JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Tuesday, 16 Sep 2003

Vol. 1 No. 20

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We are now in public session and engaged in the scrutiny of EU legislation. The committee has agreed to examine further the following proposals: (a) COM (2003) 229, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and Council on enhancing ship and port facilities security; (b) COM (2003) 773, a proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of cod and hake stocks; (c) COM (2003) 237, a proposal for a Council regulation to establish measures for the recovery of cod stocks; and (d) COM (2003) 374, a proposal for a Council regulation to establish measures for the recovery of hake stocks. We have some members of the Department present.

I welcome Mr. Maurice Mullen, Mr. Brian Hogan, Ms Josephine Kelly, Mr. AndrewKinneen - Mr. Seamus O'Reilly is not here - Ms Carmel Denning and Ms Ann Monaghan from the Department. The format is that the committee will hear a presentation from you and this will be followed by a question and answer session. Before I ask Mr. Mullen to begin, I want to draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. It is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, but the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, members are reminded of the long standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Maurice Mullen

Thank you very much, Chairman. We are delighted to be here to make two presentations. I will make one on port security and my colleague, Josephine Kelly, on the seafood policy side, will lead on the cod and hake issues. I would like, for the next couple of minutes, to explain the regulation of the European Parliament in relation to the enhancement of ship and port security. The regulation is being introduced because of the 11 September tragedy in the United States. It is being driven by the USA, with the support of a number of other countries. It has come through the International Maritime Organisation, which is primarily involved with maritime safety. The IMO was the mechanism used to bring these new rules into place. The EU has two objectives in introducing the regulation, first, it wants the new security regime to come into place on 1 July 2004 and second, the regulation will standardise implementation of the regime across the Union.

The new regulation covers both ships and ports. At its core is the provision that individual ships and every port that deals in international trade must have an approved security plan. The plan will be based on an independent assessment of security - and three security levels will be set. Security level one will be the normal security that currently applies to a port. Security levels two and three will be progressively more stringent, where a high risk of security is identified. The most important element of the entire regulation is that ships in port have to be part of the system. If they are not, they cannot trade internationally. That means, for example, that Dublin and all our major ports, which handle international trade, would not be allowed to do so unless they have approved security plans and other provisions, which I will come to shortly. The final key concept is that there must be independent checks on an on-going basis to ensure the whole system is in play.

Briefly, the new regulation will affect passenger vessels of two types: all international passenger vessels, for example, between Ireland and Britain and also domestic passenger vessels that operate beyond 20 miles from our coastline. It will also affect cargo vessels over 500 tonnes. It will affect any port that has an international trade. The Government has a major role and so also do the ship classification societies and the security industry. In relation to ships, the operation is fairly straightforward. Each vessel will have an independent security risk assessment. By and large, these will be undertaken by what are known as the classification societies. These are the ships' standards bodies. Each ship will have to produce a ship security plan in the format set out in the regulation. Each vessel and the company that owns it will be required to have ship security officers. Continuous records will be kept of the ship's ports of trading and security plan. Finally, it will be required to have a ship security certificate - which must be valid - to allow it to enter a port.

The impact on port facilities is more complex and more costly. In this case the security risk assessment would have to be undertaken and approved by the Department. Again, a security officer must be appointed and an improved security plan must be in place. We believe that 20 of our ports will be involved in this. At the moment a process of consultation is in place to support the ports as they prepare their plans. From the Government's viewpoint, its role will be to set the security level. The Garda are advising on this. We expect, Chairman, that all our ports will operate off what is known as security level 1. This is effectively the level of security they have employed for some time. If there is a threat - or general information about a threat - to security, the Garda could raise that too. If the Garda has specific information regarding threats it goes to security level three. In the latter two cases the Garda would become the central players.

In the case of ships, recognised security organisations will handle much of the new regime. In the case of the ports, the risk assessment and security plan have to be undertaken by the Department for national security reasons. It is terra firma and each member state will have to look after itself. There will be control and audit measures by the Department. There is mandatory reporting and in regard to the Government's role we will need legislation to introduce penalties and offences to provide for authorised control officers.

