Paul Bradford
Question:3 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for the Marine if he will ensure that tuna fishing will remain viable by insisting on an increase in the maximum allowable net length from the present limit of 2.5 km.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Drift Netting.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:32 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for the Marine whether he supports the proposal of the EU Commission to ban drift nets; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 32 together.
As I informed the House in response to Deputy Sheehan's parliamentary question on 5 May 1994 at the Council of Fisheries Ministers last April, the Commission presented a proposal in regard to the future of drift netting, which has the following elements: all drift netting, for tuna, salmon, and certain other species, to be phased out over a period of four years; during this four year period, nets of up to 2.5 km may be used, but their use must be reduced each year; boats which previously held the derogation to fish with nets up to 5 km may continue to do so for 1994 only. In addition, the Commission has indicated that funding may be made available to assist fishermen who fish with drift nets to change over to an alternative method of fishing.
As the Deputies will appreciate, the proposal caused much concern among Ministers at the April Council. In brief, Ireland's concerns were mainly as follows: first, the implementation of the measures would have the most severe implications for employment and incomes in the tuna fishery in Ireland, with particular adverse impact on the ports where the fishery is concentrated; second, the proposal to include drift netting for salmon was extremely disturbing given that this form of fishing is a long established traditional activity in Ireland and plays a key role in the economic and social life of remote coastal regions.
This issue was discussed again at last week's Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting in Luxembourg. The Council decided that the proposal should be examined further and decisions on the proposal would be discussed after that examination. I am satisfied on the basis of the discussion to date that there is now no question of the Commission proposals for a total ban being adopted. This emerging outcome will ensure no change in the regulations governing the drift net fisheries in Ireland.
I am continuing to press for an increase in the size of drift net allowed for tuna fisheries but, to be realistic, I would not be optimistic as to the possibilities of negotiating an increase from 2.5 km to 5 km. The Americans and others are conducting a huge lobby on cetaceans, dolphins and other such fish, which are caught in the tuna fishermen's nets and this applies to the fisheries where the Castletownbere fishermen operate. There is no scientific evidence to date, however, to prove that the type of activity engaged in by the 18 boats from Castletownbere is doing any damage to the tuna fishery and that is why I am continuing on their behalf to resist the proposal.
Obviously it is a very strong political lobby——
A green lobby.
——a political-environmental lobby. Before the Minister pats himself on the back——
I would not expect any praise from the Deputy.
——for securing the 2.5 km limit, will he say what progress he expects to make on increasing this limit? Is he aware that unless the limit is increased somewhat there will be no future for Irish fishermen in the tuna industry? As he has conceded, there is no evidence to indicate that this type of fishing is causing environmental difficulties. The Minister should be pressing strongly for an increase to 5 km in the length of nets allowed. It appears that we are not comparing like with like because nets in the Pacific are ten or 20 times longer than Irish nets and they are definitely causing environmental difficulties. There is no problem with Irish nets and there is scope for increasing their length without causing environmental difficulties. Does the Minister expect to make progress in achieving an increase in the length of nets at the European Council.
To be frank — sometimes frankness does not pay in politics — I do not expect to make progress in having the lengths of nets increased to 5 km. As the Deputy may be aware at the Council meeting in April I spent two and a half hours arguing with my colleague, the French Minister. He had succeeded in getting derogation to 5 km which was subsequently suspended and he had to tell the fishing industry they could no longer fish with nets 5 km long. He had a huge problem. I argued our case strenuously and, as a result, succeeded in containing the length at 2.5 km. Again at a meeting in Luxembourg on Friday we had to argue our position strenuously and I believe we succeeded in maintaining the length of net at 2.5 km which is not satisfactory from the point of view of Castletownbere fishermen. That fishery generates an income of £2.45 million and employs 144 people and the situation is very serious for them. The evil day has been put off and the decision to abolish nets of 2.5 km has been put back indefinitely, I would like to think.
I understand that BIM made available £250,000 to examine the possibility of alternative methods of fishing tuna — the Spanish do it by long line and that is why they are so anti-net fishing, as Deputy McGinley appreciates. They are very pious about it and are strongly opposed to net fishing for tuna. They are so pious one would think one was listening to a saint whereas their fishing methods around Ireland and elsewhere could be compared to piracy. Sin cheist eile.