JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 2004

TACs and Quotas: Presentation.

Chairman

Today we are reviewing TACs and quota allocations with the Department and fisheries industry representatives in advance of the December Fisheries Council meeting. I welcome representatives of the fisheries industry: Mr. Seán O'Donoghue, Mr. Frank Doyle, Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide, Mr. Jason Whooley and Mr. Michael Walsh from the fisheries industry. The last time we met was on 17 November last year. Our meeting is now an annual event, almost like the December Fisheries Council meeting. One could suggest our meeting marks the start of Christmas.

Before we commence, I draw your attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members 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.

We will hear a joint presentation today. Unfortunately our time is confined because we will deal with a motion at 5 p.m., and members have parliamentary business from 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. The clerk has advised that the presentation should not take more than five minutes, as advised. Following this, there will be a question and answer session. The Minister will attend the committee at 5 p.m. to consider the motion on Fisheries (Miscellaneous Commercial Licences)(Alteration of Duties) Order 2004 and report on same. Delegates are welcome to stay in the public gallery for this if they wish.

I must advise members and all present that I must be strict today or I will be in trouble with the committee in private session at the next meeting.

Mr. Jason Whooley

I shall speak for less than five minutes. We would need more time to do justice to something as significant as TACs and quota proposals. I will give a brief introduction to the key issues for the December Fisheries Council.

The first critical issue is the weighing of pelagic species, which is outside what is considered normal TACs and quotas. The TACs and quotas meeting has evolved each year and no longer simply includes quotas set for the following year. The second issue is deep water species and the quotas set for these. The third is recovery plans for Irish Sea and west of Scotland cod.

There is a strong theme in the media to the effect that all TACs and quota advice is negative. However, there are also positive news stories, and we want to focus on some of these in the question and answer session. Scientists are proposing a 20% increase in monkfish and haddock. There is also a 10% increased TAC proposed for cod and hake. These are positive indicators and it is not all doom and gloom.

Another major factor, initiated by those at this side of the table, is the introduction of a conservation area next year totalling 1,500 sq. m. off the Irish coast. This initiative is completely industry driven and has worked its way through various channels to get on the table of the Council of Ministers for December. It has been fully scientifically validated. However, there is absolutely no requirement in the scientific advice for the closure to happen. The industry is being proactive in terms of conservation. It is probably the first time in the Irish history of the Common Fisheries Policy that an industry measure has reached such a stage. This is in contrast to the usual top-down approach administered by the Commission.

We have some serious problems, as do all member states attending the December Council. However, we also have some positive news stories. What we want is to devote the rest of this time to a discussion with the members on various issues on which they may wish to put questions rather than taking up any more time with a presentation.

Chairman

Last year I am aware you had particular problems with the Irish Box and the enforceable controls. I think Mr. Ó Cinnéide had problems with the ICES advice and you were concerned about mesh sizes and the voluntary cash discard identification. Mr. Doyle had concerns about the total area catches and Mr. Gogan was concerned at quota determinability for pelagic species. You may refer to any of those items in your response to keep the committee up to date on whether those concerns have been addressed since we met last year.

Deputy O'Donovan has particular questions. We shall move on to Deputies Ryan and Perry to be followed by Senator Kenneally.

Deputy O’Donovan

I welcome the delegations and thank and acknowledge all the various organisations from North to South for the positive impact the organisations have had on the entire fishing industry. Sometimes we are inclined to forget that. I welcome the professional and scientific engagement by the Irish fishing industry both at national and local levels. Perhaps one of the representatives would outline to the committee in more detail the matter mentioned by Mr. Whooley on the proactive initiative in setting aside the 1,500 square miles which is a huge area and what impact it may have. I certainly would not like to walk or swim around it. How did this come about? What other countries support it and do our neighbours support it?

We can sometimes be critical of the industry but last year the former Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, had very successful negotiations in Europe and I wish them luck this year. I am pleasantly surprised to learn that arising from the recovery programmes there is a 20% increase in monkfish and haddock and a 10% increase in cod. This is a success story for the industry. Perhaps the delegation would elaborate for members who are not from seafaring areas how this came about and whether that programme of recovery is possible in other areas where stocks are under threat. In recent years, the Irish fishing industry, even allowing for problems with the Irish Box and so on, has boxed above its weight in Europe. What plans are in mind for the negotiations for the TACs and quota allocations this year? Last year the former Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, acknowledged the co-operation by the industry at all levels in the negotiations in Brussels. We must realise we have a small EU quota of approximately 5% while we have approximately 25% of EU waters. While the Irish slice of the cake is relatively small the Irish fishing industry is working in tandem with the Department and I wish them luck.

Chairman

Mr. Whooley may share those questions with his delegation. I welcome Mr. Michael Walsh of the South East Fishermen's Organisation who has not been before the committee previously.

Mr. Michael Walsh

I have been here once before.

Chairman

Sorry, I did not realise you had been here.

Mr. Whooley

I shall address the conservation area and I will let everybody else speak after that for the duration of the meeting. The issue of the 1,500 square miles is critically important and it is driven by the industry. We considered the areas where cod was being caught across the French fleet, the Irish fleet and the UK. In given areas, it was obvious this was a seasonal fishery for the first three months of the year. The majority of fish was being caught in three statistical rectangles and we advocated a closure of those three statistical rectangles, one off the Irish coast and two off the UK coast. I cannot emphasise enough, the key issue here is that this is industry driven and it is a traditional bottom-up approach. It is not required by the scientific advice and we are convinced it will have a major impact on cod, in particular, off the south-east coast of Ireland and off the other coasts. It will also have an impact on other fish stocks because no vessel fishing for white fish will be allowed into those areas. One of the major issues for us in the closure is that it is adequately policed. At times, people forget our future is at stake as much as theirs and we are more interested in stock sustainability than anybody because it is our livelihood and the industry's livelihood. This is a classic example and, I hope it is a flagship for the industry. We can demonstrate that this is the way forward for fisheries management.

