JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002

Vol. 1 No. 1

Reform of 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 chief executive officer 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 SeánO'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 ÓCinnéide. 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 ÓCinnéide 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 much 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-à-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 is 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 reopened. 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 SenatorFinucane 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.

Chairman

Thank you for coming to the meeting and for making the presentations. We are sorry for rushing, but there are time constraints. I have no doubt we will be interacting with you again in the future. I propose that we suspend for two minutes.

Sitting suspended at 3.52 p.m. and resumed at 4.00 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome the Minister and Dr. Cecil Beamish to the committee and thank the Common Fisheries Policy group which is waiting to make the last presentation. As I explained earlier the Minister is in a hurry and has to go out of the country today. I thank him for giving us his time.

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Deputy D. Ahern)

I congratulate the Chairman and committee members and thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. Today's committee hearing is very timely. It coincides with an intensive debate currently under way within the EU. I look forward to hearing at first hand the views of the committee. I am fairly well aware of them already having heard them in the House during Question Time. I apologise for having to run off but I have to catch a plane and have to be out of here by 5 p.m.

Nobody should be in any doubt that challenging and difficult times lie ahead for fishing sectors across the EU. Many commercial fish stocks are in decline and that has to be stopped and reversed. The rebuilding of stocks is an over-riding priority and while there is a general consensus about the importance of this objective there is less consensus as to how this might be done. That is the cornerstone of the debate and I am most interested to learn of this committee's views.

In this opening statement, I propose to concentrate on three key elements: the review of the CFP - the issue of the Irish Box and the emerging position on TACs and quotas, decisions on which will require to be made within a month or so. If there are any other issues of particular interest or concern to the committee, I would be willing to hear them.

To turn to today's business, on the issue of CFP reform, the negotiations on the Commission's reform proposals are reaching a critical stage. The Danish Presidency of the Council has stated its commitment to reaching agreement on the reform package at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council from 16 to 19 December. In preparation for this, critical negotiations involving the Presidency and Commission are planned for the Council on 27 and 28 November.

Ireland has prepared well for this process. The priorities for the Irish industry in the Commission's proposals and the strategy for pursuing these priorities have been worked out in close association with the Irish national strategy review group on the CFP. This group, operating under the chairmanship of Pádraic White and involving industry representatives, has done sterling work and I would again like to publicly acknowledge their great efforts and the dedication of all concerned and, particularly, the concise report it presented to me earlier and to Commissioner Fischler, recently.

Ireland has a number of important issues and concerns in relation to CFP reform. These have already been outlined to the committee today at its meeting with the industry representatives. These relate to share-out of total allowable catch, access issues and fleet policy. These are areas I have considerable difficulties with and I will deal with them in greater detail later.

The need for strengthened control and enforcement, enhanced conservation measures to protect stocks and more involvement of stakeholders are key elements. I am largely supportive of the Commission's proposals in relation to these latter aspects and I will be pushing for strong and effective measures in any compromise that might be reached.

In relation to quota allocations, the committee is no doubt aware that Ireland did very badly back in the early 1980s when fish stocks were being shared out between member states. This was because the share-out was based on catch record and Ireland's fleet comprised mainly of small boats and did not have a good track record in most of the fisheries. Since then it has been a priority of successive Ministers with responsibility for the fisheries brief to have these shares substantially improved. I have stressed this issue at all the Council meetings I have attended.

In 1992, the mid-term review of the CFP was used to push Ireland's case without success. This time round we see this full review of the CFP as a real opportunity to deliver equity and fairness to the Irish industry in quota allocations. The difficulty we are faced with is that for Ireland to get a greater share other member states must give up shares. This challenge is made doubly difficult at a time when quotas for all member states are decreasing significantly and there is not enough fish to meet any member state's demands. I must advise that, at Council the Commission and the majority of member states want to retain the current quota allocation arrangements. Given that decisions in the Fisheries Council are based on qualified majority voting, achieving increased quota allocation keys for Ireland is extremely difficult.

Of crucial importance for us is retaining the so-called Hague preferences which allocate additional quotas to Ireland, and also the UK, when key stocks fall below certain limits. The Hague preferences are a critical issue for Ireland. They provide additional allocations of key quotas to Ireland over and above the allocations provided under the 1983 allocation keys. These allocations were given back in 1976 as part of a Heads of State agreement when Ireland agreed to the European Community declaring a 200-mile fishing zone around our coast. The agreement recognised the underdeveloped state of the Irish fishing industry at that time. It also took account of the substantial burden that fell to Ireland in the control of the EEZ which was disproportionate to the benefit achieved from the sector.

With reducing TACs, there is a strong movement within the Council to stop giving Ireland these critical additional shares and the Commission, which last December sought to remove the Hague preferences, has been slow in defending our position. With declining quotas for all member states it is becoming progressively more difficult to protect these shares, as we gain each year at the expense of other member states. The UK is our only ally in this area as it also benefits under the Hague agreement. I have had discussions with the UK Minister in this respect. The protection of these allocations is a priority in the CFP review process.

The importance of the Irish Box as a conservation tool for waters around Ireland is widely recognised in Ireland. The retention of the Irish Box is a key priority for me in the upcoming negotiations and I am aware this view is shared by the Irish fishing industry. It is a fundamental issue and I understand the industry representatives have provided a detailed briefing on the issues relating to its retention post-2002.

The question of whether that regime should remain after the end of this year has arisen because of legal opinion received from the Council legal service at the end of October to the effect that the western waters regime expires on 31 December 2002. The advice is contrary to that of the Commission and Ireland's previous view on this issue and, in my view, it is incomplete and flawed. I am mounting a strong challenge to this position based on the legal advice received by my Department and on the critical necessity of retaining the box to protect vital stocks in this sensitive area. I will highlight the differing interpretations of the legal position to the Commissioner, the Presidency and my ministerial colleagues in Europe.

In relation to fleet policy, the Commission's proposals involve a substantial reduction of fishing effort - days at sea - for the fleet. The Commission's objective is to rapidly reduce fleet size by putting in place a system which will make the operation of the current national fleets uneconomic. The total amount of fishing effort - days at sea - the fishing fleet will be allocated will be significantly less than the total which would allow the present fleet to operate on an economic basis and, accordingly, many vessel owners will be forced to scrap their vessels and get out of fishing. The Commission's estimate that the effect of the proposals would be that over 400 vessels would be scrapped in the short-term represents 40% of our fishing fleet. That would have serious consequences for the fishing industry in Ireland and for the coastal communities dependent on fishing.

We are opposed to this element of the Commission's proposals on the basis that it is a technocratic approach to fishery management and would not ensure the sustainability of fishing stocks, which is our primary aim. These measures would force many fishing family enterprises in peripheral areas out of business. My position is being supported by a number of other member states with whom my officials and I have been working, separately and collectively, to achieve agreement on a way forward. I am satisfied that all the other member states and the Commission now understand clearly the difficulties the Commission's proposals on the fleet would create for the Irish fishing industry.

