous to the island, or area 6, north of Scotland, south of the Faeroes and into area 7, which is from Shannon out. These are the areas in which the bulk of our activities take place, which makes for a different set of circumstances entirely. We control 42% of sea areas 6 and 7, yet we get only 16% of the fish quota. France has about 12% or 13% of the sea area, yet it gets almost 50% of the available resources there. In terms of fish versus area, that represents 0.38 of a return for us and 4.1 for France, which is a ratio 12 times greater than ours in the waters off our own doorstep.

In area 8, south and west of and including the Bay of Biscay, the opposite applies. In that area there are really only two players, Spain and France, and the ratio of sea area to access to resources is almost 1:1, particularly in the case of the latter country. It gets a ratio of 1:1 of the French coast as well as a ratio 12 times greater than ours of our coast, which gives one an indication of the imbalance and lack of objectivity in the policy.

The policy is based on historic circumstances which I will come to later. We are caught in a scenario where an institutional arrangement has been established and nobody in the system wants to interfere with it. The existing players do not want it disrupted because they would get less than they do and the Commission does not want to disrupt it because that would mean revised administrative arrangements, which it will avoid if it can. In the case of northern area H, we have specific circumstances regarding specific stocks. Ireland catches more per annum than the quota available and we have to buy in more by way of swaps or exchanges. With regard to France, on the chart the green line shows the available quota and the pink line the amount of that quota taken up. From 1986 to 1997 and beyond, only a very small portion of the quota available to the French was used which brings us back to distribution of the quota. France gets a disproportionately large quota in relation to its sea area while ours is disproportionately small.

The annual percentage share out is known as "relative stability". North of Donegal Bay we get 10%, France, which is 500 km to 600 km away from the area, gets 44% and south of Donegal Bay we get 7.5%, while France gets almost 60%. In area H, which combines areas 6 and 7, we are allowed 5.5% while France gets 46%. In regard to pollock, in area 7, from the south-west coast around to the Irish Sea, we are allowed 7.5% and France gets 71%. We are allowed 1.3% of the prawn catch in area 6 and the British get 98%. These are perhaps the most blatant examples of imbalance and unfairness within the current relative stability system that make fishermen and the industry generally so angry. It is imperative that this is rectified at this opportunity, because if the share out is not properly balanced this time, we will not get another chance to make it so.

Pat Keogh mentioned briefly how the system came about. The quota share out was agreed in early 1983 following six to seven years of negotiation. The negotiations were based on the catch records of member states between 1973 and 1978 though for us it was slightly different because it was recognised that we were coming from a very low base. We were allowed to double our 1975 catch with our 1979 catch. With the other countries the procedure was to use a reference period of 1973 to 1978 and to take the best three years in terms of catches. Due to the configuration of the fishing industries of the time, the larger, older member states and some of the newer ones had an enormous advantage with what were known as "distant water fleets". These fleets fished mainly off Iceland, in the north-east Atlantic and in the North Sea using factory vessels. Factory vessels then were not the same as now. They were floating production lines with large numbers of crew and significant overheads which stayed out at sea for two or three weeks at a time. In 1973 we had the first fuel crisis, which put a severe strain on the economic activities of these vessels. This was followed in 1974 by the extension of Icelandic limits, which meant that a large number of these vessels were displaced into other areas. From then on, they went into economic decline and by the end of the 1970s - around 1978-79 and certainly by the 1980s - they were, without exception, bankrupt. However, they were around long enough to build up a very substantial track record. When the negotiations got down to the numbers game, which is effectively what happened, they were able to show, rightly or wrongly, that they had a track record of large catches in the reference period of 1973 to 1978.

We, on the other hand, had very small catches. We were allowed to double our 1975 catch by 1979. As the big catches became the basis for negotiations, they started from a position of strength. The problem now is that the position which pertained in the reference period 1973 to 1978 is to be carried forward into infinity. It seems crazy and totally illogical that a set of circumstances, which should apply in a particular period 30 years ago, should be carried on without alteration ad infinitum. This is the crux of the matter. The proposal is to lock us into our current position based on a position that pertained 30 years ago. We must break this link.

As matters stand, the position adopted by the European Commission is not in compliance with the fundamental aims of the Treaty of Rome. The treaty states that the Community shall aim at reducing the disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions, in particular, peripheral regions and ensuring a fair standard of living. These aims cannot be met under the current Commission proposals. The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy will be a failure unless appropriate changes are made in the share out of the resources. I wish to return to an issue I overlooked.

Chairman: Mr. Doyle, I assume you are conscious of the time. I want to allow Mr. O'Donoghue to speak too. I do not want to lose out by not having time for committee members to ask you very important questions as this will help the industry.

Mr. Doyle: I need one minute. The quota allocation should reflect the following core issues: the proximity to the resource - waters on our doorstep should be predominately ours to fish in; the socio-economic dependence of regions based on the resource must be rectified and recognised and their future needs taken into account; and instead of acting on something that happened in the past, the commitments made under the Hague resolution of 1976 must be fully honoured.

