JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Tuesday, 6 May 2003

Vol. 1 No. 11

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

I thank committee members for their patience. We have gone through a lot of material in private session. The next item on the agenda is scrutiny of EU legislation. The committee is to consider COM 672, a proposal for a Council regulation for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, and COM 739, a proposal for a Council regulation on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain fishing communities, areas, resources and modifying regulations.

I welcome Dr. Cecil Beamish, Mr. James Lavelle and Mr. Seamus O'Reilly from the Department and call on Dr. Beamish to begin.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

We have circulated a note to the committee regarding this proposal. The proposal addresses one of the fisheries management tools. Sorry, the note is here for circulation. The proposal deals with one set of fisheries management tools which are collectively known as technical conservation measures.

These tools are fisheries management measures which are aimed primarily at reducing the amount of undersize or juvenile fish and/or unwanted species which are taken in the catches of fishermen. Typical technical conservation measures would include increasing the selectivity of fishing gear, fixing minimum landing sizes that fishermen can market and land or restricting fishing in certain areas. I suppose collectively one could say that these are tools intended to make fishing activity more environmentally friendly, reduce the impact on the marine eco-system, reduce the catches of unwanted species or unwanted fish of the target species and reduce the amount of discarding.

Within the context of the Common Fisheries Policy, the technical conservation measures are used in combination with a range of other fisheries management tools such as limiting the total catches - the so-called total allowable catch quota system; limiting the number and types of fishing vessels - the fleet management system; limiting fishing effort, which is increasingly becoming part of the ambit of tools used in the Common Fisheries Policy; and the adoption and development of these technical measures.

The importance of technical measures is increasingly recognised by everybody involved in the fishing industry. Scientific surveys done in recent years confirm that the majority of the fish which are currently being discarded are small fish and are normally less than their respective minimum landing sizes.

The level of discarding varies from fishery to fishery, from trip to trip and from vessel to vessel so it is very hard to have a standard estimate of the total amount of discarding. However, discards are a feature of almost all fisheries. Globally, there is a problem of discards, of fish being caught and killed which are not the intended target of that fishing activity. The estimates done by the International Commission for the Exploration of the Sea have suggested that in cod fisheries, for example, we may have discards of anywhere from 20% to 38% and of 19% to 24% in monk fisheries and so on. I have set out a range of these findings in the note we have circulated. In some fisheries there are estimates of discards being as high as 60%. Of course, as the fishing stocks are increasingly fished down and populated by smaller fish, the level of discards, conversely, tends to increase because we are increasingly fishing smaller fish.

The role of technical conservation measures in reducing discards is that they can be targeted so as to protect juvenile fish. They can do this through a range of means, including: changing the structure of the fishing nets so that the juvenile fish can escape when they are not the intended target; introducing minimum landing sizes so that there is no incentive for fishermen to catch these small fish; changing the catch composition so that in the event of a large amount of discards being taken, the fisherman is forced to use larger mesh nets; or closed or controlled areas where fishing is either closed because it is an area with a high preponderance of juvenile spawning fish or it is an area where only certain gear types are allowed so as to avoid taking those small fish.

The existing legal framework within the Common Fisheries Policy is Commission Regulation 850/98, which itself was a consolidation of a range of previous regulations and was worked on intensively during the last Irish Presidency of the EU and came to fruition in 1998. Since then there have been six amending regulations, which shows that there is a continuous development of these technical conservation measures, and there are a series of other amendments and regulations arising because of the various fish stock recovery programmes concerning cod and hake which have been put in place in recent years.

The current Commission proposal has two objectives. First, to consolidate and incorporate into one comprehensive package the various existing conditions in 850/98 and all the subsequent amending regulations, and second, to add some additional measures to further protect juvenile cod and hake. In essence, the proposal before us is primarily a consolidation exercise. It deals with the following: fishing with towed gears, by which we mean trawls and similar types of gear; fishing with fixed gears, which are gears that are put into the sea and allowed to fish in a passive way, such as drift nets and so on; minimum landing sizes - the minimum size of fish that may be landed and marketed; the catch compositions - what percentage catch is allowed with what type of fishing gear; and the area-based restrictions for some species.

Some additional changes have been added to increase the mesh size for trawled gears in an area known as the hake boxes, which are off the south and west of Ireland and off the west coast of France and are set out on a map attached to the circulated note. Some reductions are being made in the catch compositions for cod and hake so as to force fishermen who are targeting cod and hake to use larger mesh sizes.

The main technical conservation measures of interest to Ireland are currently incorporated in the Irish Sea cod recovery plan, the hake recovery plan around the south and west of Ireland and the north-west fishing effort limitation scheme which was introduced in September 2002. The national position on this proposal, as developed to date by the Department and the Minister, is that we recognise very clearly that there is a need to simplify the existing legislation on technical conservation measures. It is a very difficult area to convey to any wider audience. It is also difficult for fishermen to understand exactly what the rules involve. If the rules are overly complex then we find it very difficult to get adherence to them. There is a need for simplification and this exercise of consolidation is welcome from that point of view.