Over the past few weeks, I have held a series of meetings to further Ireland's priorities in the CFP review process and to build alliances on critical issues. I have met the Portuguese Minister for Fisheries who shares some common ground with us on the western waters regime, particularly in the Azores, and also on fleet policy. I have also had a detailed bilateral meeting with the Danish Minister for Fisheries who currently holds the Presidency of the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries. I also held a bilateral meeting last week involving the Irish fishing industry with Commissioner Fischler. I have been working closely with the Ministers for Fisheries from France, Italy, Greece and Spain on the fleet issue. I will be working in close association with the industry representatives to advance Ireland's position on the negotiations. I have further meetings arranged with my ministerial colleagues in Europe in the coming week and I will keep in close contact with the Presidency and the Commission over the coming weeks. I am committed to finding a compromise that achieves the sustainability necessary for the long-term future of the industry in the most effective and equitable manner without creating unnecessary hardship in our coastal communities.

Concerning TACs and quotas for next year, this process is now shifting into top gear following the recent receipt of scientific advice from ICES, the International Council for Exploration of the Seas. Decisions on quotas for 2003 will be made in a month or so. There is considerable concern about the state of many commercial whitefish stocks. This is especially the case for cod stocks and ICES has recommended a complete closure for cod fishing in the North Sea, the west of Scotland and the Irish Sea.

The current position is that proposals on total allowable catches for 2003 for all fish stocks will be presented by the Commission within the next few weeks. The Commission has indicated its approach will be driven by the need to recover cod stocks and that all species caught with cod, such as haddock and whiting, will be subject to drastic cuts in both catches and fishing effort. There have been intimations that cuts of as high as 80% are being contemplated. The Com-missioner is demanding the introduction of swinge-ing cuts in fishing effort as part of any agreement for the recovery plan stocks such as cod in the Irish Sea and north-west Ireland and the hake stock. In the event that the Council does not support such an approach, he is threatening complete closure. While I am as committed as the Commissioner to the recovery of these stocks, I do not see that fishing effort cuts will deliver the rebuilding of stocks. I consider that we need to focus on technical measures such as area closures to protect spawning grounds and juveniles, larger mesh sizes combined with small TACs and strong control and enforcement. These measures have the support of our industry and, accordingly, the necessary "buy-in" to be effective. The Commissioner's approach will not achieve the objective as it clearly is not supported by the stakeholders

Clearly we must now await sight of the Commission's formal proposals. When those are to hand, I will consider them in the context of both the scientific advice and the current measures in place under the cod and hake recovery plans. I will do this in full consultation with the industry representatives in order to determine a national position. Fisheries management is a complex task and quick-fix, simplistic solutions such as fishing effort limitations will not deliver sustainable stocks.

There is a need to recover stocks but there is also a need to protect the interests of coastal communities dependent on fishing. An appropriate balance between these two objectives can be struck, and that will be my driving force in the negotiations ahead.

I hope my address has given members a flavour of the topics and concerns confronting the Irish fishing industry. I fully accept that this is a difficult time for them but I compliment them on the work they have done, particularly in the strategy group over the past four years. They have produced an excellent report which gives me strong ammunition and support to my officials who attend all the meetings on behalf of the Department.

Chairman

I will now open up the question and answer session. I will call Deputy Coveney first who will be followed by Deputies Broughan, O'Donovan and Ryan.

Deputy Coveney

I hope we will have an opportunity for some discussion as opposed to a structured question and answer session.

First, does the Minister plan to let us see the legal opinion available to him on the Irish Box? Will it be given to our European partners to try to persuade them that we have a case? Second, is it the Minister's view that the legal position on the Irish Box will now be determined politically, by persuasion, or by a proper legal process whereby a judge or a court at some stage will deem that our position is or is not legally correct? I would be nervous of us entering into detailed political negotiations without having that legal clarity in place, otherwise we will be using up valuable negotiating currency. If we can have legal clarity before we go into those negotiations, that negotiation currency will not be used up.

I want to emphasise another point which was raised frequently by previous speakers representing the industry. It is important that we do not measure our success or otherwise in these negotiations purely on the issue of the Irish Box and to be fair to the Minister, he recognised that in his own presentation, which I welcome. Clearly there are three or four key issues, and they are all important. It is not just the question of the Irish Box, although that has got the most media and political attention over the past number of weeks, mainly because the issue took us all by surprise.

In relation to the political realities, the Minister has broken down the issues into three areas - fleet policy, access, being the Irish Box, and TACs. Will the Minister indicate the political support he has from other European countries so that we can get some sense of how successful we are likely to be in different areas?

Is it the Minister's view that Commissioner Franz Fischler's views on conservation and on ways in which we can recover and conserve stocks have changed since coming to Ireland and hearing the Minister's view and that of the industry, or does he still have a simplistic approach towards conservation? When he was before this committee ten days or so ago he was insistent that the cruder measures for stock recovery as well as some of the technical or scientific measures, to which we referred, would still be necessary.

I am glad the Minister mentioned that the Hague preferences are a priority. What does he consider is the realistic position on Ireland getting an increase in its share of quota when one considers that the only way we can achieve that is if one of, or probably all of, the other countries agree to give a little? In the context of that being politically unlikely, it is important that we secure the Hague preferences, as the Minister referred to them, so that if there is unused quota it can be allocated to the Irish and British fleets.

In relation to flags of convenience as they are called, does the Minister not consider there is a problem with the fact that the French, in particular, have far more quota than they have catch each year? Such surplus quota is attracting Spanish interests into buying French fishing vessels and then gaining access to Irish waters in the Irish Box. There is something fundamentally wrong with having significantly more quota than one needs. How does the Minister plan to address this issue? It makes a nonsense of the Common Fisheries Policy if a significant percentage of the French fleet is owned and run by Spanish interests purely in order to gain access to waters and quotas to which they as a nation do not have in their own right.

Chairman

Would the Minister prefer to answer those questions first?

Mr. D. Ahern

Yes, because many issues have been raised. As with all legal advice tendered by the Attorney General to Government, the strong advice from the Attorney General's office is that I cannot publish it. There are concerns in the industry that this legal advice is going to the Commission. We sent it to the Commission and the Council and it will be part of the discussions on the conflicting advice at EU level. I read intensely the legal advice from the Council and stated in my statement that I thought it was incomplete and flawed. That is my personal opinion, quite apart from an official opinion or the Attorney General's opinion. I do not want to be critical.

In relation to the core issues that are pertinent to us, there is not a full fleshing out of what they are. The agreement in 1992 runs out at the end of 2002. We have contrary legal opinion in this regard. It is articulated in the Attorney General's advice that for a number of reasons there is not a time limit, that it is subject to review but that there is not a time limit. I know that those in the industry, some of whom are represented here, are worried that they are not privy to the legal advice that is available. I can offer the industry a private briefing of the strategy group on the arguments we are making. Some people outside this State are observing intently what is happening here on this issue. There is a problem even with publicity of the type of legal advice we have. My officials have discussed the matter with the Attorney General's office and they would be willing to have a briefing of the legal advice with the strategy group headed by Pádraic White. Our legal advice is contrary to the legal advice that has been obtained by Council legal services. When I met with the Portuguese Minister and his officials recently, I learned that they are also tendering legal advice, which I do not want to second guess but I would like to think that it would be similar to ours. I do not think it has been tendered yet to the Council but it probably will be before next week.

I accept that the Irish Box is not the only issue. When I became Minister one of the big issues regarding the upcoming review was the issue of the fleet policy, the drastic suggestions in the Commissioner's proposals and a schedule which was the genesis of the understandable anger in Ireland and elsewhere about the potential for a reduction in the fleet. In subsequent discussions with the Commissioner, I sensed a softening in his approach and, to a certain extent, he was taken aback by the vehemence of the opposition not only in Ireland to the fleet policy issue and the proposals he was making.

