JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 11 Jan 2006

Marine Institute: Presentation.

Chairman

Dr. Paul Connolly from the Marine Institute will now make a short presentation on scientific advice in respect of fisheries total annual catches and quotas. I welcome him to the joint committee. His presentation will focus on the science behind the December Council agreement on TACs and national quotas. Before he begins, I thank him and his fellow colleagues at the Marine Institute most sincerely for facilitating our visit last September to the new Marine Institute building where we learned more about the work of the institute. The committee is very grateful. This short presentation will be followed by a question and answer session, in which Deputy Eamon Ryan will lead off.

I draw everybody's attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before the committee, which cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, 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. I also give a further reminder to members in regard to declarations of interest. Under the provisions of section 7 of the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001, a member who proposes to participate, either by speaking or voting in the proceedings of a committee, and has a material interest in the subject matter of the proceedings is required to make a declaration of interest. I now invite Dr. Connolly to begin his presentation.

Dr. Paul Connolly

I ask members to bear with me.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

We have encountered difficulties on a number of occasions in setting up PowerPoint presentations. There was a problem at the previous meeting when ProfessorAwerbuch was here. Can we organise our business in such a way that presentations can be set up in advance? Perhaps this is a bigger issue for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. It is very difficult for those who have to speak and may make them more nervous.

Chairman

I have raised the matter before and intend to do so again at the working group of committee chairmen. It is unacceptable that we in the Oireachtas should have to put up with a presentation on a wall when we could have plasma screens and every technological facility to allow a disc to be inserted in order that a proper presentation may be made by delegates appearing before the committee. I will raise the matter again today, on behalf of Deputy Ryan, with the director of committees to see what progress has been made in that regard.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Perhaps, as a committee, we should formally back the case being made.

Chairman

We have done so before. I propose that we forward a letter to the director of committees, the commission or whoever is responsible, asking that these facilities be provided. I understand such facilities have been installed in committee room No. 1 but it should be the case in each committee room.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

It should not be the job of the Oireachtas Commission to manage this.

Chairman

No. We will raise the matter again. Perhaps the work is in train. I do not wish to be unfair to anybody in that regard. I invite Dr. Connolly to commence his presentation.

Dr. Connolly

I was asked to talk for about 15 to 20 minutes and give an overview of the state of fish stocks and what happened at last December's Council of Fisheries Ministers where effectively TACs, total allowable catches, were set for the following year. In the time available it is not possible to give a comprehensive overview but I would like to leave the committee with a few key messages, one on the state of fish stocks, one giving a flavour of how the discussions panned out for Irish fishermen, and one on effort, a management instrument from the European Union effectively limiting the number of days fishermen can spend at sea.

The simplification of the Common Fisheries Policy rules was discussed in December. This is something everyone would welcome as the plethora of rules confuse everyone.

The waters around Ireland are some of the most productive fishing grounds in the world. In 2004, 1.4 million tonnes of fish, worth €1.5 billion, were landed from the waters around Ireland by all fleets of the European Union. Irish landings were worth €200 million. Irish waters are important fishing grounds and highly productive.

What drives the science to which the European Union listens before it sets TACs? Sharks are important when we talk about deep water species, pelagic fisheries such as mackerel, fish that live in the body of the water, and fish that live on the bottom such as cod in the Irish Sea, to the west of Scotland and the Celtic Sea.

Deputy F. O’Malley

Are we talking about national or EU fish stocks?

Dr. Connolly

We are talking about EU fish stocks.

An important component of the fisheries advice this year is that we must look at the entire system in which fish live. We are now worried about shark stocks. Sharks are caught when fishing for cod and the numbers of porbeagle, spurdog and basking sharks in the waters around Ireland have plummeted. This must be taken into consideration when talking about fishing activity. The scientific advice is that there should be no fishing unless we can be assured fishermen will not catch these shark species. The same problem arose with deep water fishing. We are worried about the state of deep water shark stocks, specifically Portuguese dogfish and leafscale gulper shark species. Their numbers have declined substantially in the past ten years. Serious concerns on the part of scientists will lead to the closure of fisheries unless it can be shown that these sharks are not being caught.