There are some major absences in the proposal. For example, while the proposal signals an intention to tackle the question of the increasing use of gill nets, especially in the waters off the west of Ireland, which are having a detrimental effect on the fish stocks being targeted by virtue of the total amount of gear being used, there is no specific proposal within the Commission draft. Another problem we have been trying to have addressed for a long time is the different rules for the Bay of Biscay compared to the waters off the west of Ireland. While there may have been some underlying biological reasons smaller mesh sizes were justifiable in the Bay of Biscay relative to the west of Ireland, this creates a lot of difficulties in terms of enforcement because fishermen are allowed to carry gear types of two different mesh sizes. This is particularly true regarding fixed gears - the gill nets.

Overall, we think the proposal is somewhat piecemeal in its approach and that it would be better to look at this as an exercise in consolidation in the first instance and then to bring forward a wider set of amendments or proposals for new technical conservation measures rather than these additions to the consolidation exercise. This approach to technical conservation measures is inherently linked to the Commission's proposals for longer term stock recovery plans which are being unveiled at the moment and which are subject to future negotiation in the Council. It would be better to see the total package in the round rather than moving on this piecemeal text in the first instance.

Clearly, everybody accepts that technical conservation measures will be a developing and increasingly sophisticated element of stock recovery programmes and of fisheries management. This morning the Commission announced the outline of some long-term stock recovery programmes for cod in the Irish Sea, the west of Scotland, the North Sea, the Skagen Kattegat in the Baltic, and further proposals in respect of hake in the west and south of Ireland are awaited. These proposals are likely to dominate the debate to the year end and it would be useful if this technical conservation proposal was seen as part of an overall package on fisheries conservation which combines these various proposals.

Deputy Broughan

I thank Dr. Beamish for an excellent briefing. How does this work over the rest of the year? I represented my party for the first time in this area last year and I am wondering whether we will be facing this kind of situation again coming up to Christmas whereby this draft EU regulation will come into force? Is that the format? To judge by some of the fine presentations we have had at this committee, the issue of technical conservation measures will be a very important element of the future of our industry.

Last Saturday I talked to one of the skippers at the port of Howth and he was absolutely dismayed by the fall off in fishing in the Irish Sea in the 20 or 30 mile circuit that our skippers would mainly fish. There is a sense of urgency about developing this. The Department and our own fishermen have been to the fore in developing the concept of the Irish Sea cod box and so on. Is it the intention that, through the Minister, we present to Europe a full package on what we would wish to see done regarding the problem Dr. Beamish raised about the Bay of Biscay, gill nets and some of the other seas? Is that our intention? Are we engaged in a process of deferring necessary conservation measures, at the behest perhaps of some elements of the industry, while ignoring the sense of urgency, particularly for small people and small boats in the industry. How will this happen? As regards this committee, to what extent can we influence the legislation in front of us because it does seem to be quite an important development?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

One of the difficulties is that this is such a huge area and the regulation covers so many different aspects that it is hard to know even where to direct our questions. It is a complex issue which makes it difficult for someone coming from a non-technical background to appreciate the finer detail in terms of one conservation measure against another. I would like to ask a general question. It was reported to me - I am just looking for confirmation - that the scientific advisory body had recommended a zero quota for 2003 in most of the areas, but that the Commission recommended a 1,200 tonne quota and that the Council approved a 1,950 tonne quota. I do not know if that is correct and the figures I have are replicated across all the different areas. The scientists say that the state of the stocks required an absolute cessation of fishing, the Commission allowed a certain catch and the Council, ignoring the Commission and the scientists' advice, in almost every case went for a higher quota. Is that the reality - that the final quotas we are getting are above what the scientists were advising? Given that situation, do the officials believe restrictions on days at sea or location are necessary to exert some sort of emergency control, particularly on cod and hake which are in crisis? Do they believe those measures are suitable tools to protect fisheries which are not getting the protection the scientists were seeking?

Deputy Coveney

I thank the officials for appearing before the committee. It is very helpful for us to get briefings like this and to be able to make comments. It is a fairly wide area so I will concentrate on the Irish position. The whole point of Ireland, hopefully, taking a lead regarding technical conservation measures is that we can conserve stocks - if we do not do that there will be no fishing industry in the future - and to do so in such a way as will allow a fishing industry to survive and grow in time. That is where technical conservation measures come in as an alternative to cutting quotas and cutting fishing efforts which, following the discussions over the Christmas period and through January and February, led to significant frustration and disillusionment within the fishing industry.

I strongly support the Department in trying to make the case for alternatives to these blunt measures by proactively promoting technical conservation measures. I am sure the industry would participate actively in this and embrace a certain amount of pain if necessary in the area of technical conservation measures, in an effort to prove to the Commission that this is a viable way forward and an alternative to the more blunt forms of conserving fish stocks.

One of the specifics that may not be in the Irish position concerns the time of year or season for fishing. It is my understanding that at certain times of year when surveys are carried out, there are likely to be more juveniles in the water. That is an element of technical conservation we need to include. The heaviest fishing of the year corresponds with a time when the fish are at their largest in the sea. That is something we need to push further. From speaking to fishermen, they would be more than happy to reorganise their fishing patterns to suit such a scheme if there were evidence to suggest they would be catching fewer juveniles.

Linked to that, I believe we should propose a system of reporting discarded catches. This is not a very easy thing to do, as no trawler skipper wants to report discards in a detailed way. However, we must know how many juveniles - the majority of them dead - are being returned to the sea. This is important if we are to move forward in a scientific way to save those juvenile stocks and ensure they grow into adulthood for future fishing.