Mr. Seán O’Donoghue

I shall address the second part of Deputy O'Donovan's question on the TACs and quota allocations for next year. As the Deputy said, we are working closely with the Minister and the Department on this matter. There are specific issues Mr. Whooley has touched on. I shall deal with those relating to the pelagic species, the mackerel, herring, horse mackerel and blue whiting. A specific regulation is in place, which requires weighing of all pelagic species over ten tonnes. Unfortunately, in the Irish case we have a unique fishery in terms of horse mackerel and we have ended up weighing water as fish. In conjunction with the Minister and the Department we hope to resolve this issue at the December Council and that next year we will have a proposal for weighing of pelagic species that is workable from an Irish point of view and allows fishing to take place in its proper context.

On the issue of TACs and quota and the pelagic species there is good and bad news. The bad news is that the mackerel position is already decided, as that involves an international agreement between the Faroe islands,Norway and the EU, and there is a 23% reduction. I am sure Dr. Paul Connolly will mention that there is a significant problem with the scientific assessment of mackerel and what happened this year. What we will look for next year is to see whether we can address the gaps in the science again and if there are other ways and means of dealing with matters. The Norwegian industry is pursuing the same issue about doing another egg survey next year on an international basis which is a big ordeal. The good news on the pelagic species is that after five years work on the industry’s behalf, with the support of the Department, it appears we will get an adequate blue whiting quota of approximately 76,000 tonnes for next year, which is what the industry wants. We want to be able to match Norway and the other countries that have put a huge effort into blue whiting fisheries in recent years. Even though I have not seen the final proposal, it appears that the final issue on the pelagic species is that there is some misinterpretation of the advice on horse mackerel. It appears as if the Commission is looking at a reduction in horse mackerel whereas the industry was seeking an increase. When we get down to examining the specifics before the December Council, I hope the Commission may have a change of mind and that we will end up with a reasonable quota.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I welcome the representatives. We cannot leave this discussion without referring to the controversy that has arisen in the public mind about pelagic fisheries and the alleged possible over-fishing of the quota; I stress that everything is alleged. It is interesting that newspaper articles are quoting Garda sources talking about blatant fraud and massive over-fishing of stocks, about which many people are talking behind the scenes and off the record. It will be impossible to know the truth about that until some sort of investigation is completed, and I do not want to judge anyone here.

In that regard, I was interested to hear Mr. O'Donoghue's comments regarding——

Chairman

I believe that issue may be sub judice and we will——

Deputy Eamon Ryan

That is why I will not go into it. Mr. O'Donoghue's point about the mackerel was interesting. He said we may be weighing water as fish. Could he explain in more detail his concern in that regard?

On the existing mackerel quota, if the mackerel quota is down 23%, what is the current figure? Is there a concern that that quota would keep our pelagic fleet working? I understand there are approximately 26 vessels in the pelagic fleet and if that is divided out in terms of our quota, do we have a problem in terms of maintaining that fleet? How will that fleet work in terms of the future quota? Do the representatives have a view on the division, so to speak, between our pelagic and polyvalent fleets? Is that something we might examine or is there any difficulty in that regard?

On that issue, Mr. Stephen McCahill, in an article in the Donegal Democrat last week, referred to our initial involvement in the Common Fisheries Policy and a sense that we got it wrong at that stage in not recording our actual pelagic mackerel take. Do we have a problem with that, particularly in regard to mackerel and what we are getting from the European Union? How should that question be addressed? That is my main question on the topical area of pelagic fisheries.

While I welcome conservation and applaud the industry on the movement in that regard, what percentage of Irish waters are we talking about? The representatives might be aware that the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has come out with a major and ephemeral report on the need for us to arrange our commercial fisheries to allow for a long-term viable future. It recommends setting aside some 30% of UK waters from any fishing activity. I imagine its waters are not any more or any less over-fished than ours, with the exception of the North Sea, but we share waters, experiences and types of industries. What would be the equivalent of setting aside 30% of Irish waters and can we begin to think in those terms to provide a long-term future for fishing?

Mr. O’Donoghue

On the weighing of what is horse mackerel or skad rather than mackerel, we have a unique fishery in Ireland. There is nothing similar in any of the other member states. We have a unique Japanese market that requires fish to be caught within 24 hours and brought ashore and when it is being taken from the vessel, there has to be a 1:1 ratio of water to fish. If the regulation that currently applies states that the fish has to be weighed before leaving the port, obviously water will be weighed as fish. We have to find a solution to that problem. It is within the ambit of the regulation to resolve this problem and we, as an industry, are working closely with the Department and the Minister to resolve it, and we hope that can be done. I hope I have explained it in simple terms.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

What is the relative tonnage on horse mackerel and mackerel?

Mr. O’Donoghue

We have approximately 33,000 tonnes of horse mackerel and this year we had 62,000 tonnes of mackerel.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Is that down to approximately 50,000?

Mr. O’Donaghue

It is down to about 48,500 for mackerel, which is down 23%. The Deputy asked if that will create a problem in terms of the viability of the fleet. The answer is that, on the other side, the blue whiting will be an extra dimension in terms of what we catch next year. If we look at it on a like per like basis, we had 43,000 tonnes of blue whiting on 1 January 2004 and when the final decision is made by the Council of Ministers on 21 and 22 December, I hope we will end up with 76,000 tonnes. If we can get the blue whiting and the horse mackerel as the status quo, we can balance to some extent the reduction in the mackerel.