There is no way we can go through all the figures on pelagic stocks but these are the most important economically for Ireland in terms of the mackerel and horse mackerel fishery. While we are concerned about the high mortality rate in these stocks, generally they are in a healthy state compared to others. Overall, TACs for this year are roughly the same as for 2005. This does not mean, however, we have no problems with pelagic stocks; it just means we are not too concerned about them. If we look at fish that live on the seabed such as cod, plaice and haddock, the story is very different. I will go through the main areas, the Irish Sea, the seas to the west of Scotland and the Celtic Sea, to give a perspective on what is happening.

The critical stocks in the Irish Sea are cod, which have collapsed, whiting, where new issues are coming up, and spurdog. Scientists are moving away from the idea of just managing cod stocks towards managing the Irish Sea as a system. We must be concerned about everything living in it and should be concerned about spurdog — effectively dogfish — as well as cod and whiting stocks, because they are all part of the ecosystem we must manage. The diagram displays the stocks of cod, whiting and haddock in the Irish Sea. The colour red indicates that there is serious scientific concern about cod stocks. The colour green means we are happy about the state of the stock and think it can be exploited but in the following slides the emerging question marks will feature as a result of the deterioration in catch statistics with which scientists must work. It is a major problem — in the case of some stocks we can no longer give scientific advice because the data are so poor. Looking at the diagram for the critical stocks of cod, whiting and spurdog to the west of Scotland, cod stocks are driving thinking on everything because they are in such a critical state. We are happy with the state of haddock stocks but there are many question marks. Scientists do not know the state of the stock because of the poor data available.

In the Celtic Sea the state of the stocks in spurdog, megrim, cod, sole, plaice and Celtic Sea herring is critical. Plaice and sole stocks are coloured red, while stocks that are healthy, whiting and sole, are coloured green. Look again, however, at the question marks; we do not know the state of the stocks. It is a feature of scientific advice in recent years that more question marks are appearing against many more stocks. We are also concerned about megrim, angler fish and hake stocks in the Celtic Sea.

The Council and Commission provided for a 15% reduction against most of the stocks. Rather than look at each stock individually, they stated that if there were worries about the stock or it could not be shown as being in a healthy state, the catch would be reduced by 15% until scientists could show stocks had returned to a healthy state. Against most of the stocks, 15% is the maximum reduction, with 8% being the minimum.

The state of deep water stocks was discussed in December. Traditional stocks are on the shelf but with bigger ships and advanced technology, it is now possible to fish to a depth of 1.2 kilometres, whereas traditionally it was only possible to a depth of 200 metres. The industry is exploiting completely new species which are completely different from cod and haddock and very vulnerable. Orange roughy live to be 180 and do not spawn until they are 30. Some of the orange roughy being caught were born when Napoleon Bonaparte died. These stocks are vulnerable and the European Union is now worried about them.

Another major discussion point in December concerned gill net fisheries in this deep water, where hundreds of kilometres of net are being laid along the west coast of Ireland and Scotland as far as Norway for months at a time to catch fish, many of which rot away, particularly when gear is lost, causing enormous damage to the deep water environment. A major outcome of the December discussions was a complete ban on this type of fishing and an incentive for scientists to examine the issue in greater detail this year and engage in a review of the deep water system. That was a positive result.

For demersal stocks such as cod and haddock, the change between 2005 and 2006 was about 1%. The change in pelagic stocks was about the same. There was no change in deep water stocks, while the figures for mixed consumption stocks such as blue whiting were reduced substantially as a result of new agreements between Norway and the European Union.

Scientists are concerned about the state of stocks. While the changes between 2005 and 2006 were minimal, that does not mean there are no problems.

Deep water stocks are a cause of major concern chiefly because of the deep water gill nets. A ban imposed on the vessels using these nets reduced by 10% the number of days they could spend at sea. This will be re-examined in 2006. Fishing effort refers to the number of days vessels may spend at sea. The main instrument the Commission uses to manage fish stocks is total allowable catches, namely how many fish can be taken out of the sea, but it is more effective to state the number of days a vessel may spend at sea.

The Commission is introducing fishing effort to tell fleets they may spend only ten or 15 days a month at sea. It has imposed the following significant reductions on the number of days vessels may spend at sea, 15% for cod vessels, 5% for white fish vessels, 8% for the beam trawler fleet, 10% each for the gill net and nephrops fleets.