Mr. O'Donoghue: My role today is to deal with the second major issue that the Common Fisheries Policy strategy review group has identified, that is, the Irish Box. The committee will have gathered from newspaper reports in recent weeks that the review of the CFP is a major news item. It is only one of four issues we have identified. For this reason, I hope the committee will take on board that while the Irish Box is of critical importance to us, it is only one of four issues with which we have difficulty.

The Irish Box, a rectangular box around Ireland, was legally created when Spain and Portugal entered the European Community on 1 January 1986. As it stretches from the Kerry coastline outwards approximately 50 miles, it has become known colloquially as the 50 mile box. However, being rectangular, distances from the coastline vary at different points.

The Irish Box was due to be abolished on 1 January 1996. However, new negotiations held between 1994 and 1996, which aimed to integrate Spain and Portugal into the Common Fisheries Policy, resulted in it being reinstated as of 1 January 1996 with Spain and Portugal given access to it for the first time. I emphasise this because of the furore in the past two weeks concerning statements from legal services in the European Union to the effect that the Irish Box will be abolished on 1 January next. Our view based on legal advice is that this is not correct given that Spain and Portugal were fully integrated on 1 January 1996. Spain now has access to the Irish Box for 40 vessels, eight in the northern part of the box - area 6 off the County Donegal coast - and 32 off the west and south coasts. It does not have access to the Irish Sea and the area of coastline at Dunmore East in the south-east.

In talks with the European Commission we highlighted that the Irish Box is not mentioned in its reform proposals, while another less important box from a biological and stocks perspective, the Shetland Box in the north of Scotland, is included in the proposals. Our committee is extremely disappointed that the Commission did not recognise the biological sensitivity of the Irish Box. The Irish Box has a number of unique features. It is highly biologically sensitive and is a major fish production area for Ireland and Europe. It contains very important spawning grounds for the European Union.

The European Commission introduced a number of recovery programmes in the past three years starting with the Irish Sea, three of which are located in the Irish Box. The Irish Box has a number of unique factors associated with it. It is highly biologically sensitive. It is a major production area for this country as well as the rest of Europe, in terms of fish. There is a huge volume of spawning and nursery areas within it. It makes no sense to get rid of this box. There are recovery areas in the Irish Sea and the Atlantic for cod and hake. The Commission has recognised that there needs to be recovery programmes in the Irish Box, given the biological sensitivity and sustainability of the stocks.

Our levels of activity have decreased, whereas that of the other EU member states has increased. Spain was given preferential treatment in 1996 and got access for 40 vessels. There was a commitment in the legislation that there would not be any increase in the fishing levels in the Irish Box, but this has not been honoured. Fishing levels of the other member states has increased by some 20% even though that is contrary to the Council regulation.

The sightings by the naval vessels for 1999 indicate a huge activity in the Irish Box. If we are to have a sustainable fishing industry, the Irish Box has to be maintained and the level of effort there has to be reduced. We look to the Commission to ensure it supports us in the protection of the Irish Box and the enhancement of the measures regarding it. We have put forward very specific proposals to the Commission, which we hope will be taken on board. As well as keeping the existing effort limitations, which includes the 40 vessels for Spain and Portugal, although it is only Spain that is actually involved there, we want additional closed areas and technical conservation measures. In addition to reducing the 40 vessels for Spain and Portugal, we seek to reduce the effort for the other member states inside the box, including Ireland.

In the mid-1990s we convinced our European Union partners not to take the Irish Box from us. Our view was that opening up the area outside it to a concentration of activity would wipe out the stocks within the box within years. It is unfortunate that we have to return to this position but that is what we are faced with if this area is opened up, even if we have quota restraints.

Mr. Lochrin: I am accompanied here today by Margaret Downey who is a director of our group and whose vessel operates from Castletownbere. Our presentation will be made by Lorcan Ó Cinnéide who will succeed me in office from the beginning of next year.

Chairman: We do not want to rush but we wish to allow time for committee members to ask questions so there is a clear understanding of the issues involved. Will the speaker confine the presentation to five minutes, if possible.

Mr. Ó Cinnéide: I will certainly do that. As Pat Keogh mentioned at the outset, the question of fishing mortality is at the heart of the issue of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy as has been put forward by the Commission to date. The way in which the Commission approached that is by a series of what we regard as being extremely crude and most likely ineffective methods. It is unlikely to achieve its objectives in terms of fish stocks and will be highly detrimental to employment in the fishing industry. This area will be covered by the next speaker.

Some 83% of the Irish fleet contains inshore vessels under 15 metres. They do not have an opportunity, as such, to fish in alternative areas other than off the coast of Ireland. We have made significant strides in terms of fleet development in recent years. An assessment was made by the Common Fisheries Policy review group of the likely impact of the proposals that have been put forward. It has been suggested that 411 vessels and 2,000 fishermen may well be put out of business and that may be a conservative estimate. There are few alternatives, if any, for most of those involved.

At the heart of the issue is the mortality of fish and the amount of fish killed in the process of harvesting what is a very valuable resource in short supply. Broad-brush approaches, such as those suggested by the Commission, simply will not work. Efforts have been made for years and it is symptomatic of a philosophy and policy that fail to take account of other approaches which can achieve the desired objectives in terms of retention and development of fish stock, but allow the economic activities to continue and the communities dependent on fishing to exist.