The Deputy asked about the percentage shares and the history in terms of the CFP, all I can say about that is that if we had achieved the same percentage share in the other stocks as we achieved in mackerel, everybody sitting on this side of the table would be very happy because, if my memory is correct, we have 21.3% of the mackerel stocks. If we had that percentage share in all the other stocks we would be very happy. The debate on the review of the CFP debate is over and what we have we have at this stage in terms of percentage share, and we have to make the most of it. Mr. Whooley will deal with the other questions.

Mr. Whooley

On the proposed closure of 30% of UK waters, the principle of closures is something we are actively pursuing. The difference between what we are targeting and the UK proposal is that we are not talking about 30% of our waters. We are talking about fishing mortality. We could close a massive area of water without having any effect on fishing mortality because there may not be any fish in that water. In our closure we have specifically targeted where the fish is being caught and we will achieve an approximate 20% reduction in cod mortality alone in that area. It is targeted and that is why we believe it will work rather than taking what we consider to be almost draconian steps and the very general measures that have been adopted under the Common Fisheries Policy. They have not worked because they have been so general in their nature. What the industry wants is specific targeted programmes that will yield sustainable stocks. That is our objective.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Can I get an answer to the question on the different treatment of the polyvalent and pelagic sectors? Also, on a related question, there has been talk recently that the control mechanisms and measures in our ports, for example in Killybegs, are much more stringent now than might exist for landings in ports in other countries and that we may lose such landings. Are we losing certain landings from other fleets because the method of recording landings in other ports is not as strict? I would be grateful to have an answer first on the question of the polyvalent versus pelagic fleet.

Mr. O’Donoghue

With regard to the polyvalent and the RSW split, that split was agreed over a difficult period of discussions. We had a split on the polyvalent side, which increased in recent years, and ended up with 7,000 tonnes as a flat rate even though we are talking about a 23% reduction in the overall mackerel quota for next year. That 7,000 tonnes remains as a flat rate for the polyvalent fleet. At the time, our organisation would have argued that the 7,000 tonnes was far too much but we are not in favour of reopening that debate at this point. Obviously, the cut that is being introduced for mackerel next year, which we believe is unjustified, will not affect the polyvalent as it will affect the RSWs.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Why was it not just set as one overall quota? Why was it divided between the two?

Mr. O’Donoghue

Traditionally, there was always a certain amount that was taken by the non-tank vessels and, in earlier days, that was quite small. It was only 1,200 to 1,500 tonnes. The 7,000 tonnes was a compromise at the time, which recognised the changes that had happened in the fleet over the last number of years. However, it was a difficult and protracted issue between the different sectors of the industry. The previous Minister, in replying to parliamentary questions on this, set out the figures I have mentioned.

With regard to controls, I have said many times that the controls in Ireland are far more strict and severe than in other member states. However, I would say that, given that I am from Ireland. With regard to the weighing of the pelagics, the big issue for us was the weighing of water as fish. The other member states do not have the same problem because their fish go directly from the ship to the factory and there are weighing systems in the factory.

Ireland was at the forefront in introducing the weighing controls. A strict control regime should apply in all member states, not just Ireland. There is always a question mark as to whether there is a level playing field. However, I must be fair in acknowledging that the level playing field is recognised by the other member states as a major issue. The programme of inspectorate exchanges among member states will be intensified in 2005. This will put to bed, one way or another, whether systems are comparable among the member states.

Ours is a strict and rigid system while the system in some member states is not as rigid. This matter needs to be examined. We require a level playing field, not just in the Community but also outside with other coastal states. These would be Norway and the Faroe Islands in the case of mackerel and Russia and Iceland in the case of blue whiting.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I asked the Minister recently about the landings in Norway and Britain of mackerel under the Irish quota. They were significant, although I cannot remember the exact figure. Is there any way the fish can be landed in Ireland so the fish processing jobs in Killybegs are maintained? Is there a particular reason for such large landings in those other countries?

Mr. O’Donoghue

There are specific reasons for it. One is that the mackerel are a larger size the further north one goes. If one is closer to Norwegian waters or to the Shetlands, one will normally, although not always, catch bigger fish and there is a bigger price for the bigger fish. The size and price of the fish are the two issues that will affect the landings in Killybegs.

However, we should not move away from the issue of weighing water as fish. That will have an effect on landings if it is not resolved. It will mean that people, even if they want to return with mackerel, will believe they will encounter a tougher regime in Killybegs in terms of weighing water than they would in Scotland or Norway. That issue must be addressed and resolved quickly.

Chairman

We will ask Dr. Beamish and his officials about that when they appear before the committee later. I am conscious of the time. I am sorry we could not give the delegation the same time we gave it last year but the programme this year has been exhaustive given the size of the Department we must monitor. Deputy Perry is the new Vice-Chairman of the committee and the Fine Gael spokesperson on the marine.

Deputy Perry

I welcome the fishing industry representatives. The next few weeks will be a critical time with regard to the additional quota. From a business perspective, how difficult is it in the industry with regard to economies of scale and the fact that there is a perception that the industry is going through a difficult time at present with a loss of jobs? What is the main problem for the industry?

Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide

Business conditions in the industry are difficult. The general business environment in which the fishing industry is expected to operate is one of uncertainty with regard to how much we are allowed to catch from year to year. That makes any type of medium-term planning extremely difficult. One example is a proposal which has been made by the Commission for this year's December Council. It relates to the deep water fishery for Ireland, which we prosecuted to the level of 5,500 tonnes two years ago as a developmental fishery. The proposed Irish quota for that fishery in 2005 is one hundredth of that figure — 57 tonnes in the main areas. That is an extreme difficulty.