Just to flag a couple of issues that are difficult in this regulation - the EU proposes to go beyond the International Maritime Organisation in the way it implements this proposal. The maritime organisation states that only large shipping, over 500 tonnes, and passenger vessels should apply. The EU wants to extend it to domestic passenger vessels and if it gets its way it will apply to all domestic vessels. We accept that larger domestic vessels which would travel beyond 20 miles from shore can be included. We can do that because we have none of those vessels. If we go below that to the next category, boats to the Aran islands and to all our islands would be included. They would have to go through a regime, albeit reduced in size, but nevertheless, costly and something that would have to be maintained. We are arguing, on behalf of the Minister within the committees in Brussels, that domestic shipping should be kept out. There is a view within Europe that there will be more domestic ships in the regime at the end of the day. Many of the member states are prepared to concede on that issue.

In regard to the timescale, the major measures agreed in the IMO will take effect on 1 July. The larger passenger ships will come in, in 2005 if the present regulation goes through, and if the rest of the domestic ships are included the proposal is to bring them in in 2007.

The costs are expected to be borne by the operators. So long as the security level risks are not that high, ports will not be hugely effective since ports have arrangements in place, but if the situation changes, there will be significant costs. Obviously, we have a concern in regard to the small parcel of vessels.

The measures in place protect ports and ships but the Commission is discussing with member states a proposal to bring to Council what is known as the land-port interface. The US is pressing hard that goods would be tracked before they ever come near the port. The paradigm they are using is the airline paradigm. We expect to see another regulation on top of this one which will certainly add to the cost of operating ports because of the documentation on tracking and security checking that is necessary.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I was interested to see this report as it is a clear manifestation of the more dangerous times in which we are living. There has been much tension in the UK regarding possible threats to passenger ferry vessels. Have the Garda or others received any particular intelligence to indicate, at any stage during the past two years, that we should have been above the notional security level one? I was trying to envisage what the main threats could be to us here. Obviously one is the possibility of somebody taking over a ferry vessel and threatening life on it. Another would be where one would use a ship, in the same way that planes were used on 9/11, as a weapon. A tanker laden with oil could be directed to a particular port or location which would cause huge environmental or other devastation. Has any assessment been done of particular weak points where we could be vulnerable, be it Whiddy Island in Bantry or elsewhere? I would imagine Ireland is not high on the international list of places into which one could pile-drive a boat. Has any assessment been made of our own locations?

Senator Kenneally

Perhaps Mr. Mullen will expand on the cost element. He said it should not be too costly but I am thinking particularly of some of the smaller ports. I image the larger ports should be able to absorb the costs but will it cause a difficulty for the smaller ports and place an onerous burden on them? I have looked through the document only briefly and have not studied it in detail. An issue which has not been referred to, and perhaps it is not covered by these regulations, is illegal trafficking of people.

The stipulation in regard to the size of vessels, 500 tonnes, would suggest that if someone was trying to transfer something, they would meet a smaller vessel offshore and transfer it on and bring it into a fishery port. Is there any provision for security spot checks by authorised control officers in some of these areas? I would be concerned also, as Mr. Mullen appeared to be, about domestic shipping. Does it mean the Passage East Ballyhack car ferry service, which runs from one bank on the Waterford side across to the Wexford side, would be covered? Scaling it down further, if one wishes to go to Waterford Castle Hotel or the golf club they must be accessed by a ferry for which there is no charge. Is that a service that could ultimately be covered and increase charges for the operators?

Chairman

As Ireland is the only island nation in Europe will this element of the ports State control put us at a serious disadvantage and impose a heavy financial burden on operators here compared with Austria and Luxembourg, which are landlocked, if my geography is correct? What type of burden will the introduction of this measure place on the State and the operators?

Mr. Mullen

I will take some of the questions and my colleague, the chief surveyor, Brian Hogan, will field some of them. In regard to the Ballyhack development, that vessel does not go to sea and is likely to be exempted from the regulation. If it were to go out to the Saltee Islands security arrangements would have to be in place which would reflect the type of operation or risk. This would be undertaken by an independent assessor who has experience in that area and the measures to be put in place would reflect the level of risk. Clearly there is a cost involved in getting an independent assessor and in having plans drawn up. Most of our operations are at security level one and that would be reflected in the cost. Responsibility for security checks for the transfer from larger to smaller ships resides with other authorities, primarily the Garda and the Navy. So far as this regulation is concerned there are no proposals governing that area. Likewise this regulation does not cover the illegal trafficking of people.