There are a number of reasons the reduction of fishing effort represented by the Commission's proposals may concentrate activity on the very stocks that are most lucrative and therefore most at risk. It can be counterproductive and is likely to be so given previous experience and our analysis of the situation as a group and an industry. The second reason is that discards, which are the fish that are not of marketable or legal size, can account for up to 70% of stocks, not in all cases but in some stocks. Effort reduction, as in reducing the number of boats, will not do anything about that problem, but the problem has to be addressed. We accept that mortality must be reduced if we are to have sufficient stocks.

The real need is for a more sophisticated series of measures and approaches, to which Mr. O'Donoghue has already alluded in terms of technical conservation measures, how one fishes and the gear one uses to target stocks. The use of closed areas during spawning, for example, which allow a juvenile escapement. Our members in this room, in terms of the industry, comprise the most significant body of data gatherers and the most significant repository of information about these very issues in the world. We want to work with scientists and administrators to achieve these objectives.

There are examples, which have been referred to briefly, relating to the cod recovery programme indicated in the northern half of the Irish Sea. With proper enforcement, we have already seen this year some improvements in biomass in stocks, limited though they are, which are not being taken into account. Therefore, the effectiveness of this approach is not being taken into account. We have a very large prawn fishery in the Irish Sea. By the use of separator panels technology in the gear, it is possible to leave an escapement This has a very significant financial impact in itself, but at least it has the desired effect of separating the target species from the by-catch. The issue of who pays for that is not even on the agenda here today.

Technical conservation measures and recovery programmes which involve partnership between industry and science allow a fishery and an industry to continue in existence to catch target species and generate wealth. On that basis, the broad-brush, crude and ineffective methods at controlling fish mortality are not the way to go and there is a whole suite of more sophisticated methods for achieving these objectives that will work. I ask the members, as public representatives and as a committee, for their support and to put their considerable weight behind the overall case we are making to have it made a political priority for this country. I also ask them to take this argument forward to Brussels.

Chairman: I now call on Mr. Fitzpatrick of the Irish South and West Fisherman's Organisation.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: As Mr. Ó Cinnéide has said earlier, there is a big emphasis on conservation of stocks. Also, there is a major need to conserve fishing communities. It is a weakness that the socio-economic impact of the Commission's proposals have not been taken into account. One of the reasons this may have occurred is that the main fishing ports are in isolated, peripheral areas.

These areas are vulnerable if fishing is taken out of the equation and there is a great deal of unemployment in them as a result of these proposals. Fishing and related industries account for 40% to 70% of employment in the major ports - Greencastle, Killybegs, Rossaveel, Castletownbere and Dunmore East. In addition to those areas, there are countless smaller ports around the coast where the same principle applies.

The industries that account for 40% to 70% of employment employ people both at sea and ashore in processing, net making, marine electronics and a whole range of industries based around the fishing industries. In the areas in question, one will find that fishing is the only option and they do not attract big industries or computer manufacturers. It is not an option for such industries to come to these isolated areas with their poor infrastructures.

One of the significant things we can see from this slide to which I now refer is that areas adjacent to the ports have high deprivation levels. As Members will notice, the map shows a composite deprivation index, which is a measure of numbers of people out of work, income levels and various factors of that nature. The area around Killybegs is a major blackspot, but Killybegs itself is a pocket within that area which is maintaining it. The same pattern is repeated in Rossaveel and Castletownbere. Fishing is maintaining more than just the ports and the surrounding areas.

There are high unemployment levels in the areas around the ports. Also, there is a problem with regard to high outward migration. On average, 31.4% of people aged 15 to 19 from these ports migrate, and the national average is approximately 12%, which demonstrates that there is a massive problem. People only come back very slowly when one considers the level of return migration among older age groups. Therefore, if one takes fishing out of the equation, one will be left with towns with an ageing population and holiday home schemes, but no real communities. Fishing preserves the fabric of the communities in these towns.

Article 158 of the Treaty of Rome states that "the Community shall aim at reducing the disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions, including rural areas." We believe the proposals the Commission has outlined will not achieve this aim, but will have the reverse effect.

The CFP must safeguard the future of the fragile and remote coastal communities dependent on fishing. One of the main things we regard as crucial in achieving this aim is a change in the way the quays for relative stability are allocated.

Chairman: I now call on Michael Walsh of the Irish South and East Fisherman's Organisation.

Mr. Walsh: I am chairperson of the Irish South and East Fisherman's Organisation. The organisation is newly formed and represents 100 vessels from all sectors of the fishing industry from Clogher Head to Helvick.

We agree with many of the points Mr. O'Donogue and Mr. Ó Cinnéide made. With regard to access and the Irish Box, closure of the Irish sea cannot happen. Obviously, I am a fisherman and the points I am making are those of fishermen, some of which are as follows.

We agree there should be no further access to the closed areas for a ten-week period. This plan will work if it is adhered to. Fishing seems to have improved and the most common question asked by east coast fishermen is if fish stocks in the Irish Sea are so depleted why there are so many foreign vessels fishing there?