The second difficulty is that we have faced extraordinary increases in input prices, for example, fuel costs this year. Unlike other industries, we do not have the ability to pass that on to the customer. We are price takers in the European and world markets in that a large proportion of European requirements are met from outside the EU, often from low cost economies. There is an ever increasing range of regulation and costs imposed in terms of, for example, standards of vessel, which are unavoidable in many cases but sometimes appear to be rather bureaucratic, and a limit on the number of ports where one can land certain species. That can often mean being obliged to sail considerable distances. Taken together, that means we are operating in a difficult framework where it is difficult to make rational investment decisions. The introduction of some stability, in terms of advice, quotas and the structures under which we operate, is a prerequisite for the survival of the industry.

Deputy Perry

Mr. O'Donoghue referred to the non-recording of by-catch and the weighing of water as fish. If there is to be parity of treatment in Europe, it is astonishing that these anomalies have not been dealt with before now. Is that not a major restriction which should be sorted out at the meeting in December?

Mr. Frank Doyle

It is not all negative in the business. We have had a few tough years but the proposed figures this year show at least stability, if not a turnaround. A significant number of plus signs are showing up. One can argue about the accuracy or otherwise of scientific advice; I told the committee last year that I believe scientific advice is, to a large extent, a guesstimate rather than an estimate. I have seen nothing in the meantime to change my view significantly. Nevertheless, the figures are showing better health than they did 12 months ago.

With regard to the business aspect, there are background factors. There are operational costs, for example, which cannot be passed on. One cannot pass on the price of fuel. Fuel is the single biggest operational cost on most fishing vessels. It is outside one's control. However, it must be dealt with in whatever way possible. Another aspect is that not only can one not pass on the price of inputs, one has no influence over the price one can get for the product. In many cases, while the Community is seriously deficient in its own internal production, resulting in perhaps 60% of Community requirements being brought in from third countries, nevertheless, the sale price is extremely weak — not just here but throughout the Community. That seems to be a paradox in economic terms. Normally the law of supply and demand suggests that if one goes up the other goes down and vice versa.

Chairman

I must stop Mr. Doyle for a second as we are required in the House for a vote.

Mr. Doyle

Okay.

Chairman

Some Deputies will have to leave the committee but I will ask Deputy Perry, who is paired, to continue chairing the meeting. As soon as we have finished the vote, we must invite Dr. Beamish to give his views on the fishing industry as soon as possible. Then we will hear from the Minister immediately afterwards. Please excuse me.

Deputy Perry took the Chair.

Vice-Chairman (Deputy Perry)

Please continue, Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Doyle

As I was saying, in normal economic terms one would expect that if the supply of something decreases, the price goes up and vice versa. It does not seem to be happening in this case, however, because the supply has decreased along with the price. To a large extent, that appears to be due to the import levels of fish without particular restriction and to the substitutability of one product for another. That is a fact of life. In so far as the general system of control is concerned, we have been arguing for years that there is a dire need for a fair and equal system of control throughout the Community. That is because there are wildly different control systems and cultures in various jurisdictions. There is a plethora of legislation in member states that must be dealt with. The Commission is dealing with the issue of getting a level playing field in place but it is an extraordinarily complex matter. It involves not only Community regulations but also domestic legislation in order to deal with these matters at local level.

The question of enforceability at sea and in port also arises. In that regard, it is fair to say that the Irish control system is one of the better ones in Europe. There is no doubt about that. In addition, Ireland has possibly the most severe system of penalties in the EU. Therefore, as regards the control pecking order, we do very well compared with many of the others involved.

Vice-Chairman

Our system provides for draconian fines compared with our friends in Europe. It is very much a criminal offence here while it is only a mandatory——

Mr. Doyle

For some peculiar reason, here it is a criminal offence, whereas in other member states it is regarded as a petty misdemeanour. There is a huge difference. In some countries it actually pays to be caught because the fine is so low. The sanction is so poor that there is no deterrent element whatsoever in the system.

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

As regards the criminal nature of charges which are faced by Irish fishermen, it is important to place on record the fact that the industry we represent is no more criminal in its intent or behaviour than any other group of people one might pick out of the population. We are not in a position to comment on the particular nature of the investigation or any outcome that may arise. However, I speak for all of us here in saying that, however the chips may fall, we do not and will not accept the characterisation that some media have outrageously made, in the absence of any facts, suggesting that our industry is peopled by criminals and hoodlums.

Vice-Chairman

That point is very well made. There is some restriction on the monthly allocations of pelagic stock though a quota management system. Does managing a monthly quota cut-off present a difficulty for pelagic landings?

Mr. O’Donoghue

If I may say so, the Vice-Chairman's question might be directed more at white fish rather than the pelagic varieties.

Vice-Chairman

Yes.

Mr. O’Donoghue

That is because much work has been done on the pelagic side. Committees have been established to advise on the management of such fisheries. Unfortunately, we have a monthly quota system for white fish which I firmly believe, and I know a number of my colleagues agree with me, needs to be examined seriously and addressed. Its operation is making life extremely difficult for white fish operators who are not on a level playing field with the French, Spanish or UK vessels. The Vice-Chairman is right. The monthly quota is a major issue concerning white fish rather than pelagic varieties.

Senator Kenneally

I have only a few brief questions to ask as nearly everything has been covered. I was interested to hear Mr. Whooley say that the industry thrashed out the issue of conservation and came up with this new conservation area. Does that mean that, despite that so many different organisations are represented at this meeting, they are coming together as one overall body to do that? I would be delighted to hear if that were the case because it has been to the detriment of the industry over the years that it has been so fragmented. Mr. Whooley also said that it was affecting cod conservation, mostly in the south east. Perhaps Mr. Michael Walsh would like to address the views of fishermen in his area.