With regard to the decision-making process in general, we should make very strong proposals on the assessment of stocks and surveys across Europe, not only in Irish waters. We should be promoting at a European level a scientific and well-funded survey of fish stocks in European waters at different times of year. This would ensure that we would have very educated recommendations. Our fishing industry has shown much initiative in this area at making sometimes crude, but at other times scientific, attempts to assess the level of fish stocks and juveniles in the water at various times of the year. It allows us to begin corresponding mesh sizes with certain times of year, as opposed to just simply reducing mesh size. There are huge opportunities for Ireland to lead the debate in this area. It is in everybody's interest that we promote technical conservation measures as an alternative to blanket decision-making on conservation efforts and quotas.

Dr. Beamish

I will try to address all the questions. In reply to Deputy Broughan's questions on how these proposals will occur, the situation last year was somewhat unique in that the first major review of the Common Fisheries Policy was carried out. That was coming to a climax at the December Council, at the same time as we had the normal, annual quota-setting exercise and conditions attached to fishing for the subsequent year. This also coincided with the emergence of new recovery measures. There is no a priori reason this proposal should run all the way through to Christmas. It should be dealt with in the normal way by the Council in advance. However, one can never tell when a final agreement may be reached on this issue.

The Deputy referred to discussions with trawler skippers from his constituency who fish in the Irish Sea. It is clear that many of the fish stocks in the Irish Sea are not in a healthy state. The quotas, catches and returns from the Irish Sea would reflect this. That has been the position for a very long time unfortunately.

Ireland recognised back in 1999 that unless a completely new approach was taken to seeking conservation of the cod stock, particularly in the Irish Sea, there would be no cod stocks in future years. We pushed very hard for a new approach which was not just an endless cycle of reducing TACs. The TAC in the Irish Sea has gone from about 5,500 tonnes four or five years ago to 1,200 tonnes currently. Some ten or 15 years ago, the Irish Sea was delivering 12,000 to 13,000 tonnes of cod each year. That gives some indication of the decline of stocks in the Irish Sea.

Ireland's argument is shown in the map attached to the documentation presented to the committee. It has been repeated with slight variation since 2000. We have argued that there must be a custom-built solution that respects the specificity of the fishery. In the Irish Sea, we had good science and knew where the fish spawned every year. However, the fishing fleets had become good at targeting those spawning aggregations and taking them out in large volume. Effectively, the brood stock were being decimated each year when they set about spawning. The only protection that worked was the closure of those areas to targeted fishing of cod during the spawning period. After the spawning period, the fish disperse, so they are not easily fished and have a better chance of survival. Ireland certainly led that debate and pushed very hard to get the Irish Sea cod recovery programme through. This has arrested the decline but has not turned the stock around. We cannot claim a success for it, other than that it stopped the rapid decline of the stock.

The difficulty is that a zero TAC in a situation where fish are caught as a by-catch in other fisheries is a very hard thing to agree and bring into effect. In the Irish Sea, almost every fishery catches some cod. The primary economic activity in the Irish Sea is prawn fishing. Everyone agrees with sustainability and the notion of sustainable fisheries is a three-headed monster, where there is social, economic and environmental sustainability. The problem in the Irish Sea was that if there was a zero cod quota, then effectively all fishing in the Irish Sea would have to stop. Prawn fishing takes a small percentage of the cod stock. The choice would be that the whole prawn fishery would be closed down in the Irish Sea. That would have a dramatic affect on certain communities on the coastline of the Irish Sea dependent on that industry.

These are not the main contributors to the decline of cod. From that point of view, there has been a resistance to zero quotas, which are also extremely difficult to enforce. The quotas now in the Irish Sea are so much lower than they were for a long time after the stock went into decline. When combined with the technical measures and those introduced in addition to those on the map to protect juvenile fish, we have now in place a whole suite of measures that we did not have three years ago. There is a lag time before one sees any impact from that. The measures are in place, but the impact is not seen in a year. We are not sure yet as to the extent to which these measures are having a beneficial impact. Clearly the other element of any technical measures is control and, if we are to get anywhere, this has to improve across all fisheries to ensure these measures are operated as intended.

On Deputy Ryan's question, ISIS, a collective of scientists from member states, recommended that a cod quota should not be set unless a recovery plan was agreed. Once there was a recovery plan, their zero option was not applicable. A recovery plan is in place regarding all of these cod stocks.

It is quite clear that for a number of years to come, we will have much reduced levels of cod. For example, in the North Sea five years ago, we would have had 120,000 tonnes in quotas, or something like that. We are now at about 22,000 tonnes and will have reduced cod fishing for quite a while.

The other element to be borne in mind is that there may be other environmental factors at play above and beyond fishing activity. Cod is an extremely temperature-sensitive species and a change of a couple of degrees in the waters will affect the survivability of the stock so even the best fishery management tools may not be the only factors influencing the continuation of these stocks. However, they are the only factor which we can manage, at least in the short-term.

Deputy Coveney raised a question of Ireland taking a lead on this, and it is true that for quite a number of years, Ireland has taken the lead. The last Irish Presidency delivered regulation 850/98, which is now being built upon. That essentially came from work during the last Irish Presidency to try to advance this pillar of the Common Fisheries Policy. The work which was done with the industry throughout the Common Fisheries Policy review led to a request for a whole range of measures, and this is still being pursued with the Commission.