I do not know the answer to the question as to whether we were ever above security level one because that is a matter for the security committee within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and for the Garda but the information we have, which is of a general nature, is that it would be a rare occurrence at this stage.

On the issue of the threats to ferries, this regulation is meant to address a number of threats. The threat to the ferry itself, in terms of it being used in an 11 September type incident, is the obvious one but also in terms of any form of sabotage or as a system to bring in goods which in turn would be used for terrorist acts. That is the logic behind the Commission's land/sea proposal. It is the goods that will be tracked and that is why I said that in terms of costs, when we get down to that aspect, it could be very expensive.

The Chairman asked about port state control. This is an area on which Ireland's record has improved considerably but at some considerable cost. My colleague, Brian Hogan, who is the recently appointed chief surveyor, might comment on Ireland's port state control, the costs and its effectiveness.

Mr. Brian Hogan

On the issue of the port state control and also the fact that we are an island nation and some of the other states in Europe are not, currently we do not have much choice in terms of maritime security because if we do not comply with maritime security, our goods and our ships will not be accepted into other ports and we will not be able to accept ships into our ports. It is something that will happen, therefore, and there will be a cost associated with that.

From the Department's point of view, under EU legislation we are required to inspect 25% of all foreign ships coming and we inspect about 400 of those ships a year. Next year, when the regulation comes in, we will still be doing those 400 ships and when we are doing their normal port state control inspections, we will also be doing security check inspections on board the ships. In terms of resources for the Department, therefore, our existing surveyors will fulfil that role next year on board the ships.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The nature of such inspections is that one in four incoming ships is inspected. Does that involve simply checking that a cargo is what it says it is or what is the nature of the inspection?

Mr. Hogan

Currently the nature of the inspection covers safety and pollution prevention. It is an inspection of the ship in accordance with international conventions - the International Maritime Organisation, SOLAS and the Marpol Convention. We make sure the ship is a safe ship and also that the cargo and everything else is stored securely. Currently the ships are required to carry approximately 15 to 20 certificates covering different aspects of the safety of the ship, the construction, life-saving, pollution prevention and cargo stowage. From next July there will be an additional certificate which will address the security arrangements on board the ship. In addition to our normal checks for safety and pollution prevention, therefore, we do an extra check on security and that check will be to make sure the certificate exists, that it is in date, that all the inspections have been carried out and that the ship has the appropriate arrangements and training for the ship's security officer and the crew on board. That is what we plan to do.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Mullen and his officials for attending the meeting today and answering the questions we raised with them. We will include those issues in our report. We hope you will take the report with you to the European Union and raise the concerns expressed here by the Members of the Parliament. I now ask Ms Kelly to make her presentation.

Ms Josephine Kelly

Thank you. I will briefly outline the background to recovery plans. What we are looking at today from my perspective is the cod and hake recovery plans in the proposals brought forward by the Commission. The Commission brought forward a series of proposals around 2000 and, following negotiation, recovery plans were put in place for cod in the Irish Sea and for northern hake. These recovery plans focus mainly on technical conservation measures such as gear modifications and closed areas for spawning or for juveniles.

The next step was that in December 2001, the Commission brought forward what it called a long-term recovery proposal and for the first time this proposal included a fishing effort restriction. Effectively, this means reducing the number of days fishing vessels can spend at sea each year. The proposal was subject to intensive debate and discussion, which continued throughout 2002.

Ireland took the view at that time that the fishing effort approach was not appropriate for fisheries in our waters, particularly for the hake fisheries around Ireland and cod in the Irish Sea. That view was on the basis that the system was overly bureaucratic and disproportionate in so far as the Irish fleet is mainly made up of family owned enterprises and days at sea would make individual boats unviable and it was likely to be ineffective because there was no buy-in from the individual fishermen, which we consider a very important part of any successful recovery plan.

We put forward an approach which involved strengthening what had already been negotiated and agreed in 2001 and 2002 and which involved extensive consultation with fishermen. This involved concentration on gear restrictions, seasonal closures and that type of approach. Nevertheless, in December 2002 the Council decided on an effort limit for cod fisheries only and these were in the North Sea and the west of Scotland. We were affected by the west of Scotland recovery plan only. It also rolled over the existing recovery plan which relied on the technical measures for the Irish Sea. That was continued into this year.