The quota in 7A concerns fishermen. There is a suggestion that further pressure will come on cod stocks next year. If the 7A quota is not retained next year the inshore fleet on our southern and eastern coasts will be decimated. There is great dependence on it. Any closure on the Irish Sea will have devastating effects. There are bigger quotas in 7G and 7D. We have the unrealistic quota of half a tonne a month. Irish boats can catch 40 to 50 times that quota and foreign vessels are catching that amount. EU vessels have been doing that for decades. We need a bigger quota immediately. Fishermen cannot afford to endure any more cuts.

Our organisation aims to use sustainable and viable methods of fishing in the future. This is why we proposed the closed spawning area for cod. One of our main interests is the protection of the inshore fleet and the coastal communities from which they operate. This is why we urgently seek a 12-mile limit and propose that it be implemented in the CFP.

There is an ongoing problem of Spanish vessels using gillnets off the west coast. The Irish should come to some agreement on legal length, depth and mesh size to make it unprofitable for some of these Spanish vessels. This would help conserve some of these exploited stocks. The organisation seeks the continuation of the closure of herring fishing on the east of Mine Head to give small fish the chance to grow and spawn. In turn, this will benefit whitefish stocks by supplying a food source. Under proper diversity marketing management, this fishery could create ten times its current employment rate.

Our biggest concern is to secure a better working future for all Irish fishermen. There are many ways in which this might be achieved. The Irish cannot solve the problem of over-fishing alone. The livelihood of our forefathers and that of our children is at stake. Our future lies in the hands of the decision makers. We hope our organisation will be recognised as part of the working party.

Chairman: I thank all who have made contributions.

Deputy Coveney: I welcome the fishermen's representatives to this meeting. Everyone is singing off the same hymn sheet regarding what must be achieved. The question is how we do that politically, and in the case of the Irish Box, legally. There is a danger that the result of the Irish Box debate will be the measurement of success of the negotiations on the Common Fisheries Policy. That is a significant political danger. If we enter the negotiations without legal clarity on the position of the Irish Box, it will become a political negotiating point. Unfortunately, we may have to give on something else if we achieve success on the Irish Box. That should not be our opening position in the negotiations. I have told the Minister that it is essential that we insist on getting legal clarity on the position of Spanish rights of access. I understand the Minister has legal documentation allowing him to make a very strong argument that the restrictions that have been put on the Spanish fleet can remain intact and there is no date on which they should end. That needs to be legally clarified at European level before the negotiations start, otherwise we will be giving away valuable bargaining power. Having said that, the Irish Box is central to the negotiations for the reasons alluded to by the delegation.

On the issue of quotas, the French example is at one extreme while the Irish example is the other. Where do the other European countries stand on quota versus sea area? I know the French have a much greater quota than they actually catch annually. Is that the case with other EU states? It is important to know that because for each area that we have to achieve success, we have to build alliances and gain allies. Portugal is the only ally we have on the issue of the Irish Box. We will need to work on gaining others if we are to be successful. The allocation of quotas is an area we need to get political support on or we will be defeated. I presume the committee has looked at the position in other EU countries with a view to achieving political success in the negotiations.

I congratulate the fishermen's organisations for the work they have done to date on fish mortality and conservation methods. A lot of that work has been done on a voluntary basis and without financial support. Some interesting and persuasive results have emerged. Franz Fischler was here ten days ago and said that he found the presentation of the fishing industry very interesting. Whether he acts on that is another matter. We need to continue to hammer home the message that it is more complicated than crudely cutting quotas, fishing time and fishing effort. It is about targeting catch. We must establish if we have allies who think similarly, that is the only way we will get a successful result.

I welcome the South and East Coast Fisheries Organisation. I know it has had a frustrating time in trying to have an impact on the strategy. I hope that will change in the future.

Deputy Broughan: I welcome the delegation to the meeting and congratulate it for putting its case so clearly and so well. I was present last week at Commissioner Fischler's press conference and was disappointed, as were many other representatives and staff of this House, at some of the terms he used to suggest hardship for our fishing workforce and their families, terms such as "difficult times ahead". Frank Doyle is right - it is a critical six weeks. I hope over the six weeks our Minister will vigilantly put our case. He told us the other day that he had, he hoped, six allies out of 15 in the EU, particularly the Portuguese - and on conservation issues, Spain, unbelievably - and that the six together would put our case very strongly in the remaining negotiations. I welcome the comments made by everybody, including the mention of the possible socio-economic fall-out from our fears about the Irish Box and the Irish sea. We know of areas, such as Castletownbere and the Beara peninsula, which is an area I know well, where without the fishing industry the whole population would be severely disadvantaged. Their fates are in our hands; we must strive to protect them.

Mr. Keogh referred to the work that is going on. I have seen a very fine report from Mr. Pádraic White's committee, the Irish National Strategy Review Group on the Common Fisheries Policy. What does he think of the proposals we have made about coastal zone management? Fisheries are a major resource for our country, as illustrated by the maps. Does he think that in the future we could encourage or persuade our EU partners to entrust to us the management and conservation of the key areas, including the Irish Box? There was reference to the problem of discarding various stocks and misreporting catches. Could Mr. Ó Cinnéide expand on the points he made?