Mr. Whooley also referred to deep water species, but what species is he talking about? How far out are they? Will most of our fleet be able to catch them or will they be restricted to a certain number of vessels?

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

My colleague, Mr. Michael Walsh, will deal with those questions.

Deputy Broughan

We hope to discuss the current situation in Irish Ferries which vaguely affects our trade and the marine workforce. That debate will take place shortly in the House, so I apologise in advance for my absence. I will read the record of the committee's discussions later.

Mr. Walsh

To answer Senator Kenneally's question about the Celtic Sea cod closure, he is correct in saying that it predominantly affects the south east of Ireland. The fisheries organisations in Ireland, France and the UK have come together, mainly because they see the restrictions on days at sea as being an inappropriate means of protecting fish stocks. We have discussed this with our own members at great length. It is without doubt a great difficulty for fishermen in the south east to sacrifice this. In the long term, however, we believe it will have benefits and will deliver a good result by conserving cod stocks. It will be far more beneficial to fishing in future than days at sea regulations or encouraging fishermen to use smaller mesh to get more days at sea. It will be a difficulty for the south-east fishermen, nonetheless. We hope to have some kind of cohabitation agreement with the other organisations involved so the various types of fisheries can work together in that area. It is an area in which 40 or 50 of our vessels have fished, mainly from January through to the end of March or April. As I said, we hope to have an agreement so that the boats can continue to work together outside the closed area, but we support the closure and believe it will work and is the way forward for the fishing industry.

Vice-Chairman

I seek clarification on the by-catch. When the by-catch is not recorded, does that present a difficulty in terms of scientific information?

Mr. Whooley

From our point of view, the more complete the data to which scientists have access, the more accurate the output from that data. It is quite clear that if there is a discard issue which is not being recorded and not being input accurately into the scientific advice, as in any equation, the results will not be realistic. At times, we have a difficulty trying to convince our scientists that there are more fish or that this should work. I think the situation has improved and, to be fair, we are working closely with the scientists to try to build a relationship. It is a European issue but, hopefully, it will reach a stage where discards are recorded and we will have a more accurate assessment of what exactly is happening.

Vice-Chairman

What is the percentage? Is the discard 1% or 2%?

Mr. Whooley

It is a hard to know as it varies across fisheries. In some fisheries, there are no discards. As we saw in previous recovery plans, the smaller the mesh size one had, the more days one got, which was farcical — again, a generalisation in management terms which just does not work. One cannot say what the amount of discarded fish is in our fisheries as it varies considerably.

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

One part of the question related to deep water fisheries. Deep water fisheries generally take place quite a distance from our shores. The depth would be from 400 to 800 fathoms. There is a limited number of vessels in the Irish fleet which are in a position to prosecute those. These would be modern, whitefish vessels of between 30 and 40 metres and they make up a small component of the fleet. From 2003-04, such vessels accounted for 3% of the European catch. We moved into this fishery only in recent years. The French, Norwegians, Icelanders and the Faroese had established many years of fisheries in these areas.

That particular part of the fleet represented a very valuable diversification in so far as it provided a source of income for those boats. However, it had the double benefit of taking the pressure off the quota stocks which would otherwise have been targeted. Indeed, a number of boats were introduced into the fleet specifically for that reason.

There are valid arguments in regard to the sustainability of the deep water fisheries but we are looking at a progression from 100% to 1% in terms of our catch in a two year period. The scientific community state that it is currently not possible to give scientific advice for specific fisheries for deep sea species. Notwithstanding the precautionary principle, what is being done here is an effective closure of a numerically small fishery in terms of the number of vessels but quite an important fishery both now and as we move forward for the Irish fleet. It is something we strongly challenge, and will continue to do so.

Vice-Chairman

I thank you for coming today and wish you well in the forthcoming negotiations. I am quite certain the industry is ably represented. Sustainability of jobs and job creation in the industry are critically important. I would like to think the committee will support you in whatever way it can. I look forward to working with you in the next year to two years.

Deputy O'Flynn took the Chair.

Chairman

I thank the delegation and apologise for the disruption. I welcome the officials from the Department, including Dr. Beamish. One could say that our meeting on fisheries is now an annual event. Before we begin I draw everyone's attention to the fact that, while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such as a way as to make him or her identifiable. I thank the vice chairman, Deputy Perry, for taking charge.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Connolly from the Marine Institute will give a brief outline of the scientific position of fish stocks. I will then continue with the Commission's proposal.

Chairman

The Minister will appear at 5.30 p.m., so we have 25 minutes to deal with this section. I welcome Dr. Paul Connolly, Ms Josephine Kelly and Mr. Seamus O'Reilly.

Dr. Paul Connolly

In terms of the scientific advice for fish stock, rather than go through them all individually I will go through it area-wise and pull out a few key ones which will drive the thinking for Christmas.

If we look at the Irish Sea, cod is still in a critical state and that will drive the decision-making for fishing in the Irish Sea in terms of protecting cod. Another stock in the Irish Sea which is in a very poor state and which is constantly overlooked because of its low economic value is whiting. This stock is in a very critical state. Many fish are being discarded in the nephrops fishery. This is an issue which will probably need to be tackled fairly soon.

Turning to the Celtic Sea area, one of the main drivers here will be the state of cod. I wish to emphasise the point Mr. Whooley made. One of the great developments this year was that last January scientists in the industry sat down together to talk about what would happen in December. We have worked hard with the industry over the years to develop these closed boxes. They are realistic closures and they will reduce fishing mortality in cod, which is good. When similar closed areas were used in the Irish Sea, they were not effective because there were too many derogations. I support Mr. Whooley's comments on the cod closures. The Commission will like it and it will be in operation next year.