As the total allowable catch is falling year on year due to advice from the scientists, that is putting less and less value on the Hague preferences, which give us a preferential share of a constantly reducing cake, but it is also putting more pressure on those other countries who are getting less and less of the cake. There is pressure from other countries. The UK and ourselves who are recipients of the benefit of the Hague preferences are more or less ad idem on this issue and we will fight to retain the value to us of the Hague preferences.

France has excess quota in some areas, but the scientists bear that in mind on a year on year basis in the advice they would give for the following year on what tax would be decided. We have alliances in a number of areas. We are part of an informal grouping, the Friends of Fishing, which is made up of a number of countries who are of a similar view particularly in regard to the proposed reduction in fleets. We are working with them on that and on a number of other issues. We disagree with some of them in that we are not in agreement on every issue. We disagree with the Spaniards in relation to the Irish Box, but some of the other countries would disagree on issues that are not pertinent to us. My officials and I considered we were better remaining part of the Friends of Fishing in order to address some of the key issues. Inasmuch as the Irish Box is an issue, there are other fairly serious issues which will have implications for the fishing industry.

Deputy Broughan

I welcome the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to the committee. As I said earlier, there was a question mark over whether the word "marine" would appear in the title of the Department. Is it not the case that from the start of the Minister's administration he has been fairly lethargic in this area, that effectively behind the scenes the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, and the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, have been setting up this position for 1 January 2003 and to some extent we were not vigilant enough in observing what was going on? Is it not the case that there was a nod and a wink between the President of the Commission and the Spanish Prime Minister while the Minister was merely a bemused bystander on the sidelines and that now we are trying desperately to recover ground? I asked yesterday in the House about legal advice. It is a pity we cannot examine the case the Minister is making on our behalf in Europe. I hope the legal position is strong enough to negate the ground already lost in that regard.

As regards the comments made about the Hague preferences, quotas and the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, the Minister stressed that the United Kingdom seems to be our only key ally. However, the problem is that qualified majority voting comes into play. Could we offer something to other countries in return for ensuring that our key interests under the Hague preferences are protected?

Deputy D. Ahern

Give up on Sellafield. I said that in jest.

Deputy Broughan

I hope that is true, particularly as the Minister represents County Louth.

Deputy D. Ahern

I hope the Deputy is not suggesting we should do that.

Deputy Broughan

Is it possible for the Minister to say that is a sine qua non for this country? The Minister made a good point about enforcement, conservation measures and the type of plans he will be able to bring forward in that regard.

As regards the ten new member states, I know only Poland would have a significant interest in that regard. Could we take advantage of the admission of the ten new member states on 1 May 2004 to enhance our position? I hope we will have a raft of new allies after 2004. We share interests, similar populations, land mass, etc., with other small nations, such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Slovakia.

The Minister mentioned white fish and the threats Franz Fischler is making about the Irish Sea. He seems to be taking an ominous view of what is likely to materialise. Our fishermen on the east and south-east coasts have been committed to conservation in recent decades.

As regards disadvantaged communities, the Minister was responsible for community affairs in the previous Government. Is there any liaison between the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, about the coastal communities from Donegal to west Cork to ensure we give them as much support as we can? We must ensure that their standard of living is not destroyed by any changes.

Deputy D. Ahern

I thank the Deputy for welcoming me to the committee. We used to spar when I was Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. Deputy Broughan is full of bluster, but he lacks content.

Deputy Broughan

That is for others to judge.

Chairman

This is only our second meeting.

Deputy D. Ahern

We have crossed swords before. I have invested more time than any other Minister in this area in such a short space of time. The industry and the people who have been in contact with me will confirm that. I have not been lethargic or dilettante in the way I have done business. If the Spanish Prime Minister has private conversations with other people, that is not my business. I am not aware of them. The Deputy keeps saying that, but I do not know where he got that information. My understanding is that business is not done in that way or to the detriment of other countries. If that was the case, it would be quickly found out.

It is true that a country with only three votes, irrespective of whether we bring in the extra ten member states, which is not of any help to us at this stage in the context of these discussions, is subject to a numbers game. That is the reason we have accepted compromises over the years both at fisheries and other Council meetings. That has generally been the reason the discussions and negotiations have been successful. It is my understanding that the preparation in relation to the Common Fisheries Policy review, albeit in a more difficult scenario, is better than it was when we entered the EU.

As regards the issue of the Celtic Sea, both the Irish industry and the Government have been to the fore in the past three or four years in promoting the issue of recovery plans. We have made the point strongly to the Commissioner, to the Council and to our colleagues that one size does not fit all. The recovery plans, which have not been successful elsewhere in EU waters, have been relatively successful in the Celtic Sea when worked with the industry. Commissioner Fischler accepted that one could not have a full closure of the Celtic Sea. As far as we are concerned, the way forward is to continue with the relatively successful recovery plans which have been put in place in recent years.

Deputy O’Donovan

I welcome the Minister to the committee and I wish him well in the next few weeks during the negotiations which are a watershed not only for Europe but for this country. I accept the Minister will probably face a struggle, but given the excellent and professional submission by the review group and its unqualified, committed and unified support for the Minister and his approach in Europe, I am confident he will do an excellent job for us. Since his appointment as Minister, he has worked eagerly on many issues.

Does the Minister agree that the conservation of stocks is an issue which might win us friends and support throughout the European Union to retain the Irish Box in its original state? The issue of conservation weighs heavily with the Commissioner and the Council of Europe. Perhaps we could address that issue to win support from other countries.

There has been much talk about fleet reduction in recent years prior to the Minister's appointment. Perhaps the Minister could raise this issue with Commissioner Fischler. It seems unfair that fleet reduction, as spelled out by Europe, is not determined by the strength of the fishing countries and done on a pro rata basis. Fleet reduction would impact more severely on our industry than it would on the Spanish or French industries.

I acknowledge the significant work done by the Irish fishing industry in the past decade in regard to the policing of fisheries and stock conservation and enforcement. That is a step forward. Is the policing of the Irish fishing fleet vis-à-vis enforcement on a level playing pitch compared with Spain? My view is that the same controls do not impact on the French or particularly the Spanish. There is an imbalance of controls. While some are necessary they appear to work against the Irish fishing fleet.

With regard to the negotiations on the CFP, I accept that the Irish fishing industry must look forward rather than recall what happened in the 1970s and 1980s. We cannot redress that now. Can we make a strong claim now to the new species being recognised in deeper waters, particularly off the west coast and out towards the mid Atlantic? Can we lay claim to substantial quotas for those species, especially those that do not already have a quota base?

I offer full support to the Minister and wish him luck in the forthcoming crucial talks. He faces difficult negotiations which will impact on the fishing industry for the next 20 or 30 years.

Deputy D. Ahern

I thank the Deputy for his comments. In the past few years, with the assistance of EU aid, we have been successful in building up a fleet. In size it may not be comparable to bigger fleets but from a capability and safety point of view it is developing. Based on the intense research carried out by the Marine Institute a substantial input of resources in recent years has allowed us to look at other species which might be available to us. We will watch the situation closely.

I was delighted to be able to return from my first Council meeting with a relatively good percentage share of the deal struck at the time in regard to deep sea stock. That augurs well. In my initial days as Minister a point made to me by the industry was that our percentage share of total allowable catch was particularly important.