Members of the South and West Fishermen's Organisation are here and I congratulate them on the efforts at conservation which have already taken place in the Irish sea. I was involved with this through my local fishermen at Howth a couple of years ago when the conservation box was being implemented in relation to prawn fisheries. I was impressed by the progressive attitude of the Howth Fishermen's Association and their colleagues in the south and east.

Deputy O'Donovan: I welcome this professional and united approach from the various fishing organisations from Donegal to my area in west Cork. I am very impressed by their presentation and I have no doubt that if the fishing organisations had been as professional and well prepared back in the 1970s we would have made much more progress. As one of the speakers said, there is no point in looking back at what we have lost; we must look forward. Would our visitors see conservation of the stocks under the TCMs as one of the key issues that will convince our European partners of the importance of retaining the Irish box? I accept what Deputy Coveney said: that issue is only one of the many up for negotiation in the next six weeks.

The importance of the sustainability of coastal communities was very well highlighted. If one took the fishing industry out of a certain area - for example, Killybegs from the north west and Castletownbere from the south west - these rural areas would be ravaged and depopulated. This is contrary to the thrust of EU directives and principles. Another thing that should be of huge significance when talking to our European neighbours is that something like 83% of our vessels are less than 50 ft long and we are thus at a disadvantage, not being capable of travelling out to very deep waters. This point should be made with great force to our Commissioner.

I have heard for two decades in my area of the arrogance of the Spanish fleet and fishing industry and its attitude towards issues such as under-sized fish and double hulls. Can our representatives and our Minister, with the help of these organisations, emphasise to our European partners that this is still going on, resulting in certain disadvantages to our fleet? I thank the groups for their professional approach because we must have unity of purpose from all the groups, supporting the Minister irrespective of which Minister or party goes to Europe. It is crucial that the industry is united in its approach. We have one last bite at the cherry. The next six weeks are crucial for the next generation of fishermen.

Could the representatives comment on whether we could expand further and make greater gains in our quotas for the new deep-water species currently being found? Some of them are already under quota. Can we make further progress? I am considering the needs of the next generation in 20 or 30 years time. Have we made any significant gains in our race for quotas for these species, in view of the fact that historically we have lost out to the Spanish and the French?

Chairman: I welcome Deputy Jim Glennon in substitution for Deputy Brady, who has sent his apologies.

Senator Finucane: I welcome the deputations. I read Dr. Whitaker's presentation ten years ago on review of the CFP and one of the points he made was that one of the worst threats to fish stocks is the very high proportion of immature fish killed. Ten years down the road that statement is as valid as ever, if not more so. Mr. Ó Cinnéide said that 70% of certain stocks were discards. In the long term, the sustainability of fish is under threat. We all know that the fishing industry is a central economic plank in Spain. It is very important for its economy. It is not only the conservation of fish stocks that is important but the inspection aspect, particularly at ports. Is it true that we have six fishery inspectors in Castletownbere while the whole of Spain has ten, all based in Madrid, and that a blind eye is turned to what fish are landed in Spanish ports? Is it true that under-sized fish is a delicacy in Spain? If that is the case, where is the long-term commitment to conservation?

We recently had a presentation which surprised me. Area 7 was mentioned as the vital one in which mush fishing took place, and 91% of naval activity seemed to take place there also, which is not surprising as it is not too far from Haulbowline. I wonder about the level of protection of our fishing industry farther out to sea.

Deputy Coveney made the valid point that so much is focused in the Irish Box. We all recognise that it is important to preserve it. Other areas that are as important to fishermen could be ignored on the basis of success in the Irish Box. We will know the legal implications, how Spain and Portugal entered originally and our entitlements where these countries are concerned.

It is a broad discussion and we should include other areas such as the future of the Irish fleet. Will it be reduced? How well are we prepared for that? We should also include conservation, net sizes and mesh sizes. I read Mr. Whittaker's report of 1991 before I came to the meeting. I am disappointed with the progress in this area over the past ten years. We do not yet have a copy of Mr. White's presentation, but I wonder how many comparisons will be as valid in 2001 as in 1991. Perhaps one of the speakers would respond to my general point about conservation inspection vis a vis Spain and Ireland.

Senator Kenneally: I am conscious of the time constraints and will be brief. Some of the questions have already been asked. I welcome the various groups.

There is a common theme running through the presentations and that is conservation. I often wonder when we leave a forum such as this are we only paying lip service to it. Does it suit us to say something and then go out and practise something else? Part of the problem is that everyone knows there is no proper recording of catches, especially in other countries. If we are serious about solving the problem we must tackle this. I hope we will have a unified approach when we fight this in Brussels but I am not certain that we have.