The Commission has now brought forward a new recovery plan approach for cod, which was presented in May 2003, and for northern hake, which was presented in June 2003. The overall objective of the recovery plan now being tabled is to increase the quantities of mature cod and hake. This is known as the precautionary limit of the biomass, the biomass being the stock of mature fish in the water.

The cod proposal we are looking at today covers a range of areas, two of which are of importance to Ireland - the west of Scotland cod fishery and the Irish Sea cod fishery. The proposal on hake again covers waters of importance to Ireland and this includes the waters to the west of Scotland and all around Ireland, down to the south and west coast.

Effectively, the proposal is built around key targets and when we talk about targets we are talking about the quantity of mature fish in the sea, the biomass of each stock. For each of the stock we set down what might be called the vital statistics as they stand today. For west of Scotland cod, the objective is to get the stock above 22,000 tonnes. The next target is a limit below which the stock should not fall and in the case of the west of Scotland cod, that is 14,000 tonnes.

The final statistic is the current stock size. In the case of west of Scotland cod, the current stock size is 5,800 odd tonnes, which is substantially below what is considered the minimum size we should be considering. In the case of Irish Sea cod, according to our scientists, we should be aiming to have a stock size of 10,000 tonnes. The key minimum figure is 6,000 tonnes. We should be trying to ensure in our plans that stock does not go below that level. The current stock size is 4,932 tonnes.

In the case of hake, we are trying to reach a target stock size of 143,000 tonnes. The minimum stock size is 103,000 tonnes and the current stock size is 115,000 tonnes. The stock size figures I have given are for 2002. We will be getting new scientific advice on these stocks. While we have some preliminary information the scientific body that determines and makes available the information has to formally meet, examine all the information and come forward with its estimate of the current stock size in the next few weeks.

The methodology used in the plan is to reduce the amount of fishing of the stock, which we call fishing mortality. Once we have set target levels, we set a TAC which will be below that level and allow for a percentage increase year on year in the size of the stock. For cod, the figure is 30%, which means there would be a 30% increase year on year in the biomass of stock, and for hake, the figure is 10%.

We would have a total allowable catch for the year in question and we would also calculate the fishing effort in terms of the restriction on the days at sea. We determine the effort by calculating the historic fishing effort of all vessels which catch cod or hake over a three year period from 2000 to 2002. In the case of Irish Sea cod for the Irish fishery, we would take from the records the number of days our fleet fished and caught Irish Sea cod in that period. We would then calculate the reduction in fishing effort needed to achieve the total allowable catch, TAC, that had been set. The Commission would allocate this reduced pool of fishing effort to each member state and it would be for the national authorities to distribute the allocation among the respective vessels. Another important element is that the plan includes control measures to ensure that recovery plans, whatever their form, will be effective.

With regard to our position on the proposal, we have been consistent in our approach to recovery plans from the beginning. We are of the view that it is not appropriate to have a "one size fits all" approach; that it is essential to consider the peculiarities of each fishery and to involve fishermen in the area in recovery plans. We consider it is important in the Irish Sea context to evaluate the effectiveness of what has already been put in place - the closed areas and gear modifications. On this basis, we consider that a fishing effort regime is not the way forward in regard to stocks in western waters. There are alternative, more appropriate regimes. As we have consistently said, we particularly consider that going down the technical conservation route will protect juvenile fish and spawning stock. We are strongly supportive of measures to strengthen control and enforcement and we are supportive of that part of the proposal. On this basis, we are committed to plans that provide for the protection of the stocks. We recognise that there are difficulties in relation to these stocks. We also recognise that, having regard to the biomass of the stock, realistic TACs must be set. We consider that we need to continue to use technical measures and that this will ensure the survival of stocks, allow the stocks to be rebuilt and reduce the socio-economic impact of the plan.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Ms Kelly said she had preliminary figures for hake and cod stocks for 2003 but that they might not be available for a number of weeks. Could she give us estimated figures on them, to which we would not hold her? Is there an indication of what the preliminary figures are showing? What is the Department's view on the situation in the Irish Sea where we have used closed areas and taken other measures? I understand this is the third year of operation of such measures. Have such measures achieved something? It seems that the concept of closed areas on a much larger scale is being touted on a global basis as necessary to protect certain stocks. I would be interested to hear the Department's view on that. If we are considering promoting closed areas, are we willing to consider other larger closed areas for all fishing activity as being the only way of helping to protect certain stocks? Is that a proposal we would consider? What evidence have we that technical conservation measures can possibly boost stock sizes? We have been arguing about this with Brussels for several years, but we are not convincing the people there of the merits of our argument. This is not an argument that started recently in May or June but one that has been ongoing for a long time. The Commission has consistently said that it does not accept the Government's position that technical conservation measures can provide the conservation measures we need and that we need reduced effort. Why have we lost that argument? What scientific evidence have we provided to back up the argument that technical conservation measures can work?