Political and legal arguments in regard to the Irish Box are part of our battle but the real strength of our argument is the issue of conservation. I said to Commissioner Fischler that to allow open access makes a mockery of the desire of the Commission, the member states and the fishing industry, to conserve stocks in that area. I heard what the Commissioner said when he attended and I read about the 40 vessel limit on the Spanish. We will fight that issue on the basis of conservation. The fishing industry indicated strongly at the meeting with Commissioner Fischler that if there was to be pain involved it must be on a proportionate basis. From that point of view the issue of the Irish Box will be watched closely. We want to ensure that the idea of stock preservation in western waters will be sustained. That is the key desire of everyone on this island. Leaving aside the legalities and the political issue, conservation is our counter argument. Commissioner Fischler did not convey the sense that from a practical legal point of view what was termed as non-discriminatory would lead to a situation of open access.

With regard to the monitoring of fleets, when we look at the map produced by the strategy group showing the number of Spanish, French, Irish, etc., vessels in the Irish Box it is clear that the preponderance of them are Spanish. The Commission and the Spaniards will say that the technology now available to pinpoint boats should be the way of controlling the situation in the Irish Box. At the moment, the 40 vessels allowed into the Irish Box must notify our control authorities, the Irish navy, on entry and exit from the box. It would be physically impossible for our navy to control or police the Irish Box if, while there was a restriction on the entire box, thousands of boats could come into it. It is difficult enough as it is with the existing fleets and with the Spanish fleet limited to 40. We made a strong case that an open access box, albeit with restrictions, would be impossible to control and would leave a huge onus and difficulties on us. Ultimately it would defeat the effort the Commission is making to find a balance between preserving stocks and sustaining coastal communities.

Chairman

Deputy Ryan, Senator Finucane and Deputy Kelly all wish to contribute.

Deputy D. Ahern

I must leave at 5 p.m.

Chairman

We will just take these questions.

Deputy E. Ryan

I support the Deputy from Bantry. The one negotiating position where we can gain is if we row in behind conservation efforts particularly with regard to the Irish Box and restricting open access to it. I am surprised that we are opposing many of the conservation measures proposed in regard to hake, cod and other particular species. In negotiations I urge the Minister to seek strong conservation in order to allow us gain in other areas.

With regard to the conservation measures being introduced, why do scientists and the Commissioner not believe the technical measures will do the job? With the suggested vessel regulation measures can we skew things so that larger vessels get more of the burden than smaller ones? That would benefit some of our isolated communities and maintain more people in the industry. Given our proximity to the stocks we have an advantage in terms of easier access for smaller vessels. Can we skew the conservation measures towards smaller vessels rather than larger ones? In those conservation measures, are there compensation arrangements envisaged to help fishing communities where fishing times are restricted? My main message is that we stay strong on conservation to gain in other areas.

Senator Kenneally

I welcome the Minister and wish him luck. He has a tough time ahead and I do not envy him in his task. As he said, we did very badly back in the early 1980s and are, therefore, coming from a distance behind. In that situation, no matter what we achieve, it will probably not be enough for some people. I note from the various meetings the Minister has held that he has been doing his homework and trying to get as much support as possible.

I also have a question in relation to the Irish Box which is not the be-all and end-all but it is an important element in what we are trying to achieve. The Minister said stocks have to be given a chance to recover. Fishermen's representatives have said that if the box is opened up, stocks could be wiped out within a couple of years. Is it the position of the EU Commission, following the advice from its legal services, that the box will, effectively, be opened up as from 1 January next? If that is the position, why is it proposed that the Irish Box should be opened whereas the Shetland Box is not to be treated similarly? I agree with the Minister's comments on area closures and I will not dwell on that in view of time constraints.

I have been concerned about the need for proper recording of fish stocks for quite some time. It is obvious to everybody in the industry that this is lacking both in Ireland and other countries. There is no point in our doing things properly if other countries will not do so. That issue must be tackled effectively throughout the EU if there is to be any proper control in the fisheries industry. On the issue of discarded fish, I was amazed by the figures in the previous presentation on the quantity of good fish being dumped at sea. Some mechanism should be found whereby those fish can be landed and recorded. I understand there is some form of weighting system in Norway in which one species can be set off against another. Perhaps that could be considered here with a view to possible application at EU level also.

Senator Finucane

The Minister's text indicated that the mid-term review had been used, without success, to push Ireland's case in relation to the Common Fisheries Policy in 1992, when Mr.Whitaker was chairman. Although we have not yet seen the review of the CFP for 2002, I would be greatly surprised if the conclusions and recommendations differ dramatically from those of 1992. As was pointed out to the fishing organisations previously, that report stated that one of the worst threats to fish stocks was the very high proportion of immature fish killed during fishing. Ten years later, we are still talking about conservation - when are we going to take it seriously? There is world-wide depletion of fish stocks at present.

It must be very difficult for the fishing industry to plan effectively. In December each year, there seems to be an annual ritual involving an ad hoc approach to fisheries. One of the Minister's predecessors, Deputy Woods, when he had exclusive responsibility for the marine and natural resources, introduced the white fish fleet renewal programme in conjunction with Bord Iascaigh Mhara. At that time, there were weekly announcements of the arrival of new fishing vessels and, as I recall it, the Marine Times described the then Minister as “our hero”. Yet, despite substantial upgrading, a 40% reduction in our fishing fleet is now being spoken of. That is difficult to reconcile. People are asking what is afoot in Europe with regard to fisheries policy and there seems to be no coherent planning.

Deputy Kelly

I congratulate the Chairman and Vice-Chairman on their appointment and welcome the Minister and our guests to this meeting. I commend Pádraic White and everybody involved in the production of the excellent report before us. Pádraic has served the Irish people with distinction in every position he has held.

On the matter of legal advice, I have no doubt the Minister, from his professional background, fully appreciates the tactics involved in negotiations as regards timing and disclosure - or non-disclosure, as the case may be - of legal advice. One certainly does not show one's hand too early in the process. I have full confidence in the Minister and his Department officials and wish them well in their endeavours on behalf of this country. They have to deal with a difficult and serious situation, having regard to the proposed and rumoured changes that are being spoken of. I hope there will be a successful outcome to the negotiations.

Deputy D. Ahern

I thank the speakers for their comments. On Deputy Ryan's point in relation to recovery plans, we have sponsored far more recovery plans than any other EU member state. There are three such plans currently in operation in the Celtic Sea. It is my firm belief - and was that of my Department officials before I came to this Department - that working in concert with stakeholders in the industry is the way to self-police situations in a manner which would not be possible otherwise. We made that point very strongly to the Commission at each meeting in recent months. The Celtic Sea recovery plans have tended to operate more successfully than has been the case elsewhere.

On the issue of opposition to the fishing effort, we are not in favour of reducing the days at sea. That would simply result in the existing fleet using the days at sea to take the same quantity of fish out of the water and, in effect, the conservation effort would be nullified. With regard to state aid, there is no new money available, to the best of our understanding, to help coastal communities. In the context of the Commission's examination of the effect of a reduction in the fishing fleet, we emphasised the economic and social hardship on coastal communities where there is no other industry, as is the case in western waters in particular. That argument will continue to be part of our position in the negotiations.