The news is reasonably good regarding a number of key Celtic Sea stocks, particularly haddock, monkfish and cod. We must be thankful to mother nature because significant year classes in haddock and monkfish have been coming into the fishery. Mother nature has allowed successful spawnings in these stocks and that has helped the state of the stocks. As scientists, we still think these stocks are overfished but significant numbers of small fish are coming into the fishery and that has greatly helped matters.

Traditionally, we have advised on cod and whiting in the Irish Sea. However, scientists are adopting an ecosystem approach, which will examine the Irish Sea as such a system and how fisheries should be managed in this area. That is the first baby step towards adopting a full ecosystem approach. We will talk about managing fisheries in the Irish Sea and the Celtic Sea rather than simply cod, whiting or monkfish in the years ahead.

The formulation of ICES scientific advice was an important development this year. The fishing industry for the first time went behind closed doors and witnessed how the advice is formulated. It is healthy that the industry should see how scientists work, what assumptions they make and how the advice is formulated. We have worked closely with the industry to come up with effective measures that will protect cod and increase the stock. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the regional advisory councils, which will come into being next year. They present a great opportunity for scientists to work with industry.

Deep water fish are very different from cod and whiting. They have completely different life histories. They live at great depths for a long time. Black scabbard live to between 30 and 40 years and grenadiers to more than 100. They do not mature until they are 40 and they have low reproductive potential. They are, therefore, vulnerable to over-exploitation. Scientists have always been concerned about the exploitation of deep water fish. That does not mean we oppose such fishing. New Zealand had done well to manage to its orange roughy fisheries. We are working closely with New Zealand officials on a major project next year. We should take the lessons learnt from New Zealand and apply them to Ireland. We must work with the industry but deep water species must be managed differently from traditional stocks.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Connolly. I apologise for rushing him but perhaps he could e-mail his presentation to the committee.

Dr. Beamish

I circulated a presentation to members. Two significant regulations will be before the December Council. The first is the standard total allowable catch and quota regulation, a 200-page document covering all fisheries from the Arctic to Africa which it is difficult to summarise in a few minutes. The second document relates to a new 20-page regulation on deep sea fish species and deep water fisheries. It covers approximately 2 million square kilometres of sea from the Arctic to the sub-tropics.

The process for setting the TACs and quotas for next year is as follows. The science is formulated in late autumn, scientific advice is made available internationally, the Commission brings forward its proposal, which is the regulation to which I referred, and that goes to Council for disposal. The proposal covers the quotas and TACs, the effort limitations — the days at sea limits on the vessels fishing those quotas — and specific controls that apply to particular fisheries for 2005.

The issue of Hague preferences, which will be discussed at the December Council, is important for Ireland. All members states have a defined share of each TAC but, in recognition of the underdevelopment of their fisheries, Ireland and parts of the UK were given a greater entitlement to higher shares when quota stocks fell to low levels. These shares must be negotiated annually and it is becoming more difficult to negotiate as stock levels fall generally. Strong resistance from other member states can be expected this year in regard to the application of the Hague preferences.

The overall picture, as the representative organisations stated earlier, is mixed and it is not as simple as is sometimes portrayed. Of the 30 main whitefish stocks of importance to Ireland, the TACs have been increased for eight, reduced for 15 and unchanged for seven. With regard to pelagic stocks, the TAC for blue whiting has been increased while that for mackerel and Celtic Sea herring has been reduced and it is static for the other herring stocks. It is a complex picture.

While many different developments are taking place in individual fisheries, the total fishing opportunities likely to be available to the Irish fishing fleet in 2005 are static. I have set out in a number of tables on an area basis, which tends to be important for fleets and coastal communities, the fishing opportunities in the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea and the north west to the west of Scotland. The situation is different in each. There are problems in the Irish Sea in regard to round fish species while the key round fish stocks have increased in the south west. The position in the north west is the stock status is quite low.

With regard to pelagic stocks, the mackerel quota has been significantly reduced to 46,000 for 2005. The quotas have not been determined for a number of stocks because they are the subject of ongoing international negotiations. There is a reduction in the Celtic Sea herring quota and I also expect a reduction in horse mackerel, but blue whiting quota has been increased.

The other element in the regulation is effort limitation, which is days at sea. The Commission has increasingly seen this as a vital tool in conservation in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Such limitations were in place in the north west and the Irish Sea this year and the Commission proposes to reduce the number of days for beam trawlers and certain trawlers in the north west. In addition, provision was built into the regulation this year whereby trawlers in the Irish Sea were given a two day bonus as compensation for a closed box in the north-western Irish Sea to protect cod, which meant it was not fishable at the time it was most productive to do so. That has not been included in next year's proposal.

The deep sea species regulation before the council covers a major area of water from the Arctic to the sub-tropics. Deep sea in scientific literature is referred to as waters under 200 metres but most of the fisheries in the deep water for deep sea species are at approximately 400 metres. A new proposal was published at the end of November, which sets out limitations for many of the species in these areas. The fishing effort for vessels fishing on these species has been reduced.

Closed areas are proposed for the fishery for orange roughy, which is a significant fishery. The total deep sea fisheries for Ireland would have resulted in approximately €5 million worth of landings in 2003, of which the orange roughy fishery accounted for approximately €400,000. The proposal is to reduce the orange roughy quota by 81% on the basis of scientific advice and, in addition, to add closed areas to the north and west of Ireland. These measures will be combined with effort cuts, which would result in a significant reduction on the fishery in 2005.

Deputy O’Donovan

I have two questions, the first of which is for Dr. Connolly. Are the scientific measures being taken in conjunction with the industry and the Department helping to stabilise fish stocks and how are they beneficial to the recovery of certain stocks? Is science fully up to date as to how the various species change and evolve or are we still in a learning process?