In the position set out in the note supplied, I do not say that Ireland is trying to stop advances, but that a balanced package of advance is needed. Many additional measures are being made for towed gears, which happen also to be the main gears we use, but they are not the only types of fishing gears impacting on the fish stocks. While there is a commitment in this proposal to bring forward Commission rules on the length and utilisation of gill nets, there is no specific proposal here. This is something Ireland has been urging for a long time because we see a much-enlarged use of these gill nets off the west coast of Ireland impacting on areas which previously acted like reservations for these stocks in areas of rough sea bed that were not trawled upon. These are now being heavily fished with gill nets. There is a need to move forward with a balanced package of technical conservation measures.

The technical conservation measures should move forward at a pace to which the industry can adjust because every time one increases mesh size or bans a gear or closes an area, people are often put out of business if they do not have time to adjust. It is the smaller inshore fishermen who bear the brunt of much of this. Larger boats fishing further offshore can cope with larger mesh sizes, which can have less economic impact on them. It tends to be the smaller, older boats which take the brunt of these mesh size increases because they do not have the power and manoeuvrability to cope with that. This must be balanced in any equation of technical measures one seeks to increase. As we have not seen the hake recovery plan proposals, we have not seen the full suite of measures to be used for stock conservation during this year. We would like to see those measures at this point.

Senator Finucane

I want to ask about the discards aspect for juvenile fish. When Dr. Whittaker carried out his review of the fisheries policy, possibly about 20 years ago, he stated that the high level of discards was a cause of major concern. I think that in the recent review of the fisheries policy done, this concern was expressed again, and there was no great movement over 20 years. I think it was quantified that the discards percentage could be as high as 65%.

While one respects the measures being taken, is it not the policy in Spain, which is probably the largest fishing unit in the European Community, that it is acceptable to land juvenile fish as they form a part of people's diet? Could I ask, in that context and regarding the conservation measure and the genuine achievement being striven for within the European Union with regard to undersize fish, how optimistic would Dr. Beamish be that this laudable objective would be shared on a European Community basis? Dr. Beamish said the high level of discards is a problem almost on a global basis. Is he referring to Norway in that context? A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit Norway and they had a huge research section in Bergen where they elaborated on the serious measures they were taking on the level of discards. It would appear to me on the basis of what they were saying that they were almost the forerunners in this direction in their respect for the fish.

Chairman

On the discards, how accurate are the estimates the witnesses produce? I understand that a lot of fish can be discarded, and I am just wondering if they receive accurate information? The other question involves a graph relating to the North Sea. Why is Donegal included in this particular graph? I was listening this morning to Sean O'Donoghue on RTE Radio One, and he said that the same mesh size applies to Donegal as to the North Sea. Could Dr. Beamish explain that to the committee?

There is one other point. Dr. Beamish is stating Ireland's position here today. How can we as a joint committee help his group to secure Ireland's position in the EU? I presume we can do so by our report, but can we be of more assistance to the Department speaking as a Parliament?

Dr. Beamish

On the question of discards, the Fisheries Council was in unanimous agreement in April on an EU action plan to reduce discards of fish. We can make this available to the committee if it wishes. It is a communication from the European Commission to the Council and the Parliament on a range of issues. It explains the multitude of reasons why discards can occur, why they occur very widely, and some possible areas where we can reduce discards. That action plan was unanimously accepted by the Council in April. Discards remain a problem all these years after Dr. Whittaker's report.

One of the biggest problems is that we are fishing younger and younger fish. I do not just mean Ireland - this is a problem right across Europe and indeed globally. As we fish down the older fish, taking the larger fish out, we are fishing on smaller and smaller fish stocks comprising younger and younger fish, so the likelihood of discards increases even though fish stocks become more rare. It is not a problem from which we are immune. There are estimates that in the Irish Sea, 60% of whiting taken by number is discarded. These estimates are based on individual trips on individual vessels and do not hold in every case or for every vessel.

Senator Finucane

When Dr. Beamish says "discards", are they usually discarded into the sea as dead fish? Obviously, they are not quantified if they pass through the nets in the first place.

Dr. Beamish

Discards are fish which are taken on board dead and passed back to the sea. The problem in the Irish Sea is that a lot of whiting are taken in other fisheries, primarily the prawn fisheries. We have been working through BIM and with the industry for the past three or four years on how to develop smarter nets that can take the prawns without taking the small round fish. One of the nets which we developed was accepted by the Commission and is now in place. In a part of the Irish Sea it is mandatory to use this net with an escape panel for young cod. This kind of work is in its infancy and needs to be accelerated in many other fisheries. There is a lot of work to be done there.

Senator Finucane also raised the question of the number of small fish on the market in Spain. There is probably a variety of reasons for that. A lot of the fish that are taken, especially in the Mediterranean and warmer seas and even in the Bay of Biscay, are traditionally much smaller for biological reasons and because of the range of species there.

There are no doubt issues about fish below the minimum landing sizes being taken in other areas; this problem is not unique to any individual member state and exists for all Community fleets. Norway is very serious about fisheries management. The Norwegians regard fish as an important national resource to be husbanded, and have done so for many years. They operate a system of discard prohibition whereby the discards have to be brought ashore. The fish are dead so from a biological perspective it does not change the impact on the stocks, but the system gives a more reliable reading on the amount of juvenile fish taken, which helps the scientific surveys etc.