Ireland's position is that we seek a more appropriate regime for stock recovery in respect of stocks in western waters and that we must ensure that measures introduced take account of the need to protect stocks and to take account of the socio-economic impact on fishing communities. It seems that the social and economic requirements of communities is that there will still be a stock that they can fish in ten to 20 years' time. I do not see how the two could possibly differ - how we could argue against the protection of stocks on the basis that such a measure might have an alternative socio-economic impact on our fishing communities. That part of the presentation read strange in the sense that conservation was not to the socio-economic benefit of our communities. Are we saying that a trade off must be made between conservation and the socio-economic life of our western communities which rely on fishing? Their long-term socio-economic viability depends on good stocks so we cannot have an argument against conservation. Perhaps Ms Kelly would explain that sentence.

Senator Kenneally

There are not many things on which everybody in the fishing industry agrees but one is conservation. In this country, participation in the fishing industry tends to move from generation to generation within fishing families and those families wish to protect the industry for future generations. There is much discussion of how conservation is to be achieved and that is where the problems arise. Ms Kelly said that the measures are likely to be ineffective. I agree they will not work. Perhaps seasonal closures would work. It is worth considering. If we are honest, it all comes down to the recording of TACs. The Department knows what is happening but will not admit it publicly. There is no proper recording in this country of any fish species. Certain catches are coming into ports and are recorded but as many catches again are not recorded. The catches are brought into certain ports and there is nobody there to record them. They are coming into ports that are not authorised for landings, put into lorries and taken away. They are not being recorded.

These measures are useless unless there is proper enforcement. The document discusses proper enforcement. I have heard talk about proper enforcement for years but it is not happening. That makes a nonsense of these measures. Obviously, however, we must keep trying. The Spaniards are always presented as the bad boys. They take no notice of these measures but many of our fishermen are following suit. Are we serious about tackling this problem, not only in this country but elsewhere? If not, we can forget about conservation.

Ms Kelly mentioned a lack of "buy in" from fishermen in relation to these negotiations. Could she expand on what she meant by that? She might also let us know when these proposals are expected to be implemented. Even though we will oppose them, they will be implemented. The limitations regarding cod, which we opposed, have already been implemented. I am sure we will be out-voted on this issue again.

Is the socio-economic aspect given serious consideration? Ireland has much smaller boats with smaller crews. By and large, they are family run boats. Other countries have bigger and better developed fishing industries which are far more commercial. If this policy is uniformly applied, Ireland will take a bigger hit than other countries. Is that seriously considered when these negotiations are taking place?

Chairman

Ms Kelly, with regard to the figures you mentioned, does the science include figures for the by-catch, discards and the black fish Senator Kenneally mentioned? How important is the hake recovery plan with regard to Ireland seeking to retain the Irish box?

Ms Kelly

I will hand over to my colleague, Andrew Kinneen, the head of seafood control in the Department, to respond to some of the issues raised. The first question related to the science for 2004. The ICES, the body which brings together the work of all member states' scientists on fish stocks, has met and produced a document in relation to both Irish Sea cod and west of Scotland cod. It is preliminary information and has not been formally examined by the committee known as ACFM, to which ICES reports. The committee will look at this in October. It will review all the information and come forward with advice in October. The information we have at present from ICES is preliminary and must be recognised as such. It is available on the ICES website in its preliminary form.

It states, in relation to Irish Sea cod: "Perception of the stock has not changed. In 2002 ICES considered the stock to be outside safe biological limits. Based on the most recent estimate of the biomass ICES still classifies the stock as being outside safe biological limits." In relation to west of Scotland cod it states: "The perception of the stock has not changed. In 2002 ICES considered the stock to be outside safe biological limits. Based on the most recent estimate of the biomass ICES still classifies the stock as being outside safe biological limits." This is saying, in preliminary form, that the stocks remain outside safe biological limits. They continue to be in trouble.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Does it give figures? We have a figure for the Irish Sea cod of an estimated biomass of 4,932 tonnes. Is there an estimate for 2003?