Years ago, the Department and the fisheries industry were examining the new phenomenon of deep water fish such as roughy and so on. How do our fishing quotas and our notion of conservation tie in with the access of the Spanish and French fleets to deep water species? Following the innovative and forward thinking initiative of the industry, in conjunction with the Department, on the 1,500 square miles off the south-east coast in an effort to conserve certain stocks over a three month period, is it envisaged from a scientific point of view that, with the co-operation of the UK, the British Isles and France, such a measure might, even if it operates on a pilot scheme basis, stymie or stabilise the decline of certain stocks?

Chairman

I will bank the questions.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I have looked forward to meeting Dr. Beamish and Dr. Connolly. It would be beneficial if Dr. Connolly's presentation could be e-mailed to members of the committee.

I was seeking some good news from Dr. Connolly, particularly in regard to cod. While the measures we introduced may not have been sufficiently strong, and there have been derogations and so on, perhaps we might begin to see some recovery in cod stocks. Is there any improvement in cod stocks? What is the thinking behind the 23% reduction in the mackerel quota? I imagine something has been agreed with the Faroe Islands and Norway, even though they are not directly related to the European Council meeting. What is the scientific explanation for the increase in the whiting quota?

Can Dr. Beamish indicate how much money the State has spent in developing or subsidising new deep sea vessels to go after the orange roughy quota? People have been saying for a number of years that this fishery was completely unsustainable. One cannot catch 100 year old fish and expect them to recover in great numbers. To what degree does the State support the development of these fisheries and did we see the reduction coming, based on the simple science that one cannot keep catching 100 year old fish?

In regard to the recent judgment from the European Commission which cited Ireland on four grounds, including failure to prohibit fishing vessels flying the flag when the quotas allocated were deemed to be exhausted, failure to institute criminal proceedings against the masters of vessels who infringe the quota restrictions, failure to put in place the criteria and detailed routes for the use of fishing quotas and failure to enforce the compliance of committee rules on aquatic marine living resources by the monitoring activities, I was surprised that we did not respond to an application from the Commission in March 2001 when these accusations were raised. I understand a case arose many years previously, but the judgment stated that the Department did not respond. I would like to hear the reason for this. If our enforcement measures are among the toughest in the European Union, what does it say about the monitoring of landings in other ports?

Are our fisheries engaged in bottom trawling in deep waters where we are trawling on the surface? Many conservationists and environmentalists say this is not part of the ecosystem approach being taken by the Commission. Has this issue been raised at the Council meetings?

Senator Kenneally

I want to home in on cod conservation because Dr. Connolly agreed with what the industry was proposing in this regard. In fighting this country's case in Brussels in regard to TACs and quotas, are we saying that while we are giving away something, we are prepared to take a bit of pain? I would have thought that tactically, while we may have agreed among ourselves that perhaps we could eventually go along with the proposal, we should have tried to get something in return. Can there be a quid pro quo for agreeing to the proposal?

Given the number of species for which we are losing our quota in the coming year, how are other EU countries performing? I presume they will face the same cuts as Ireland.

Dr. Connolly

I will try to answer some of the ten questions. In answer to the first question, the scientific measures being taken, in conjunction with the industry, are working and will bring stability. The Celtic Sea is a good example of industry and science working together and both being realistic. The industry has been sufficiently realistic to introduce effective closed areas that will make a difference. The problem is that there were not effective closed areas in the Irish Sea. We have moved on in that context.

The answer to the second question on whether science is up to date with all species is generally no. As scientists, we never know enough about the species. It is a continuous collection of data and we are dealing with a dynamic situation in the ocean which changes from month to month and year to year. It is extremely difficult to have the full picture.

The third question related to the access of the French and Spanish to deep water species. The French do quite well out of the TACs for deep water species because they are calculated on the basis of track record, and they simply have a better track record. One can go into the fairness of that, but they have the track record.

Senator Kenneally

I apologise but I must leave for a vote in the Seanad. I will read the transcript of the remainder of the meeting.

Dr. Connolly

The fourth question referred to measures working with the UK. I noticed a headline on Sky News, "Big closed areas in the North Sea". The news story dealt with the reduction of the amount of fishing. Closed areas and marine protected areas will become a major issue in fisheries and the environment.

The news for Irish Sea cod is bad because the stock has not recovered. It is still at a very low level. We have seen a slight upward movement but it is still far below the level at which we would like to see it. That news is bad for the Irish Sea. The news of Celtic Sea cod is much better. Mother Nature has brought in a few good year classes and work with industry and science has helped matters. The closed areas have been shown to be effective.

The 23% reduction in the mackerel quota was driven by an egg survey result. The mackerel assessment is scientifically carried out by scientists doing an egg survey every three years. The egg survey carried out this year showed the lowest level of eggs in the sea. That calculation was then applied to two different models. There was great scientific debate as to which model was appropriate. Each gave different results. Eventually, being conservative and because it probably was a more robust model, we went for the model which gave the 23% reduction after science had initially gone for the other model, which gave the status quo. There is still debate about this and I can see further work being done on it in 2005.

Why do the TACs for whiting increase? Sometimes TACs are set which do not follow science. Whiting in the Celtic Sea is a classic example of that. Sometimes the TAC is far in excess of the scientific advice. I do not know the reason for that.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Did scientists want it? There is almost a doubling in the TAC.

Dr. Connolly

Scientists give advice at one level and sometimes the TAC ends up at another level.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Is this a political decision?

Dr. Connolly

It may be political or socio-economic. Science is only one part of the jigsaw. We give advice which may not be heeded. In the case of Celtic Sea whiting our advice was not heeded.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Is the whiting a migratory fish?