Senator Finucane

That was mentioned earlier.

Dr. Beamish

There are a number of problems with that. Most people regard it as somewhat optimistic to expect that a discard ban would be respected in most fisheries. It will certainly be respected when there is an observer on board the vessel but whether it will be respected when the observer is not on board is questionable. The second point is that if the discards can be brought ashore and marketed, it creates the wrong economic incentives in that there is a reward for catching those fish. Wherever the minimum sizes have been removed or any incentive is created which allows small fish to be marketed, it tends to result in a lot more fishing of the small fish. The other problem the Norwegians have discovered is that there is significant discarding in their fisheries, notwithstanding their belief that Norwegian fishermen are very law abiding.

The Chairman asked why the area in the North Sea is included with the west Scotland, north of Ireland area in the cod recovery plan. The Commission and the scientists are of the view that there is a link between the cod stocks in the North Sea and these areas. Therefore, in addressing the recovery of this cod stock, one has to cover these two areas. The Commission has been trying to move to harmonising the mesh sizes across the whole of the EU area and regards the same types of species and the same sizes appropriate to the west of Scotland area and to the North Sea.

As to whether the discards data is reliable, the information I have provided comes from study groups set up by ISIS, the main scientific body regarding European fish stocks, but is based on surveys and individual vessels and shows a wide variation. The figures are indicative rather than exact but they indicate that there are discards in almost all fisheries. In terms of the Irish position, my note outlined the position as developed by the Minister and the Department to date. Clearly this discussion today, and future inputs, will allow that position to evolve in negotiations in the Council.

Chairman

We have to take COM 739. Will we take that now and then come back with any final questions?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I will try to be brief with these questions before we go on. Referring to what I said about the Irish scene and the cod, I take the point about other species being caught and the cod being a by-catch but the reality is that ISIS also recommended a zero haddock quota for the Irish Sea, the Commission recommended one which was significantly higher than that and the Council went higher again. It seems that the politicians are going above the Commission constantly, which is going above scientific advice across the board on every occasion. I can understand the political pressures in terms of economic and social concerns, but one wonders looking at the stocks going down dramatically year by year whether we are making a politically short-sighted mistake in not accepting scientific advice, albeit that the recovery plans announced today are being put in place?

The key seems to be surveillance and monitoring because there is still confusion and argument about what is the real position. On that basis, what was our position in terms of the decision by the Council to reject the Commission advice that observers from one member state should be able to board other member states' boats and that representatives of the Commission should be free to board boats, which was rejected by the Council? What is our position on electronic logs or other mechanisms that might include control?

Finally, what was our position in terms of the decision by the Council not to take away grants for the modernisation or construction or export of new boats? Why, at a time when we are definitely trying to restrict and cut back, did the Council not accept reduction in the fleet and why did it not accept cutbacks in terms of the subsidies given to new boats and modernisation of boats?

Deputy Coveney

I raised the issue of scientific assessment of stock. Are we making any recommendations in that area on a Europe-wide basis to ensure we are accurate? We should make recommendations on discards that would be an incentive to skippers to report the level of discard with some penalty for non-reporting in order that we could get accurate figures through the industry. The key is to have accurate figures, otherwise one cannot plan.

Finally, we should make recommendations on possible grant aid to encourage the industry to change its gear, and where possible, promote technical conservation, for example the type of net technology referred to earlier that would catch prawns but take fewer juvenile fish. If that can be achieved scientifically, then surely we should be slanting our grant aid in the future towards skippers and boat owners taking on that kind of technology without having to take on its massive cost. Some form of financial support should be available for that type of change.

Dr. Beamish

I will take Deputy Ryan's question first. I am speaking from memory here as I have not prepared this. Haddock is unique in the way it behaves in that there could be a haddock stock of 1,000 tonnes this year and 20,000 tonnes next year and it could be back to 1,000 tonnes the following year. It oscillates dramatically and is very difficult to manage, but the haddock stock is not as bad as the cod or the whiting stocks. The reason scientists advised a zero quota for haddock was because of the impact on the cod and whiting. The qualifier which went with that was the need for a recovery plan for the cod and whiting in the Irish Sea. The quotas which were set for cod and whiting were much reduced. Ireland has not pushed for a large quota of cod in the Irish Sea and has not demanded large quotas of cod in the Irish Sea for many years. There was an agreement to introduce this spring the recovery plan for cod and it was in that light that the haddock quota was agreed. Second, the haddock quota in the Irish Sea is linked to the haddock quota on the south coast of Ireland. It is a sub-set of that and the advice on that was not so dramatic.

In terms of the decisions by the Commission and the position of the member states, Ireland is one of the countries which has consistently sought rapid developments on the control dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy, not because everything is perfect here in that dimension but because we recognise that we are completely dependent on an area where stocks are under pressure and that unless there is effective and even-handed control on all the fleets operating in the area, the sustainability of those resources on which Ireland is completely dependent will be brought more and more into question.