I agree with Senator Kenneally's point on the discard of fish. With increased resources in recent years, BIM and the Marine Institute have been looking at the use of selective nets to enable a large amount of the catch - especially juveniles - to be let go while retaining a reasonable catch of good sized fish.

With regard to Senator Finucane's comments, the review group has issued six reports and those are available. The Government is serious about conservation and I believe the industry is also serious about it.

Senator Finucane

I was referring to the attitude at EU level.

Deputy D. Ahern

I believe there is a serious approach at that level, but it depends on the position of each country. By and large, the northern European countries, other than Ireland, are putting forward an extremely conservative view on the total allowable catch. The southern European countries, including Spain, Portugal and France, and the other countries including ourselves, are generally in favour of a more liberal regime. There is a balance between different countries. It was found at Council meetings that, by and large, the Scandinavian countries want to close entire stocks down. That is fine but the balance between the two must be arranged. Many countries looking for a total shutdown do not have a particularly strong fishing ethos and history.

I agree with the point on the multi-annual organisation of the catches. It defies logic that people can be pushed every year into a room until all hours of the day and night to try to organise this. I am in favour of the multi-annual process but the Commission has proposed that it sets the tax and the standards on a multi-annual basis. It is the view of Council members that the Council should do that. We can get unified agreement in that respect.

I thank Deputy Kelly and Senator Kenneally for their remarks. This is a very difficult situation. I assure the committee and the industry that I will leave no stone unturned in the attempt to get the best deal possible for Ireland and its fishing industry, and for the conservation of our fishing stocks. The primary issue is to protect our coastal communities while protecting fish stocks for future generations.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and Dr.Beamish for attending. It has been a positive exercise and we have taken a lot from the process. I wish the Minister every success in the weeks ahead. The committee and the industry support him and I hope that he does his best for Ireland. We look forward to that. I propose to suspend the committee for some minutes. Our last session involves the Common Fisheries Policy group. I thank members for waiting so long. I know they have a heavy schedule and different things to do but ask them to bear with me for this last session.

Sitting suspended at 5.03 p.m. and resumed at 5.10 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Pat Keogh, Mr. Michael Keating and Dr. Paul Connolly from the Common Fisheries Policy review group. I ask them to make a short presentation to the members of the committee. I advise members that a draft report on today's proceedings will be ready by our next meeting on Wednesday, 27 November. I thank the clerk and his staff for ensuring that the draft report will be available then. I ask Mr. Keogh to begin the presentation.

Mr. Keogh

I will be very brief. I intend to outline for the committee the work that has been done by the CFP review group over the last four years. There have been 33 plenary meetings of the group, chaired by Mr. Pádraic White, since 1998 and there have been 13 meetings of the sub-group, chaired by Seán O'Donoghue of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, involving fishing organisations, fish processors and export associations. We have made presentations to a number of entities at EU and national levels. We made presentations to the fisheries committee of the European Parliament and to the Commissioner, David Byrne, in March 2000. We have met the former head of DG Fisheries, Mr. Steffen Smidt and we made a presentation to Commissioner Fischler in May 2001. We made a presentation to DG Fisheries' head of conservation, Mr. John Farnell, in September 2002. The CFP review group made a submission to the Forum on Europe at the end of last year and Mr. Pádraic White made a presentation to a regional meeting of the forum in Ennis in September. Mr. Jorgen Holmquist was appointed as the EU fisheries director general some months ago and we made a lengthy presentation to him in Dublin in October. It lasted for about two hours and some important matters were discussed. We informed him of our views in relation to the CFP review. We made another presentation to Mr. Fischler when he was in Dublin on 11 November.

The last slide I am showing to members details the seven reports that have been published by the group. The report on investment priorities for the seafood industry was published in May 1999. A report on conservation and protecting young fish was issued in December 1999. A document on sustainable fishing through control and enforcement, focusing on the measures that are needed if we are to achieve a sustainable fishing industry was also published. The group's views on the question of regionalisation, which was raised earlier, were outlined in a separate report. There are growing concerns about the environmental impact of fisheries and the two-way interaction between fishing and the environment. A report, published in July 2000, set out our views in relation to sustainable fishing, having regard to the interaction I have mentioned.

The review group's main report on the Common Fisheries Policy, setting out its views and making 55 recommendations, was presented in October 2000. Summaries of the report are available in English, French and Spanish and were circulated at government, state and industry levels in member states. We prepared a comprehensive response to the Commission's green discussion paper on the review of the Common Fisheries Policy. It was submitted to the Minister and the EU in September 2001. As I said, 55 recommendations have been made by the review group.

I wish to stress that the review group has a cohesive and unified approach. There was consensus in relation to all the views and recommendations that have been brought forward. On a personal note, I would like to record my thanks to everybody who contributed, especially the group's secretariat, which was provided by Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I would also like to compliment Mr. Michael Keating, who played a key role as secretary over the last four years, ably assisted by those in the fisheries development section of BIM. I would like their contributions to be put on the record. I do not have anything else to say about the work and output of the group in the last four years.

Chairman

Can I ask Dr. Connolly if there is any substance in the suggestion that large pelagic vessels disturb the seabed and hence frighten away whitefish stocks? I am thinking of Killybegs Bay, where there have been no whitefish efforts, to the best of my knowledge, for the last five years, and yet there has been no sign of stock improvement.

Dr. Connolly

I have no evidence of it. We have heard the rumours, but I have no scientific evidence to back that suggestion.

Senator Finucane

I am very interested in the last two reports, including the one that made 55 recommendations. It would be very interesting to compare it with the situation in the past, to see what is new.

Mr. Keogh

We can give a copy of the report to the committee and Senator Finucane today.

Deputy Coveney

It would be helpful if we all could receive a copy of the report and its recommendations. This has been a long meeting. I thank Mr. Keogh in particular for the work done by the strategic group during the last four years. A lot of work has gone into the reports. It is fair to say that we are better prepared for this CFP renegotiation than we were on previous occasions, largely due to the meticulous work of the strategic group. It remains to be seen whether it will result in a successful outcome. Politics aside, I have to say that I think the Minister has a very tough task to achieve a satisfactory outcome, but that is not a reflection on the work done by the strategic group. We have made a lot of progress, in theory at least, in relation to conserving stocks more effectively. The Minister and his team in Brussels have to convince our European partners that it is the best policy and we wish them well in that regard. I ask the Common Fisheries Policy review group to continue its work, as it provides the ammunition for Ireland's argument, which is so important to the industry.

Chairman

Does Dr. Connolly wish to show some slides to the committee?

Dr. Connolly

Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Marine Institute——

Senator Finucane

I have a brief supplementary question.

Chairman

Are the slides about conservation?

Senator Finucane

I am not sure if it would be better to ask this question of BIM or the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Are there any definitive proposals in relation to a fleet reduction of 40%, which has been mentioned today? Is there any European Union documentation on that? I am interested in this because every year during these negotiations we are inclined to bump up the figures at the beginning. The Minister will return and say he got 20%, which is claimed to be a big achievement and I would like to know the justification behind the 40% reduction.

Mr. Keogh

We are not satisfied that we have seen the justification for that. When Commissioner Fischler was here last week he took issue with statements that the Commission was proposing it, but the Commission's documentation clearly had a table attached listing the number of vessels to be taken from various member states' fleets. In the case of Ireland, 411 vessels were listed to be removed from the fleet. He said that the Commission did not propose a regulation to reduce fishing effort by 40%.