While the TACs were stable from 2005 to 2006 the fishing effort reduced. The Commission will continuously reduce fishing effort and TACs until scientists can show that the stocks have increased. Another important positive decision made in December was to simplify the myriad regulations attached to the Common Fisheries Policy. The Commission will review progress on this every six months.

We need to focus on the Irish Sea as an entity rather than on managing cod and plaice. In a system that has never been fished there are plenty of big fish, including sharks, and a healthy bottom fauna. Fishing activity and climate change, however, may result in a system which supports only jellyfish. The scientific belief is that we are at a mid-point between these extremes. We have removed many of the big fish species from our ecosystem and the challenge for scientists and managers is to reverse the process by which the ecosystem will support only jellyfish.

In a positive development scientists, fishermen and managers are working together to establish regional advisory councils throughout the EU to draw up management plans and ensure sustainable exploitation of the stocks. These councils are important fora for discussion because it is critical that science and industry work together.

We have an acute problem in giving proper advice on the state of the stocks because the data are very poor. We need to protect juvenile fish, stop discarding and practise real time management. For example, if scientific surveys show a large number of baby haddock we need to alert the industry and close off certain areas. Everyone agrees to that but there is no way to implement it. The TACs and fishing effort control are beginning to bite. A major push is needed in control and enforcement, in other words, the industry must adhere to the regulations.

I hope I have given the committee an idea of the state of fish stocks. In summary, pelagic stocks are in reasonably good shape but that does not mean there is no problem. There are some major problems in demersal stocks. The 2006 TACs will stay as they are but there remain some key problem stocks. Fishing effort is a new EU instrument to restrict the number of fishing days. The rules are being simplified to enable people better understand and adhere to them. It is also necessary to work with industry and protect juvenile fish. That is an overview of what happened in December. I thank the committee for listening to my presentation.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I appreciate the opportunity to hear this presentation and to pose questions on it. It is important for the committee to receive this annual scientific briefing, but it would be preferable before the December Council. I welcome Dr. Connolly back to the committee and note what he says with alarm. Over the past three years we have witnessed one of the greatest environmental scandals of our time.

The picture Dr. Connolly presents of waters such as the Irish Sea being able to support only jellyfish illustrates the threat posed by the change that has occurred, and the urgency with which we should heed his advice. It is remarkable that this Government commissioned, and the public paid for, new vessels to catch fish such as the orange roughy whose life cycle is 180 years and which reaches sexual maturity at 30 years. This species will be wiped out.

A study by the Canadian marine science organisation, reported in Nature magazine, confirmed the perilous state of deep water stocks. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, clearly recommended an absolute end to fishing deep water stocks. Why or how did the December Council ratify last year’s TAC for those stocks again? How can we have any faith in a system that so blatantly disregards transparent, urgent scientific advice? Dr. Connolly talks up the positive commitment to review the TAC at the end of this year but why did the Council not change it for this year?

There is a significant change in Dr. Connolly's presentation today over those of previous years. He states that scientists cannot provide information on many stocks because they cannot trust the data. In previous presentations he referred to a difficulty understanding the level of discards but never made such an unequivocal statement about the lack of data.

Does that relate to the concerns this committee notes? For example, a presentation by the Irish Naval Service showed that fish quotas are allocated to local producer groups, making it impossible for an Irish naval vessel boarding a Spanish trawler in the hake fisheries off the west coast of Cork to know whether that boat is over quota. In effect, as one fishing representative said, there is open fishing because the authorities cannot tell in real time whether a boat is at, above or below quota. Is that why Dr. Connolly says there are no strong data on so many stocks?

I regarded the Celtic Sea herring as an example of good management because in the late 1970s the stock collapsed dramatically but through better management, agreed with the fishery organisations, it recovered. Does Dr. Connolly have any inkling why the quota for herring has been significantly reduced?