Ireland has long championed the introduction of the electronic log book which was agreed as part of a programme to be introduced under the new Common Fisheries Policy agreed last December. There is a commitment to introducing the electronic log book. There is a commitment to extend a measure which was brought in, again under the last Irish Presidency, for satellite monitoring from vessels over 24 metres to vessels over 18 metres by the end of this year and to extend it to vessels over 15 metres next year. There is a roll-out programme regarding increased powers both for member states in each other's waters and in respect of Commission inspectors getting extended powers in the final package, the new Common Fisheries Policy basic regulation.

Deputy Ryan raised the question of grants. As part of the 2371/2002 package, Ireland accepted the phasing out of the grants for the construction of new vessels and did not vote against that. It accepted that the grants would be phased out totally by 2004 and, in the interim, any member state which gives new commitments on fishing vessel grants will take an additional 3% reduction on its fishing fleet. That was part of the package agreed so there has been an agreement to phase out, relatively quickly, the grants on new fishing vessel construction.

Deputy Coveney raised the question of scientific assessment. Like much in the fisheries area, Ireland contributes a lot both in terms of control and science to the Common Fisheries Policy relative to the amount of benefit nationally derived from fishing activity. For example, we produce a stock book each year for the stocks in the waters around Ireland. Ireland is the only country in the European Union which produces such an annual publication.

Deputy Coveney

The point I made was that we are doing an excellent job here and the promotion of that type of thinking across Europe would be helpful in that we would know the location of the fish.

Dr. Beamish

We completely accept that scientific assessment must improve. In recent weeks, for example, we brought in the new Celtic Explorer, which is a major step forward in terms of a fisheries research platform for Ireland. Our scientific assessment efforts are increasing and in terms of inputting all the data in the areas of interest to us, it will put us in a much stronger position to have definitive science in this area.

On the question of reporting of discards, the action plan I referred to earlier, agreed at the April Council, agrees on the development of a requirement for voluntary departure from fishing grounds when and-or where large quantities of discards have been generated; the adoption of measures to reduce discarding incited due to quota restrictions - this arises where somebody has to discard because he does not have a quota for a particular species; the development of pilot projects to investigate innovative fishing practices which avoid or reduce discarding; and a range of other measures.

In Ireland's case, half of the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, FIFG, the Structural Funds for the fishing industry, were dedicated in this round to a programme of innovation and sustainability. That allows a wide range of measures to be brought forward with the industry which are intended to improve the sustainability of fishing practices. That work, which was developed in the Irish Sea and similar work which is taking place on hake and other stocks on the south coast, is being funded through our Structural Funds. In setting that out under the national development plan, we recognised that the critical challenges were how to diversify on to stocks which are not under the same pressure and improve the sustainability of the fishing practices on those which are under pressure.

On the proposal for a Council regulation on the management of fishing effort relating to certain fishing areas and resources and modifying regulation 2847/93, this refers to the so-called western waters fishing effort regime. That proposal, which was introduced to the Council at the end of last year but was not debated and now falls for debate, proposes a new regime for fishing effort - days at sea - in Atlantic waters from the north of Scotland down to the Azores. It replaces an existing system, set out in regulation 685/1995 and 2027/1995, known as the western waters regime. It establishes lists of fishing vessels which will be authorised to fish in these western waters and the list will be limited to the vessels which fished in the western waters in the period 1998-2002. It sets ceilings for the amount of fishing effort which could be exercised in demersal fisheries and similar ceilings for pelagic fisheries. It maintains access limitations which are in place for some of the outermost regions of the Union - the Azores, the Canaries and Madeira - and provides for a continuation of special monitoring and control measures which are in place in these waters.

A key element of the change from the current arrangements, which are contained in the new Commission proposal is that the proposal introduced last December eliminates the Irish Box completely as a separate fishing management zone. Within that, it scraps the specific provision which has been in place since 1995 for the 40 vessel limit which applied to the Spanish fleet in that Irish Box area. It provides that all vessels greater than 18 metres, which have operated in the western waters in the period 1998 to 2002, will be allowed to fish throughout that area, including in the Irish Box, subject to the general effort ceiling which was applicable under the new proposal. The new overall ceilings being introduced would be more restrictive than the existing ceilings in place across the whole of the western waters but would not apply to a specific area such as the Irish Box.

The Irish Box element has dominated the debate on this proposal. A map is attached to the minute which was circulated. The Irish Box is a 50 mile zone around the Irish coast and is part of the western waters regime. It was originally introduced in 1986 for a ten year period as part of the arrangements for Iberian accession. In that instance, it provided for a zero access regime for Spain and Portugal to the area known as the Irish Box. In the period 1995-96 some new regulations were negotiated as the transition period was running out, which allowed for access with restrictions to this area of the Irish Box. The new proposal put forward by the Commission is due to a degree of legal uncertainty which has arisen in debate on whether the regulations agreed in 1995 and 1996 are linked to the transition period for Spain and Portugal in their acts of accession. For example, from 1 January, Spain was allowed access for the first time to the North Sea because the transition period in its acts of accession ran out. There is a legal debate on whether the same effects apply to the Irish Box.

The existing western waters regime provides for restrictive access in respect of fishing in the western waters and the Irish Box. These were agreed because it was recognised in Community law that this is a highly sensitive zone. The current regime allows for 40 vessels at any one time in the Irish Box. In reality, it is slightly more detailed - it is 32 vessels in the southern part of the Irish Box and eight vessels in the northern part.