I welcome the members of the Irish South and East Fisherman's Organisation here today. I thank the committee for accepting my proposal to invite them. I am delighted the organisation was set up and I hope the Minister will recognise it. Coming from the part of the country from which I come, I have been getting it in the neck for years. It is a part of the country that has been ignored by the Department and we have not been getting a fair share. For example a ludicrous situation arose last year with a herring fishery. There is no problem with a fishery, or part of it, being closed for conservation purposes but landings were not allowed in Dunmore East because - by the Department's admission - of pressure from another region. This is not acceptable. We must all work together. If we do not, and if we do not go with a unified voice to Brussels, how can we expect to be taken seriously?

Is there a proposal to open up the Irish Box, as was mentioned? Is there a proposal to do away with it completely? It has been suggested to me that it could be wiped out within one year. We have experience of what the Spaniards did in Morocco, Mauritania and other places in North Africa. Someone alluded to that and perhaps it could be elaborated upon.

I would also like elaboration on the French situation. We always hear about the Spaniards and the problems they cause but we hear less about the French. The Spaniards have been allowed to have 40 boats fishing within the Irish Box, how many are the French allowed? Is there any quota or restriction on them?

In relation to discarding stocks, I presume this is where someone catches fish, for example cod, that are over quota and dumps them at sea. It seems ridiculous to dump good fish at sea. Surely there could be some mechanism whereby fish which are caught accidentally are used against another quota. I believe the Norwegians have such a system, perhaps something similar could be considered.

Chairman: I hope Mr. Keogh can manage all of those questions.

Mr. Keogh: There has been a wide range of questions and some of the issues have been raised by more than one Deputy or Senator. The first issue I picked up was raised by Deputy Coveney. It was raised by other speakers, in particular the last speaker, Senator Kenneally. It concerns the dangers to the Irish Box and legal clarity. I will ask John O'Donoghue from the Killibegs Fishermen's Organisation to deal with the question raised on the Irish Box.

Mr. O'Donoghue: Deputy Coveney has hit the nail on the head. I emphasised it at the start in my presentation. The Irish Box is only one of the four issues the Irish industry is pursuing. We cannot get carried away with the idea that if we solve the Irish Box problem the reform of the CFP has been solved for Ireland. That is not the case. If we only end up solving the Irish Box problem the review will have been a disaster for us. In relation to legal clarity, there are a number of issues here. The first one is that, unfortunately from the point of view of the Irish position, the Council legal services have produced a legal document which says categorically that the Irish Box automatically goes on 1 January 2003. Our legal advice to the group and my interpretation of it, given that I was involved in the accession negotiations, is that this legal advice in not correct. I view it, and so does the group, that one may as well have taken the heading off that advice and put up "Spanish Legal Advice" on it. As we understand it the Minister, who will speak later, has some definitive advice from the Attorney General's office which concurs with the legal advice which the group has and with my view that the Irish Box legally does not go. It will be very difficult to get legal clarity on this because Denmark has the presidency and, if it wishes, can sit on its hands and let the whole thing come crumbling down around us on 1 January. Obviously we do not want that.

Another question concerned what would happen if we moved the Box. If the legal services advice stays in place there would be open access to the 300 Spanish vessels plus the Moroccan fleet which has been tied up for several years. We could have an additional 500 or 600 vessels within the Irish Box. Given that we propose to reduce the effort within the Box one can take it that within a matter of two or three years the Box will be wiped out.

The Irish Box is obviously critical, but it is only one of the four issues. If we only end up having this resolved then as far as we are concerned, from the industry's point of view, we already have the Irish Box restrictions. If we only end up getting that, the industry and the Minister will have failed to get anything. From the point of view of the Irish industry the future will be very bleak if that is all we end up with.

Mr. Keogh: In relation to the other key areas to which Mr. O'Donoghue referred, quota shares were raised by Deputy Coveney. The need to build up alliances and the question of non-quota species and the fact that our track record in these species will form the basis of future shares. My colleague, Frank Doyle will address the issues which were raised by various speakers in relation to quotas and quota shares.

Mr. Doyle: Deputy Coveney asked about the quota allocations available to other European countries. We do not have an exercise for all of the European countries in their own waters. In the hand-out, under allocation of resources, there is a box containing figures for the share out for member states in areas 6 and 7. Those are the areas of direct concern to us, particularly for white fish, dimersal species.

The chart displays the British position. Britain has 46% of the sea area but it gets 25% of the share out. We have already dealt with Ireland and France. The next country we come to is Spain, and it has no coastline at all in those areas and it gets a 5% share. Belgium gets 4% to 5% of the share, again with no coastline. There are smaller shares for Belgium and Holland. Using Irish Sea sole as an example, we get 12.5% of the annual share out while Belgium, which is 300 miles away, gets 60%.

This is one of the distortions endemic in the share out allocation system. As long as these glaring abnormalities and unbalanced relationships exist, there will be continuing resentment, and continuing unfairness, in sharing resources. If we do not have access to the resource, everything else is academic. If we were denied access to it, there would be nothing to fight about. The bigger players fall back on the figures of the mid 1970s and want to hang on to their large share out because the only way they can be revised is downwards.