There is no regulation and we have not seen a specific rationale other than the Commission's concern at the state of stocks, which is serious in the case of a number of species. The Commission's way of dealing with that is simply to reduce fishing effort, but I am not familiar with anything it has released with details justifying the 40% reduction besides a broad concern about fish stocks.

Deputy Broughan

What is intended for the future? The 2000 report of BIM is very impressive. In another forum I work very closely with Pádraic White and I remember that when he was chairman of the Luas committee the project began at long last to run on time. When the procurement agency was established, the Luas suddenly began to run behind schedule. I admire the work Mr. White does. After all this work has been done by the agencies etc., what is the work plan for the group in the future?

Regarding collection of data, what is the scientific basis for the maps we were shown of spawning grounds in the 200 mile Box? Are the figures given accurate though our resources seem to be minuscule in comparison to our massive sea area? My party opposed EU accession in 1972 and one of its primary reasons for doing so was the treatment of fisheries and the sacrifices we felt were being made on the altar of agriculture. Given what many speakers have said about catches and the activities of the French and the Spaniards vis-à-vis inspection rates, how can we be sure of the figures the Commission gives us or of the figures we take back to it?

Deputy O’Donovan

I register my thanks and appreciation to the review group for its excellent presentation. There is significant need for this group to continue because the conclusion of the CFP talks will not mean the end of the marine industry. Within my party, I have been fighting for the past five years for this committee to be established, though I would prefer if it dealt only with marine matters. I record the chairman's support and commitment in giving the marine aspect of this committee's work equal status with the other areas under its remits. I was not on the old committee when marine matters were dealt with in conjunction with agriculture and the latter accounted for 95% of business dealt with. I am glad there is balance in the affairs of this committee to which the chairman has committed. That will be welcome news to the industry and all the groups here today.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. Over the next 12 months we will split the work of this committee equally among its three areas of responsibility, communications, the marine and natural resources. The committee will complete its work programme very shortly.

Deputy Coveney

Regarding the future of the advisory group, will it have a role in the context of the regional advisory councils on fishing proposed by Commissioner Fischler? The work the group has done could contribute in a major way to a regional council for this part of Europe, in particular with regard to technical and scientific measures to enhance conservation. It would not be acceptable to have to start from scratch again in relation to regional strategy around the islands of Ireland and Britain.

Mr. Keogh

In regard to the life of the group, it is a ministerial review group and was set up with a particular purpose relating to the review phase of the Common Fisheries Policy. How long the group will continue in existence depends on the duration of the review phase and it will be very much a matter for the Minister to determine whether the group has a life beyond the end of this year. My understanding is that the group was to exist before and during the negotiation phase of the policy. I remind the committee that there are other fora which also involve a number of agencies, fishing industry interests and the Department such as the sea fisheries liaison group, which meets on a regular basis and is chaired by Dr. Cecil Beamish. That group has been a very important forum for the discussion of issues relating to fisheries management and control and it has included in its activities all the fishing industry organisations, BIM and the Marine Institute.

I defer to colleagues with regard to data. We know a fair amount about some of the stocks, but we do not know enough and there is a need for more information, particularly about certain species.

Deputy Coveney raised the matter of the regional councils, which has to do with the management of fisheries at EU level. If those councils are established, it will be done with reference to very large sea areas and a very dedicated approach to each will be required by the State and the fishing interests involved. I distinguish between the role of the CFP review group and any other roles that come up which will require a very dedicated approach. If the Minister so decides, it may well be that this group has a role if he wishes to extend its life beyond the end of the review period of the CFP.

Chairman

The final presentation is from Dr. Connolly.

Dr. Connolly

My interpretation was that there were to be two presentations, one from BIM and one from the Marine Institute. Can the chairman clarify who goes first and if he wants both presentations to go ahead?

Chairman

As we have had a marathon session, we should finish the day properly and take both presentations.

Mr. Keating

My presentation deals with the role of Bord Iascaigh Mhara set against the backdrop of some of the problems we have discussed today. It is not my intention to give the committee a complete profile of Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Instead, I will concentrate on one area, fisheries. It is important to recognise that Bord Iascaigh Mhara, through its mission statement, signs up to the concept of sustainable development. It is at the centre of everything we and the entire fisheries apparatus - the Marine Institute, BIM, the Department and so forth - do. Our mission statement is: "To promote the sustainable development of the Irish seafood industry both at sea and ashore and support its diversification in the coastal regions so as to enhance its contribution to employment, income and welfare both regionally and nationally."

The organisation is made up of a board of six members chaired by Mr. Pat Ridge. Mr. Pat Keogh is our chief executive. There are five operational divisions. I will concentrate on the one with which I am associated, the fisheries development division. The Bord Iascaigh Mhara approach is not to focus our gaze outwards from Dún Laoghaire and never look back. Our presence extends right around the coast. We have the National Fisheries College in Greencastle, County Donegal, the recently reopened regional fisheries centre in Castletownbere, which is being extended, an office in Galway and a network of inshore fisheries development officers. We also have a network of area officers who provide help on another level and the aquaculture division has a team of people spread around the coast. At least a third of staff, therefore, are based in the regional ports and operate at a local level. Moreover, we also have a presence in Europe, notably in marketing.

The backdrop tells an important story. The quota allocated to Ireland since 1982 has gone up and down over the years. This was partially due to realignments caused by taking what could be described as "paper fish" out of the system. It is important to recognise that while quotas, such as those for whiting and cod, have declined in recent years when one compares like with like, new opportunities have been added. As the traditional stocks have declined as a result of the types of problems already discussed, our quotas for these fish have fallen. However, we have succeeded in getting a quota of tuna, a fishery which was developed throughout the 1990s, and now have a reasonable quota of Albacore tuna.

We have also been exploiting deep water species. While the Minister correctly mentioned that tags and quotas apply to some of these species, many other deep water species remain outside the quota system. There are, therefore, further opportunities in this area and a number of minor opportunities which we have pursued overseas.

The resource base is one of the key areas which Bord Iascaigh Mhara is endeavouring to ensure is maintained or increased. This is not always possible. I remind the committee that the problems we are experiencing are, by and large, in the area of demersal, whitefish stocks. In terms of the catch for 2001, the last year for which we have full figures, the problems in the pelagic sector are not as great. Dr. Connolly will address this sector later.

There is one other sector which is doing extremely well, namely, the shellfish sector. The main problems relate to the demersal element of the catch, which is worth some €89 million from a total of some €227 million. The catch is important to areas right around the coast. As Mr. Fitzpatrick stated, the socio-economic benefits of the fishing industry do not accrue to just one or two places. Its contribution has a wide geographical spread, making an important contribution from Greencastle right around to Clogherhead.

With regard to future funding, questions were asked about the whitefish renewal scheme and what succeeded it. A new programme has been implemented under the national development plan. Four of its elements come within the domain of the fisheries development division. A sum of €26.4 million has been allocated for fleet development. A programme of vessel building larger than the whitefish scheme is in place. Some months ago people were commenting that a new boat was being completed almost every week. I assure Members this is about to happen again as the boats currently being built are completed.