As regards the importance of the Irish Box, from an Irish perspective we see the Irish Box as an area of rich fishing grounds, a large nursery area for juvenile fish and, from a national perspective, we believe it is very important that the stocks here are protected as these are the stocks on which the Irish fishing industry, in particular, is dependent. The Irish Box area accounts for a large part of our activity and our catches and we have very few quota rights outside of that area. As it is biologically sensitive and vulnerable to increased fishing activity, we believe arrangements which would allow increased fishing effort in that area would lead to biological decline. The biological sensitivity of the area is evidenced by virtue of the fact that the cod and hake recovery plans largely occur within the area of the Irish Box.

The national position since late last year when this issue arose was strongly that the proposal brought forward by the Commission, which is the subject of discussion today, was not acceptable to Ireland. Throughout the latter part of last year and earlier this year, Ireland has been seeking a variety of amendments to the proposal, which we hope would, in combination, deliver adequate protection for the fish stocks around Ireland on which we are dependent. In particular, we have been seeking to have a specific area defined as biologically sensitive and to have that area established in Community law; establishing effort limits for that area based on the recent fishing effort history of each member state; and a continuation of an effort regime generally for the rest of the western waters, coupled with enhanced technical measures in the western waters to reduce fishing on juvenile fish and on spawning congregations. The paper which was circulated shows a map of the Irish Box as it currently exists in Community law. The committee will be aware that this has been the subject of some dispute and difference of opinion among member states, the Commission and the Council. The issue is very much before the Council. There has not been a detailed discussion on this proposal since December, but Ireland has raised it and sought that the Council should address the issue to remove the legal uncertainties and ensure that fishermen can have a clear safeguard for the fish stocks on which they are dependent going forward.

Chairman

When is it expected to successfully conclude Ireland's position?

Dr. Beamish

It is an issue that will be determined by qualified majority voting so one cannot prejudge any outcome. The position has been that the Commission's proposal, which is on the table, does not provide for the Irish Box or any continuation of it and makes no specific recognition for that area. Ireland has argued that that does not respect the previous understandings and agreements in Community law, recognising that, as a sensitive area and with the current state of stocks in that area, any risk of additional fishing effort would be inconsistent with the overall concern for sustainability and for the precautionary approach we expect the Commission and the Council to take on fisheries management in this area. Ireland has made its scientific case to the Commissioner, the Commission Services and the President of the Council. The Council President and the Commissioner have reflected on that and have not sought to date to bring the proposal, made in December, up for decision. However, it is on the agenda of the May Fisheries Council and it is expected that it will be dealt with at that stage. If not, it may be dealt with either in the June or July Fisheries Councils. There has been some reflection on the proposal within the Commission Services by the Presidency, but to date no new proposals have emerged.

Deputy Broughan

The two regulations are closely related in terms of the importance of conservation measures in the Irish Box. Dr Beamish said that this matter is on the agenda again of the May Fisheries Council. There seems to be widespread confusion, certainly in the media and at times among representatives of the fishing industry when they contact us about where this matter is at. Is it expected that we and the Spanish in particular would reach some modus vivendi and together approach the Commission to propose certain amendments, which hopefully from our point of view would achieve the desired result we want of maintaining the box as an area of high sensitivity and one that has to be closely conserved given its importance to our industry.

Regarding the operation to date of the days at sea rule in that territory, which seems to be related, what is the latest position on areas such as Greencastle, where smaller operators seem to be gravely handicapped by the operation of that new regime?

Deputy Coveney

Everybody here realises the importance of this issue. It is central to the debate and is probably the one area on the technical side of fishing and quotas which many people outside the industry understand because it has been discussed so often. In simple terms, the Irish Box is an area around the island, 50 miles offshore, inside of which we have successfully managed to protect our fish stocks to a certain extent from fishing, for good reason as it is a valuable breeding ground not only for Irish fishing but also for Europe.

I would like clarity on two issues, the first being the legal issue. Has our legal argument been accepted by the Commission? Since December we have been told quite clearly that the legal position according to the Attorney General is that we are entitled to make the case for keeping the restrictions in place in the Irish Box. The Government decided not to publish that legal opinion. I accept the reasoning for that - if this is the case - is that we wanted to keep that legal opinion to ourselves and discuss it with the Commission and the Spanish to try to reach agreement. However, several months have passed. What is the thinking in Europe at this stage, from a legal perspective, as to whether we will be obliged to allow more than 40 Spanish fishing vessels into the Irish Box?

The second issue is the political reality. If we decide to take a hard line on the Irish Box, is it the political reality, from your experience in dealing with the other interests and European countries, that we will fail to keep it intact? Is it the case that we have decided to try to reach some form of compromise or agreement with the Spanish to preserve the area of the Irish Box in some way while at the same time accepting the Irish Box, as it is at present, will no longer exist? My view is that we need to do all we can to keep the Irish Box intact. When we try to get detailed and precise answers on this, however, we get fudges. That is not a reference to Dr. Beamish's comments but in my efforts and those of other spokespersons to get clarity on the issue of the Irish Box, we encounter an element of fudge. Perhaps this is an opportunity to clear it up before the Fisheries Council in May. We would like to be in a position, as Opposition spokespersons, to support the Minister in his efforts on this issue, if that is possible.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I hope we manage to get agreement or sufficient votes to establish effort limits in the box area based on the recent fishing effort history of each member state. However, if that fails, have we a fallback position in terms of accepting effort limits not necessarily on the basis of the recent history of each member state but on certain conservation grounds which would, as a by product, tend to favour an Irish fleet rather than a distant neighbouring fleet? Have any studies been done to see what conservation measures, if applied exclusively to the Irish Box, would give a competitive or other advantage to smaller Irish boats, particularly in the inshore fishing fleet and, in that way, try to safeguard our position rather than relying on recent member state history?