If the big players fossilise these shares in perpetuity, they will be at variance with the objectives of the Treaty of Rome. The Commission is in the strange position of going in one direction in the treaties and in the exact opposite in subsidiary policies. The fisheries policy frustrates the objectives of the treaties. That is a most peculiar position. As long as that continues, everyone here will be unhappy. If we keep looking backwards at historic performance, we will be caught on the hook of the 1973 allocations and we will play into the hands of the existing big players.

Instead of looking to the past, it would be more prudent to look to the future. We are one of the few islands in the European Union and we are on the fringes of Europe, stuck in the Atlantic with few coastal resources, other than those available in the sea, and we need the sea for the future. Instead of looking at the past track record, which is a colonialist approach, we should ask what will be required for this geographical area in the future and build according to those requirements.

Chairman: Should relative stability be up for discussion? Can we have it both ways?

Mr. Doyle: When the Commissioner was here last week, he tried to maintain that we could not have it both ways and could not look for a new relative stability. He said there was either the existing relative stability or none at all. We are saying that relative stability is needed, there must be some balance, but we need a new formula, not a variation or continuation of the current set-up that favours the big players.

Deputy Coveney: Are other countries in Europe seeking a new formula?

Mr. Doyle: The Portuguese would go along with it but not many others. Most of the others are happy enough, even the Belgians. They have little or no coastline so they are happy to continue with the present situation. The Dutch are happy to continue because their share out will only decrease if it is re-opened. The Danes have an enormous quota, mainly on the basis of industrial species for fish meal. Their quota could only decrease. The British are in a peculiar situation because they are sacrificing the west coast to cover North Sea interests. They have a split mentality but their major political objective is to protect the North Sea at all costs, even if it means a decrease for the west coast of Britain.

The same considerations apply to the deep water species. As long as we talk about track records, there will always be someone bigger than us. The French pulled rabbits out of the hat at every opportunity and bullied the Commission into introducing these quotas to protect French interests on the basis that they were there first and had large figures.

Mr. Lochrin: The committee has been shown a plethora of issues. This is my third appearance before it in its various configurations. The last time I appeared in February 2001, we sought, and the committee supported, the adoption of a recommendation that an independent appeals mechanism be established for sea fishing boat licensing and today that Bill is before the Seanad. As a matter of practical impact, that helped.

Relating that to our present position, the committee's best option would be to make clear to the Minister that in this review there is a need for a significant change. It cannot be cosmetic. Mr. Doyle highlighted that fact. Political and practical realities are out of synchronisation. Fishermen are caught in the middle.

When the Minister goes to negotiate with his 14 colleagues, he should be in the position that he cannot return to the Dáil without addressing this mismatch between the political and practical realities. Our fishermen are in an impossible position. Ordinary citizens are being criminalised by trying to live within an unworkable arrangement. It has been in place for 20 years and that is long enough. Whatever happens from January 2003, and I have no doubt we will not be totally satisfied with the deal, there should be a workable arrangement.

Mr. Geoghegan: I represent the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association. We have worked with all the fishing organisations. There might have been a history of disagreement in the past but current co-operation is mirrored in the document and we fully support it. It is a blunt approach. It offers the palliative of giving €300 million to €400 million extra, which will be taken from economies in reducing the fleet and put into social measures to find jobs for fishermen out of work and to re-train them. That is the measure of his socio-economic approach. In earlier speeches it was noted that we have the hinterland and that we have 4,000 people employed in processing. Deputy Morgan knows the number of people involved on the distribution end. There is a whole infrastructural framework there in which a great deal of money has been invested.

When one thinks of fishing and fishermen I absolutely agree they may bear the brunt of this policy, but this is an entire industry and social fabric that is affected. I was in Brussels earlier this week and this message is not getting home.

Chairman: I am in members' hands here. The Minister is coming in at 4 p.m., we have another group to meet before then and the Minister is travelling to Norway this evening to attend another function. I am anxious that we hear the Minister's views. I know some of the questions have not been answered and that there are three other Members offering. This has been a very brief meeting today. It was an important meeting for this committee and the Members were very anxious to touch base, meet the organisations and understand what the difficulties were so that we could put them on the record here and have a report which would be laid before the Dáil. The views of the organisations present will be reflected in that report. We are very conscious of the time constraints and the importance of doing this before the EU meets to decide on other matters-----

Deputy Kenneally: Sorry, Chairman, who is coming in next, before the Minister?

Chairman: We have Mr. Pat Keogh, Mr. Michael Keating and Dr. Paul Connolly to present the draft report of the Marine Institute-----

Deputy Kenneally: That is separate from the presentation already given?

Chairman: It is. It is to give us an assessment from a scientific point of view. We agreed last week to keep that separate. I know the Members are very anxious to have other questions answered. I am in your hands, gentlemen.

Deputy Morgan: Can we be permitted to make just a very tight speech of a minute and a half each, with a very precise question?

Chairman: You are next anyway, Deputy.

Deputy Morgan: Nevertheless, if we could give everybody just 30 seconds each-----

Chairman: You are next, Deputy.