There is a very strong ongoing programme in this area. However, matters would probably be slightly out of kilter if this programme were not balanced by a very strong ongoing programme of resource development. This is evident in the new scheme, known as the supporting measures, which has been allocated funding equal to that allocated for fleet development. The NDP programme balances almost euro for euro funding for the fleet on the one hand, which encompasses not only building new vessels, but also the important issue of vessel safety, and resource development on the other. The programme also contains a fisheries diversification scheme which enables fishermen to diversify away from mainstream catching into areas, such as eco-tourism and sea angling.

The NDP targets for marine catch in the seafood industry demonstrate a realisation that the catch cannot increase ad infinitum. If we are having problems with stocks, it is inevitable that the total marine catch will decline or at best remain static. However, the overall figure in export terms will continue to increase, which is a reflection of the enhanced role of aquaculture. Looking at the sector as a whole, Bord Iascaigh Mhara notes that other opportunities can be pursued. Some 25,000 direct and indirect jobs rely on the seafood industry.

While I do not wish to dwell on the fleet for too long, it is important to note its age. It is staggering to find that the median completion year for the vessels in our fleet lies between 1972 and 1976. Our average boat is between 22 and 26 years old. The whitefish renewal scheme is responsible for the rise in new vessels in 1996, a trend which will be strengthened in the next two years as a result of the fleet development measure I have outlined. Our ageing fleet remains a cause for concern.

Under the current programme, of our 1,200 registered vessels the owners of almost 700 have availed of opportunities to improve onboard safety equipment and bring their vessels up to the highest possible standards of safety. A further 100 owners have availed of the opportunity to acquire new vessels with 100 availing of opportunities for vessel modernisation. This means almost two thirds of registered fishermen have been able, in principle, to avail of some aspect of the development scheme.

Diversification, that is, moving away from mainstream fishing into marine tourism or leisure related activities, is directed towards the classical type of boat. The supporting measures are a suite of schemes which address the resource issue. Funding is now available for the collection of basic data; for improving our knowledge and creating transparency in the systems; to look at issues of sustainable management; experimental fisheries and technical conservation. Added finance is available to develop e-trade and other IT policies and to look at small-scale coastal fisheries. Aid is also available for the producers' organisations and for quality certification, traceability and so forth. The overall package is a balanced one, focused on both the fleet and the resource, which is important.

The inshore sector has not got as much attention as it deserves. It employs some 3,700 people. More than half the fishermen in Ireland and almost 83% of the vessels come from this sector. These are vessels of less than 15 metres that operate within ten to twelve miles of the coast. They do not operate off the Porcupine Bank and so forth. They have a widespread distribution and are responsible for some €32 million in landings, not necessarily into the big ports but right around the coast. In fact, they are largely responsible for catching non-quota species. A gentleman is depicted on the slide not wearing a life jacket, which is something that would no longer be acceptable. More than 50% of employment in the sector relies on this type of boat, which comprises 83% of the entire fleet.

We were worried about the decline in lobster stocks. The lobster in the slide has a little notch cut out of its tail. Each time a pregnant female is taken out by a fisherman it is held until one of our inspectors can get to it to insert the notch. They pay the value of the lobster to the fisherman. This is a co-operative effort between the State and the local co-op. The fishermen are paid for the lobsters, which are then returned to the sea to give birth to their young. The sale of a lobster with a "v" notch is illegal. This year we have put back some 50,000 lobsters. That is the sort of practical measure that can be implemented at relatively low cost that can help conservation for the future.

We are looking at alternative forms of fishing. People bemoan the fact that they cannot get a mackerel for their breakfast. There is a slide showing a man fishing for mackerel with a rod and line with feathers on it. Mackerel caught like this, by hand, can fetch a reasonably good price because they are for a dinner market, the human consumption market. We can create a difference working on this level. We have also been working very closely to promote wild salmon and a range of other developments, which I will not go into.

Part of the Irish Sea problem is the amount of fish caught that will be discarded, but even more invidious than the problem of discarding, is that of slippage. This arises when a fisherman has almost used up his quota. If the fish he lands are not of the best quality he may prefer to throw them away and try for another haul. These are the sorts of problems we are trying to address.

In BIM it is seen that gear technology can adapt nets to allow young fish to escape through a square net panel. Another type of net is used in the Irish Sea to allow cod to escape. On the east coast fishermen largely fish for nefrops, bottom-dwelling crustaceans. Unfortunately, cod enter the nets and, in the past, large numbers of cod were also taken. In order to keep our nefrops fishery open against a background of the cod problem it is necessary to facilitate the escapement of cod. A simple net change can enable the nefrops and the cod to enter from one side, while the prawns stay crawling along the bottom and go in below the lower panel. The cod tend to swim off and go out of the net. This allows the release of more than 75% of cod entering the nets.

The details of what we have heard from the industry today in terms of reducing effort and tying up boats amounts to a blunt instrument. Technical measures may be the way to fine-tune this instrument. More sensible net designs can solve some of the problems in a very directed fashion and the provision of on-board observers ensure that it is being used correctly. This leads me to believe we can address the concerns about cod without closing down the industry.

Chairman

Dr. Connolly is now setting up for his presentation. We will concentrate on aquaculture and inland fisheries in the new year. Some of our members are keen to learn more about this industry.

Deputy O’Donovan

I note in the minutes of the last meeting that I had a proposal about an inland fishery group that we might meet in the New Year. It would be very appropriate if this presentation could be made available to them as well.

Chairman

We will probably invite BIM back in again along with the other groups in relation to that as well.

Dr. Connolly

I thank the Chairman and committee members for giving me the opportunity to address them today. My name is Paul Connolly and I work in the marine fisheries services division of the Marine Institute. I will deal with the area of scientific assessment and advice, in terms of the current state of the main fish stocks in the waters around Ireland. I propose to talk about the precautionary approach and the influence it has had on the scientific advice. I will give an outline of the state of key fish stocks in Irish waters and refer to the recovery plans and the concept of mixed fisheries as well as some other scientific issues that have a great deal to do with the state of the stocks.

Ireland is in one of the most productive areas in terms of plankton. This impacts on fish egg and larval survival, spawning areas and generally the productivity of fish stocks. EU fish stocks are managed by the EU under the Common Fisheries Policy. The main instrument in fish stock management is the annual TAC system - total allowable catches and technical conservation measures.

In terms of fisheries research and the work of the Marine Institute, the marine services division concentrates on getting data from the marine fisheries resource. If one thinks of the marine services division as a factory and data from the stocks as the raw material, what we produce in the factory is assessments of the stocks. We carry out research on the stocks and give advice. The clients for the advice is the Department itself, the EU and we also work very closely with the industry. We have been doing this, particularly, in the past three years. Because fish stocks are international, Ireland cannot assess a fish stock on its own. We need to work as part of an international forum. We work as part of ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. The EU fishing industry is extremely important and is worth €7.3 billion in 1998, with 6.3 million tonnes landed. Fishing has considerable economic, social and cultural importance for peripheral regions around Europe.

In terms of the annual TAC, there is a whole life cycle in place. At the start of the life cycle is the data collection process where the scientists go out and collect data on the landings and the level of discarding. Research surveys are carried out and information is collected on all the stocks. These are then turned into annual national stock surveys that are basically our information on cod or hake stocks. To carry out an assessment we need to meet in an international forum with our French and UK colleagues. That forum is ICES as referred to earlier. Each year we carry out international stock assessments where we basically look at two questions: how many fish are in the sea and how many can we safely take out of that stock in order to ensure sustainable exploitation? Once we produce those assessments they go to a review group within ICES called the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management, ACFM. It looks at the assessments, makes sure they are sensible and then provides the scientific advice that goes to the European Commission.