Ms Kelly

The estimate of the SSB for Irish Sea cod is 6,400 tonnes, which is below the 10,000 Bpa figure. In relation to west of Scotland cod, the estimate is 2,500 tonnes, which is well below the 6,700 Bpa figure.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Is there a figure for hake?

Ms Kelly

I do not have the figure readily available. My understanding with regard to the hake stock is that there has been no significant change in any of the key parameters either in relation to biomass or fish mortality. I do not have the figures but that is my understanding of what the science shows at this stage.

The Deputy asked for our view of the existing regime and whether we are starting to see results. The plan has been in place for three years. Unfortunately, there is a history associated with that period. It was introduced with great commitment by the fishermen in the first year. However, over the first and second years it became clear to them that the Commission - and I am quoting from them and not making a personal or departmental comment - did not consider the plan of value so the fishermen lost interest in it and walked away, which is the best way of putting it. That was a shame because, in our view, it is a good plan. However, for any approach to be effective there must be commitment from the fishermen. They must believe in it and they must be prepared to comply with the regime. They must also be satisfied that any plan will work and that it is in the long-term future. That is what I meant when I referred to the buy in my earlier presentation. We are of the view that it is not effective in this type of industry for bureaucrats, like ourselves, who are in Brussels to come forward with great ideas on how to do things. We are talking about individuals and a difficult area to manage. It has been clear to us over the years that the most effective way to manage this resource is to do it in partnership with the industry and to have it fully involved. One expects that everyone will comply, but there must be support and acceptance for what one is doing. The industry must give support.

It was stated that our argumentation was not acceptable to the Commission. In December 2002 the Commission did not apply this approach to the Irish Sea. It did to the North Sea and to the west of Scotland. We hope it did that on the basis that our argumentation about the Irish Sea at least made it stop and think. It has come back this year with another effort regime. Our approach is serious and it must be recognised as such by the Commission. We are prepared to continue to make the arguments.

As regards the socio-economic aspects, I will pass that on to my colleague, Mr. AndrewKinneen. One could close the fisheries in the morning and have stock recovery over a period of time. That would be a simple way of doing the business. However, the socio-economic impact of that would be disastrous for the fishing communities. The alternative approach, which we argue should be followed, is to ensure effective conservation but to allow the industry, as far as possible, subject to conservation limits, to continue to operate in the interim. Otherwise, people will be forced out and they will not come back.

I will ask Mr. Andrew Kinneen to deal with the issues of control. A question was asked about the timetable and what is likely to happen. There has been one reading of the proposals at working group level within the Community. We are now starting a more in-depth examination of the proposals. The Presidency has stated and the Commission feels strongly that a plan is required by December in time for 2004. However, we are not clear what form that will take. The plan has seriously affected the North Sea this year. A particular approach in terms of effort has been adopted. Some countries around the North Sea are seeking a continuation of that regime rather than going down the road about which we are talking. There are many issues. It is not simple or straightforward. There will be difficult negotiations in the coming months.

A question was asked about the discards issue. It is not mandatory to report discards in log books. However, scientists have their own way of determining the type of discards in particular fisheries based on their experience of sampling, etc., and they build that information into their assessments and take it into account when they are examining the state of the stock and making recommendations for the following year.

The hake recovery plan and the Irish Box were also mentioned. The Italian Presidency has come forward with a compromise on the Irish Box issue in the past week. It puts on the table a sensitive box off the south and west coasts of Ireland which equates to the area identified as a protection zone for juvenile hake under the hake recovery plan. The Commission justifies this box on the basis that a lot of work has been done by the scientists on the hake stock and that it is an important area for the hake stock from a juvenile's perspective. It is fully committed to the need to have additional protection measures around that box. Ireland's position is that there are sensitive fisheries all around Ireland. Our Minister has argued and continues to argue at Council that it is necessary to have a box to cover all sensitive waters. This is an important step but we must protect all the fisheries around Ireland. There is a link with the Irish Box issue. The Irish Box Presidency compromise recognises that link and provides for a balancing of effort going forward between the sensitive area and any regime determined under the hake recovery plan.