Deputy Morgan: I thank the delegation for the clarity and precision of their contributions. While we all acknowledge that the Irish Box is extremely important, I ask the delegation how it would rate the issue of flags of convenience boats coming into our waters, and would restricting their equipment and catch size have a very significant influence on discouraging those boats from coming back? That is something this committee could work on by bringing legislation forward. Maybe that would go some way towards helping this whole issue if we get through this negotiation reasonably well at all.

Mr. Keogh: I will try to sum up very briefly. Regarding the question raised by Senator Finucane about the Whitaker report, the situation, sadly, is that the Commissioner, Mr. Fischler, has acknowledged that the Common Fisheries Policy is flawed. When he was in Dublin last week he said we urgently need a root and branch reform of the CFP. I am afraid the proposals the Commission is bringing forward do not amount to a root and branch reform and will not address the serious issues that are at the root of our problems. These have to do with the planning stocks and all the other issues that have been mentioned, such as the low share available to Ireland.

The question of discards was not dealt with adequately. We had a person over from the FAO about two weeks ago in Dublin Castle, and he noted that of the total world catch of 84 million tonnes, 22 million tonnes, or 25%, are discarded in volume terms. Discards are usually small fish, so in terms of numbers of fish, probably between 50-70% of all fish internationally are discarded and put back into the sea. That is a serious problem, and in terms of the conservation measures our group was talking about, our main point is that there is a total imbalance in the Commission's approach. There is a total focus on fleet reduction - it is looking for a fleet reduction of 40%.

Fishermen in the EU as a whole have to discard, sometimes up to 70%, and it is very often to do with the regulations. Clearly, if we could reduce discards from 70% down to 20% we would achieve a reduction in fish mortality that would be equivalent to what the Commissioner is targeting in relation to the reduction in fleet.

Our committee has had a unity of approach over the past four years. It has been quite unique, involving the State interest, the Department, agencies and industry interests - and not just catching all interests across the board. There is a unity of approach and a consensus in relation to the views and recommendations that have been adopted. We have seven reports for the benefit of the members here, some of which we have given to them today.

I thank you, Chairman, and thank the committee for listening to the views of the group. We ask for your full support in the very difficult and challenging times ahead between now and the end of the year, and possibly into next year.

Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keogh. Can you hold your questions until the Minister comes in, Deputy Ryan, or do you wish to speak?

Deputy E. Ryan: I will waive my question.

Chairman: Is there anything pressing that needs to be dealt with before we thank the delegation for coming in?

Senator Finucane: I have a question on conservation. Have you ever been over to Norway to see their whole approach to conservation?-----

Chairman: I really meant whether there was anything pressing here because Deputy Ryan-----

Deputy E. Ryan: I agree with the question about conservation. Have the fishermen any view in terms of why the cod has not returned to the ground banks in Canada? I ask this in relation to the proposed closure of cod fishing here.

Deputy Coveney: I have a very specific question that can be answered in five seconds. It is in relation to the Hague preferences that have been negotiated, whereby Irish fishermen can get extra quota depending on the overall TAC rates each year. Is that type of structure, whereby we can get extra quota depending on what is caught in the rest of Europe, an acceptable fall-back position? Or are the organisations looking to throw out that concept entirely and try to renegotiate the distribution of quota?

Chairman: I think Dr. Paul Connolly would be the ideal man to answer your question, Deputy Ryan.

Deputy E. Ryan: I would be interested to hear the views of the fishermen.

Chairman: You can hear those also but I want to assure you will have an opportunity to put that matter to Dr. Connolly. If you could sum up for us please, Mr. Keogh, and we will then adjourn for two minutes.

Mr. Keogh: We have raised a number of issues today that we have reduced down to four key elements. They have been well elaborated upon by the fishing organisations. I will make one point on the allocation of resources. The Commission's road map document says, on page 13, that "The Commission considers that the allocation key should be designed to reflect changes in fishing activity over time by, for instance, basing allocations on an average share of catches over the preceding five or ten years". This is contained in the Commission's proposal. It offers some opportunity, but when it comes down to the member states it would be extremely difficult to get agreement amongst them for us to increase our share at the expense of other countries.

On the Irish Box and the other issues, the points have been very well brought out. It is a very important issue. The group is totally opposed to the termination of the Irish Box. We must retain the Irish Box in its current form and, if possible, strengthen it. If we do not do that, the future of the whitefish fleet and whitefish stocks will be in jeopardy.

The points raised by the Irish South and West Fishermen's Organisation on matters of socio-economic import and our dependence on the fishing industry and how important it is for the future are very well understood by the committee, the members of which come from right around the coast of Ireland.

The final thing is that we must address conservation. However, there is no point in the Irish industry on its own raising mesh sizes or taking other measures. We are a small part of the fishing effort in our own 200-mile zone. We must have EU measures to do this, and there has to be a commitment at EU level to better conservation, larger mesh sizes, boxes to protect young fish in the sea, juvenile fish, and spawning grounds. We also favour a regional approach within Ireland, which is happening already in relation to the management of fisheries and the Commission's approach to having regional advisory councils, which is a measure welcomed by the group.

That is the position in a nutshell. We would like to thank the committee for hearing our views. We have reports and submissions to which the committee is very welcome and which we can send on at a later stage.

Next | Up | Previous