Dr. Beamish

I will try to cover all the questions. I agree with Deputy Broughan that there has been some confusion on this complex issue. In essence, we are dealing with two separate matters, the status of the regulations which have been in place to date and the possible shape of whatever would be agreed going forward. Sometimes both of these get intertwined.

Deputy Broughan asked if it is expected that Ireland and Spain will reach a modus vivendi and move forward with the Community in that way. Until now, the Irish position has been that this is Community legislation which is part of the Common Fisheries Policy and applies to everybody. While there has been a focus on the rules as they relate to Spain, there are other elements within the western waters, both within and outside the box, which apply to all member states which are fishing there. It is Community legislation and it will be adopted in the Council under the normal Community rules.

The Commission has a particular role in bringing forward proposals and the Presidency has a role regarding compromise. Ireland has always avoided the issue being seen as a purely bilateral one to be sorted out between Spain and Ireland. Ireland feels it should be dealt with as a Community issue, using the normal Community methods. That, indeed, is how it was dealt with in 1994, 1995 and 1996 and is the normal route for dealing with something like this. Clearly, Ireland and Spain have polar opposite positions on particular aspects of this. It means restricting one fleet or opening access for another. However, there are other elements where Ireland and Spain might have similar positions, so it cannot be reduced to just one point.

Deputy Broughan asked about the operation of the days at sea rule. While everything in fisheries is related, that is a somewhat different issue in that it arises from the cod recovery proposals we discussed earlier. It concerns the application of the cod recovery proposals to vessels and seeking to target vessels using gears which might catch cod. That is, perhaps, a debate for a separate occasion. There are some links but it primarily relates to shell fisheries rather than the type of fisheries regulated under the western waters regime.

Deputy Coveney said the box is an instrument through which we have sought to conserve the stocks in that area. It is important to keep in mind that it is purely an instrument for conservation. That is the way it has been approached to date from our side. We need measures that will guarantee conservation of the stocks in the area on which we are dependent. That is the object we are trying to achieve.

The legal issue created some confusion because the legal debate was about the status of the existing regulations. There were different legal opinions. The Spanish had the legal opinion that the regulations ran out of time and demised at the end of last year. The Council legal service gave a somewhat similar opinion. The Commission did not give a legal opinion. In the recent report in the Parliament from Seán Ó Neachtain, as rapporteur on this issue, he made the point that there is no legal opinion from the Commission. Ireland took the view that the regulations remained in place until the Council repealed, amended or otherwise changed them. Ireland has continued to act in that way. Differing legal opinions continue in place but the Commission has, in one instance, taken a slightly different view from the Council legal service in that it states that the regulations, as written, stay in place pending an amendment or change at Council. That is what has happened to date. The regulations continue to be applied by Ireland.

Deputy Coveney asked about the thinking in Europe from a legal perspective. In essence, the positions which emerged in December and January remain in place and people have continued to hold them. The position going forward is that the Council is sovereign on the basis of a Commission proposal to adopt whatever new proposals it wishes, if they are properly adopted in accordance with treaty rules. The issue of what might be there in the future, therefore, is purely a matter for the Council and might be quite different from what is there at present. Ireland has been seeking to make its case in the interim period for all the reasons I have outlined. We need strong and effective conservation measures to secure the stocks in the area on which we are dependent going forward but the Commission has not to date brought forward any new or amending proposals and neither has the Presidency.

Deputy Ryan spoke about taking a different approach from the one outlined on how effort would be regulated in the box. It is clear that conservation can be achieved through a combination of instruments. However, within the Common Fisheries Policy the normal practice for most instruments has been that future entitlements are linked to the previous track record. That is how the policy has evolved over 30 years. That is well established practice in setting new measures in the Common Fisheries Policy. It is a non-discriminatory approach which would get over some of the legal arguments about the current proposals. It is clear that what might come forward is a different mix of measures seeking to achieve conservation. All member states will pursue their own interests on that mix. To date, the Commission has not unveiled any package that differs from that unveiled in December.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Beamish and his colleagues. This process has been informative and helpful. We assure you of the full support of the committee in your work in Europe and of support for the Parliament. Is it agreed to report to the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny on our deliberations? Agreed.

The clerk has circulated a briefing for the members. The committee is required to take the following decisions: Document COM (2002) 640 is to note; COM (2002) 727 is to note; COM (2002) 659 is to note; COM (2002) 776 is to note; COM (2003) 53 is to note; COM (2002) 654, Commission Green Paper, is to note; COM 720, no further scrutiny; COM 721, no further scrutiny; COM (2003) 1, no further scrutiny; COM (2003) 107, no further scrutiny; and COM 773, further scrutiny required at some stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.25 p.m. sine die.