Mr. Andrew Kinneen

I will try to cover some of the points which have not been covered to date. I will start off with the perceived lack of control on fishing vessels and the activities of fishing vessels. Within the proposals on the table at present for cod and hake there are specific measures to deal with some of the activities described, such as black fish landings, etc. There is a requirement to designate ports of landing for cod and hake, for advanced notification of landings and for additional documentation to accompany fish travelling overland. There is a clear means of putting controls in place to monitor cod and hake. In addition, there are parallel Commission proposals for applying the vessel monitoring systems on vessels below 24 metres, initially down to 18 metre vessels and then down to vessels of at least 15 metres in length. Between these we should have the enhanced means of monitoring fishing activities and regulating the cod and hake fisheries in particular. They are narrowing down the windows where fishermen can land these fish.

As regards the comments made by my colleague, Ms Kelly, it is essential we have a buy-in from the fishing community in whatever measures we can negotiate in Brussels. It is important that there is at least some type of consensus on the approach we are taking. From the fishermen's perspective, they resent or resist the application of effort control because they are facing the scenario where their vessel is allocated a certain number of days at sea and they must tie up the vessel for the day if they are not permitted to go to sea. As the committee can imagine, that represents a considerable liability for them because the boat and all its equipment in which they have invested does not have any means of making money while it is tied up. If a series of technical control measures are applied and fishermen are prohibited from taking cod and hake from a particular area, at least they can engage in other fishing activity which they are permitted to do and thereby make a living. They are in favour of the application of technical control measures and restrictions in terms of days at sea.

The feedback we are getting from our regular meetings with the industry is that they are not against closed areas. They are in favour of it because they can see that as the means where a resource can be either recovered or grown to a greater exploitable level. They have shown the initiative themselves on a localised basis where they have looked for closures on inshore waters to permit juvenile fisheries to thrive and to support the fishing activity that takes place around those areas. They see the use of closed areas as being a very equal measure among member states in that an area is closed and we can monitor the activity using these satellite monitoring or Air Corps aeroplanes and so on and see that it is there for the good of all. It is much more difficult to have to depend on another member state to calculate its days at sea and so on, to report and to take the appropriate action. They are very much in favour of these measures and are making a reasonable point when proposing them.

Equally with regard to the socio-economic impact of the conservation control, there is a balance to be struck and you are quite right in making the point that there is no future in unmanaged fisheries. History has taught us that unmanaged fisheries are over-exploited to the point of either commercial or biological extinction. They recognise very clearly that there needs to be an intervention there but they are very clear that it should be proportional to what is desirable in biological terms but would also permit the fishery to go ahead on some basis. If measures are put in place that are too draconian in their nature, you will lose crews off boats, skills and the industries which support these fishing boats and their activities. It is very hard to recover that knowledge base and those resources you need to kick into place again when the fishery is at an exploitable level. It is for that reason also that we preferthe balanced application of technical control measures and closed areas and the allocation of fishing effort days provided that the ceilings drawn up are reasonable in themselves.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

To go back to my main point, we have a difficulty in terms of winning our argument if in an area where we have applied closures and technical conservation measures, ICES is saying that there is no perceptible change in the Irish Sea in terms of the species being under biological threat or being outside the safe biological limits. That must make our argument very difficult. Ms Kelly made the point that, unfortunately, the fishing community has not, by and large, bought into the technical conservation and other measures for fear that the Commission would impose a restriction on effort, but it did not do that because of your arguments. You, in a sense, won the day in Brussels and allowed a one year reprieve in terms of fishing effort. That will make our argument very difficult if the fishing industry is seen by Brussels not to have bought into what you are trying to defend. It will be very difficult to get a further moratorium.

When we talk about closed areas outside the Irish Sea - for example, in western, north-western or even southern waters under Irish control - are we putting forward proposals for any such closed areas? What size would they be? Would there be full closure to all fishing activity? Are we presenting any proposals in that regard? In the area of control, do we support Commission moves for random on board monitoring of vessels as part of control measures?

Ms Kelly

In regard to closed areas, our initiative and the initiatives we are taking, we are about to introduce a closed area off the coast of Greencastle for juvenile cod. It is an important nursery for cod. Within days we will introduce statutory instruments closing that fishery completely. This is a national measure and will apply only to national boats. It has been supported by the local fishermen. This has traditionally been an important fishery for them. They have been able to make a reasonable living through this season of fishery but they are prepared to agree to its closure. It will run from now until about February. It is a dynamic closure and will follow the juvenile fish and ensure there is continued protection for them during this critical period. It represents the commitment of our fishermen to conservation and the protection of juvenile stock.