Dr. Connolly

Is the Deputy talking about whiting or blue whiting?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

It is the blue whiting numbers which have doubled.

Dr. Connolly

Blue whiting doubled because there has been a tremendous influx of year classes and the stock has hugely increased. Over the last five years, there have been consecutively high year classes. That is the reason for the increase. That is following the scientific advice.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Where is the increase in the whiting? I had not noticed that.

Dr. Connolly

There is an increase in Celtic Sea whiting. Irish Sea whiting is different.

There is evidence that deep water trawling impacts on the ecosystem. One side of the debate considers deep water trawling to ruin corals and so on. There is some evidence for that but not enough to place a blanket ban on trawling. The two camps in the debate are throwing mud at each other. There needs to be a coming together. We need to collect the evidence and to come up with a management plan for the deep water. In New Zealand, industry works with managers, scientists and the people concerned with the environment to come up with a consensus view on how to manage these things. No one's view can be excluded in finding an ultimate solution for the management of these things.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Is our deep water fleet bottom trawling?

Dr. Connolly

Yes. There are one or two long liners but the majority are trawling.

The last question relates to the cod conservation area. We are bringing this matter to Brussels. We ask what benefit we get out of it. If we did not have this work with the industry and the industry initiative we could be looking at a complete blanket effort regulation coming into the Celtic Sea area, which would hurt even more. It has been very proactive and effective in building stock. It is a good way of moving and operating in Brussels.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

By just having a demersal ban rather than a pelagic plan in those waters is there not a difficulty in monitoring? On a satellite one would not know whether a boat was——

Dr. Connolly

This will be absolutely dependent on proper control and enforcement. If people fish in the box the whole thing will fall apart. It will rely on the goodwill of the industry to buy into it and make sure it works.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Will there be herring fishing there?

Dr. Connolly

There will be herring fishing but they will not take cod. They will be fishing off the top. Most of the herring fishing will not take place in these boxes.

Dr. Beamish

The issue of blue whiting and the increase in the TAC was raised by Deputy Ryan. This is partly a resource issue. It is also partly a management issue. What has happened is symptomatic for management of many of these fisheries. Blue whiting straddles EU, international, Faroese, Icelandic and Norwegian waters and, in addition to all of those parties, the Russians also participate in it. Some years ago, the EU unilaterally set a total catch for its own fleet in its own waters and limited its own fleet in international waters. All the other parties expanded in that situation. The EU has been trying to drive a negotiation process with all of the parties to place an overall sustainable management agreement in place, while everyone else has expanded. This year, the EU set what it regards as its share cap of EU and international waters. That is intended to drive the debate forward in getting an overall sustainable management of the blue whiting fishery. Norway, in particular, has had very large outtakes in recent years and the Faroes and Iceland have also entered the fray. Managing some of these fisheries which straddle the EU other waters is a wider challenge than the EU can handle on its own.

Deep sea waters cover approximately 2 million square kilometres. Within those, one has large subterranean mountain ranges and sea mounts with their unique ecology which is only partially understood. Some of these have fishing and some do not. New Zealand, for example, has started to fish for deep sea species in the North Atlantic. Other parties outside the EU are also fishing in those areas. The challenge of managing those very large areas requires a broad international response to agreeing a management regime for the deep water fisheries. The proposal presented to the Council involves setting total allowable catches and quotas for some species, some closed areas and some reduced general effort on these fisheries.

The biological characteristics of the stocks vary from species to species. What is a sustainable level of fisheries on individual stocks varies and is still being researched. Celtic Sea whiting decreased a little this year, although it has been high for the last few years. The population seems to have expanded in the last number of years in the Celtic Sea and is at quite a high level historically. Another phenomenon we have seen this year is a very large increase in the haddock stock in the Celtic Sea. There are ecosystem and wider environmental elements happening here which are, perhaps, only partially understood.

The judgment for the European Commission goes back to the mid-1990s and relates to relatively small elements of percentage over-fishing of the TAC due to the management of some of these fisheries. Ireland responded formally a number of times to the Commission over the years in relation to this case, which took a long time to come to fruition. Some of the initial stocks in respect of which the Commission was citing over-fishing were subsequently removed on the basis that mistakes had been made by the Commission and that data returns satisfied the Commission. This is part of a wider picture whereby the Commission is generally becoming more proactive in taking prosecutions against all member states. Ireland is no different from most of the coastal fishing member states in that regard. This is part of a general approach by the Commission in the reformed CFP to take a stronger line in relation to fisheries control.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I made the point that Ireland did not reply to the Commission's reasoned opinion of 12 March 2001 and that as a result the Commission decided to bring the present action.

Dr. Beamish

I did not refer to that matter as I believed we were addressing the Council in terms of what will take place in two weeks' time. The Minister addressed that issue by way of reply to a parliamentary question.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Beamish, Dr. Connolly and their officials for attending the committee today. I also thank the various industry groups that have attended and again apologise for the shortage of time. It will be noted the spokespersons are currently engaged in a debate in the Dáil on the dispute at Irish Ferries. It is hoped we will have more time to discuss matters next year when we meet again. The committee should set aside a three hour meeting for future deliberations on the matter as we have not done justice to the fishing industry today, for which I apologise.

Deputy O’Donovan

Would it be possible to meet a little earlier?

Chairman

It will be a matter for the committee to decide its work programme on 14 December and to consider it during the Christmas recess. When agreeing the work programme in January we will pencil in a date to meet the fishing industry. We will agree matters such as time after Christmas. The committee has been under great pressure this year and has not yet completed the energy module, a pressing matter. It has been a difficult year for the committee in terms of taking control of its brief. We have already published an important report on broadband and are currently engaged in a report on drift and draft net fishing, another item of interest to the fishing and marine industries.