There is another very important group called the EU Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, STECF. Up to now, all the information has concerned the biology of the stocks, but we bring technical and economic factors into play and we work very closely with BIM on this committee. Another form of advice goes to the EU.

In December the Council of Ministers proposes the annual TACs based on the information it has got from STECF and ICES. Sometimes the annual TACs do not reflect the scientific advice or the advice coming from STECF and there are other considerations that come into play, mainly social and political, that influence the decision of the Council in December. Ultimately, we end up with our national quotas and various technical conservation measures like the recovery plans.

It is very important to appreciate that the precautionary approach has very much influenced the state of fish stocks, particularly in the past four or five years. In 1992, the Rio Declaration referred to the precautionary approach, but it was very vague and dealt mainly with the ecosystem and ecology. In 1995, the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN, FAO, gave us some rules on implementing the precautionary approach. The research element is what we talk about in terms of stock assessment.

To explain the precautionary approach very simply, if we take any fish stock and look at it in terms of its biomass and fishing mortality, one must consider how many fish in that stock are being killed by the action of fishing vessels. We draw a line and say we do not want fishing mortality to go above that line. In other words, there is a cliff we do not want to go over. Because of uncertainty in stock assessment and science, we provide a line where we apply the brakes before we go over the cliff in terms of fishing mortality.

Similarly, we have a cliff pertaining to biomass we do not want to go over. We do not want to see stocks go below the line we draw and we apply the brakes before this occurs. We are concerned about certain stocks to varying degrees, ranging from those we are especially worried about to those which we are happy to see exploited sustainedly.

I have a significant point to make about mixed fisheries. We are particularly worried about cod stocks in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and west of Scotland. We are worried about haddock stock, especially west of Scotland. We are very worried about whiting stock in the Irish Sea and west of Scotland and about hake stock. We are not too worried about monkfish stock or megrim stock, which are in the same area.

If one wants to protect cod stocks in mixed fisheries, one has to stop fishing other stocks and this is the conundrum we are in. If one has healthy stocks, why stop fishing them if one wants to protect the stocks we are worried about?

We are happy with statistics pertaining to plaice in the Celtic Sea. Sole in the Irish Sea are a cause for concern in terms of fishing mortality, but do not pose problems in terms of biomass. The slide I have shown demonstrates that sole in the Celtic Sea are in the green area, with which we are happy.

Questions arise in respect of other stocks. We have a big problem with some stocks for two reasons. First, we cannot define the parameters because we do not have enough information or there is too much conflicting information. Second, in terms of the assessment we have carried out, we have defined the lines but we do not know where to put the spot on our graph.

Deputy Coveney

There is a great deal of technical information and it is very interesting. In layman's terms, does mortality refer to the numbers being killed and biomass to the size of the fish being killed?

Dr. Connolly

Biomass is the size of one's stock. Fishing mortality refers to how much stock is being removed through the action of fishing. We are not worried about the stock size but about the level of fishing mortality exerted on that stock.

I am referring to the pelagic stocks. The point was made earlier that we are not too concerned. None of the three pelagic stocks in question are a particular cause for concern, except the blue whiting. We think the biomass of the blue whiting is all right but we are worried about the fishing mortality exerted on them.

The point emerging from the graphs I have shown the Members is that, of the clump of stocks in the red area, in terms of white fish, some are actually in the green area. How do we protect the stocks in the red area and how do we fish the stocks in the green area if they are cod in mixed fisheries? We are not too concerned about the pelagic stocks.

If one considers the 46 fish stocks in which Ireland has an interest, 17% are subject to the precautionary approach. Unknown status is accorded to about 24% of them. The figures pertaining to stocks that have increasing TACs and decreasing TACs are 6% and 65%, respectively. The figure for status quo - where the TAC is about the same - is about 28%. About 11% of our stocks require rebuilding plans.

One of the main issues is Irish Sea cod and it has got a great deal of press coverage. When scientists do an assessment they look at four graphs to give an indication of the state of the stock. "Landings" concerns what is coming out of the stock, "recruitment" concerns how many baby fish are coming into the stock, "fishing mortality" concerns how many fish are dying through fishing, and "stock biomass" refers to the size of the stock. Members will have noted from the slide that there is a precautionary line. We do not want fishing mortality to go above it and we do not want to see the stock below it. Landings in respect of cod are plummeting and fishing mortality is very high. Recruitment has been very low in recent years. The stock biomass is below the acceptable level. All these factors came together to give us our Irish Sea cod recovery plan.

If one looks at the latest advice for three of the main cod stocks in Europe, Irish Sea cod have a biomass below the level we deem acceptable, as do cod west of Scotland, Donegal cod, and North Sea cod. The problem is that these cod are all in mixed fisheries with whiting, haddock, plaice and sole. How do we protect cod and allow fishing to carry on for plaice and sole and other stocks?

It must be emphasised that the recovery plan is in place and that Ireland has played a pivotal role. The sensitivity of waters around Ireland must also be emphasised. We have a recovery plan in the Irish Sea for cod which is to protect spawning cod aggregations. We have a recovery plan off the south-west to protect juvenile hake and a recovery plan in the west of Scotland to protect juvenile cod.

Traditionally, all our fisheries have been on the shelf, which is the flat area, but as technology has developed, fishing methods have got better. We have begun to exploit the slope. However, slope fish are very different to fish that live on the shelf. In other words, new species such as bluemouth rockfish and roundnose grenadier have very different life cycles. They grow very slowly whereas traditional species such as haddock and cod grow much faster and do not live as long. Again, we are dealing with a very different life cycle of species in the deep water to the shelf. We must be careful in terms of our exploitation of these deep water species. Cod, haddock and saithe mature very fast. Fifty per cent of them mature before three or four years of age. It takes 15 years for deep water species to reach maturity and spawn, which makes them vulnerable to exploitation. I am not saying we do not exploit them but we need to be careful and put different management regimes in place.

I have spoken about the state of the resource but there are many issues around this that we need to tackle if we are to rebuild stocks. Technical conservation measures, particularly the work BIM is doing on separator trawls, is going to be very important in the future. Effort regulation is a blunt instrument but is something the EU and northern countries want to introduce. Reduced TACs will be a fact of life for whitefish stocks in particular. We are going to move away from the idea of assessing cod in the Irish Sea and will start to assess the community of fish that live there. We are going to look at TACs for a series of years.

Someone talked about data collection earlier. Data collection is extremely important and the Commission has begun to fund it in all member states. It is particularly interested in collecting data from independent surveys carried out by research vessels which do not rely on landings, which we know might not always be correct. Socio-economic considerations are also important. Fisheries cannot be closed because of their importance to peripheral communities.

Society is becoming aware that fish live in an ecosystem and interact with other species. This has to be taken into account when managing stocks. We no longer manage fisheries; we must begin to manage the ecosystem. On the issue of regional management, we do not manage EU fish stocks from Brussels but we choose areas, like the Celtic Sea, and the stakeholders become involved in managing those stocks.

Chairman

I think Dr. Connolly has gone too quickly for us and it would merit another meeting. I cannot allow any questions as this room is needed for another meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.05 p.m. sine die.