We also have national measures in place to protect herring. Off Dunmore East, there is a fairly large area which we close as a national measure to protect the Celtic Sea herring fishery. That has been in place for one or two years. It is a fairly recent measure but it is an important one. National measures are also in place for the protection of shrimp and crayfish around the coast. This is based on recommendations from our local officers working with local fishing groups, so we are working in that area.

In relation to the Irish Sea and how effective the current approach in terms of technical measures has been, I have not said the technical measures have not been effective but that they are not as effective as they could be even in their present form. It may seem hard to understand but it is a genuine reason. Fishermen invested heavily in this plan. They went to Brussels and worked with us and we came up with this plan. After about a year and half, the Commission effectively said it was not interested in it, that it had another approach - a new way to solve our problems - and dismissed it. We have been fighting at European level for this approach but the fishermen are concerned, or are afraid, that it will not be acceptable. It has undermined their confidence in a regime based on technical measures, closed areas and so on. We have had meetings with them recently and have asked them to consider if they would be prepared for a stronger version of, or more, technical measures in the Irish Sea. They have been fairly positive, although we do not have an agreed regime. I believe they can accept and buy into this type of approach and that it can be made effective.

Senator Kenneally

Ms Kelly talked about the herring fishery closure off Dunmore East. It was closed beyond a certain line but there was the ridiculous situation, which is part of the problem the Department throws up in areas that annoys fishermen, where the closest fishery port to where the herring was allowed to be caught was Dunmore East yet people were not allowed to land there and had to go to Cobh. I got in touch with the Department but did not get a satisfactory response. That is the type of thing which upsets communities in terms of their dealings with the Department. I know it has nothing to do with what we are discussing but it came up.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

In regard to cod which shoals with other species, including haddock, is complete closure not the only way to go? Is it not very difficult to try to enforce a closed area on juvenile cod and not have other commercial fleets taking the cod while fishing for other species? If we want to use satellite technology, would it not be much easier to close a certain area for a period of time? It could be a moving thing based on the science or whatever. Would that not be the easier way to do it rather than to close an area for a particular species which shoals with another species? It must be almost impossible not to catch those cod.

Ms Kelly

The closures in the Irish Sea were based on gear types. Closures covered gear types that targeted what we call the round fish - cod, haddock and whiting. It enabled the nephrop fishery, which is extremely important for Irish sea fishermen - North and South - to continue. We can monitor the vessels and we would know from this the type of fishery in which they would be involved. My colleague may wish to add to that.

Mr. Kinneen

There is a clear difference between the type of fishing gear being used by nephrop prawn fishermen and those fishing the round or white fish. It is true that there is some incidental by-catch of gadoids when nephrop nets are used. However, it is much smaller than using other methods. The significant difference is that the nephrop net is designed to dig the surface of the seabed and has a very low headline whereas the nets used to catch other demersal species is designed to float much higher in the water. We were able to differentiate clearly between the two and close the area for a certain type of activity and leave it open for another commercial activity that did not impinge on what we believe might be the recovery of those stocks. Although the preliminary figures Josephine Kelly has supplied to the committee indicate that there may not be a clear recovery apparent in the Irish Sea, that might not necessarily be surprising because one would expect a number of years to pass before these programmes would have a positive effect.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Are we in favour of on-board monitoring on a random basis?

Mr. Kinneen

By whom would on-board monitoring be carried out?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The Commission has issued a paper putting that forward as a policy. In regard to the control measures mentioned earlier, it seems that random on-board monitoring represents one way of getting some scientific understanding as to the level of by-catch——

Mr. Kinneen

Is the Deputy referring to the schemes to have observers on board vessels?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Kinneen

We are in favour of those schemes.

Chairman

I thank the officials from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for attending the meeting. The issues raised by members on behalf of the committee and the Oireachtas will be included in our report, which the officials will take to Brussels in order to highlight our concerns about the issues we have raised. I wish them continued success in their battle in Europe on behalf of the Irish people and the Government.

I wish to inform members that we have received an invitation from ComReg to attend a function with an agenda entitled "Get Connected" on 1 October. The Clerk will circulate members with invitations. As far as I am aware, everyone is invited.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m.sine die.