In recent years measures, such as partially closed areas, have been in place to protect the cod in the Irish Sea. Does Dr. Connolly advise that, recognising the necessary ecosystem approach, we must also shut out all fishing in large areas of the Irish Sea and other important spawning grounds because one cannot fish for prawns in the Irish Sea without catching cod as a by-catch? One cannot catch haddock on its own in the Irish Sea without catching cod as a by-product, and possibly having to dump it at sea, as I understand happens with half of all the cod caught. In Dr. Connolly's recommendation as a scientist, does that blatantly show the need for large areas to be closed to all fishing until we can know for certain that the stocks have recovered, and then allow fishing on a more sustainable basis for those stocks?

Dr. Connolly

A number of issues have been raised. Regarding the diagram with the jellyfish, we are at the red line, not at the jellyfish area. I was trying to say that we are in the middle and want to push that line to the left. We are not yet down at the jellyfish area, but if we do not do something about this, we are heading in that direction. Some measures were taken at Christmas which will start to push that line in the right direction, but we need to do more.

I will respond as a scientist to the four questions asked by Deputy Ryan. Some of them are very broad and would introduce a political dimension but I will answer them as best I can. The deep water stocks are a major issue and for a long time the scientific advice has been to be very careful in exploiting them. New Zealand has been exploiting deep water orange roughy. It has a very strict management plan in place, and what I would call a sustainable fishery. Other countries such as Australia and South Africa have big problems with orange roughy, where stocks have been wiped out. We have a problem in Ireland whereby we have taken too much out of orange roughy stocks. Last February to March we did a survey along with our New Zealand and Norwegian scientist colleagues. Two issues are involved. One is the number of orange roughy fish one takes out and the other is the damage one is doing to the ecosystem in terms of corals.

In terms of managing the oceans, if fishing has to take place, two things must happen. First, one can remove only a certain amount of the stock for it to be sustainable and there must be rigid control and enforcement, which is not happening on an EU scale. Second, we need to protect the environment and the industry needs to recognise there are areas in which it should not fish because of very sensitive environments. Those issues are all wrapped up in the exploitation of deep water stocks.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Technically, Dr. Connolly is saying that with regard to orange roughy, we have trawlers with nets 1.5 km below the surface, trawling the bottom and pulling coral up with the fish.

Dr. Connolly

Yes, that is a fact.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Are they some sort of beam trawlers?

Dr. Connolly

No. They are big demersal trawlers.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

They are pulling up coral.

Dr. Connolly

Yes. One must recognise too that the orange roughy fishery is a special one. Orange roughy spawn on mounds in certain areas. The fish aggregate there in February, March and April and are very vulnerable to fishing. Associated with those mounds are corals, so fishing activity on the mounds, catching the orange roughy, will damage the corals.

We are trying to come up with a plan. Knowing that there are mounds where orange roughy exist, fishing should take place only on those mounds, with no other fishing to take place on any of the other mounds, and with those mounds to be protected. On the mounds where we allow fishing, one would only be allowed to take a very limited number of orange roughy. In that way one would begin to have a management plan which protects the corals which have not been damaged and reduces the number of orange roughy one can take out of the ecosystem. We have not yet reached that point. In the absence of that plan, the EU has closed all the fishing for orange roughy. One can only take orange roughy on the flat grounds, where there are fewer corals.

Deputy Ryan's second question related to data. The problem with data is an international one. ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the organisation which deals with the science, has for the first time had to say that for the Irish Sea and the west of Scotland, the data are very bad. We do not believe the landing statistics and cannot do assessments. The result is that one does not have good scientific advice, and the EU figures and the TACs, the total allowable catches, are not based on science but on something plucked out of the air.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I hope this is not a political question, but why does Dr. Connolly think we do not believe the landing statistics?

Dr. Connolly

I repeat this is an EU-wide problem and does not relate only to Ireland. Scientists do not believe the landing statistics because of misreporting — area misreporting and under-reporting. Scientists have cited this constantly for the past ten or 15 years but the problem is becoming acute in that scientists now say these data are so bad that for them to spend time trying to give scientific advice based on them is ridiculous, and they will not do so.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Is that a shocking condemnation of the system?

Dr. Connolly

Yes, which is why I said the key issues involve the regional advisory councils and working with industry. We must start to recognise that the way forward is to work with industry and get control and enforcement working, and get science, managers and industry working together. That has not happened up to now. We have tended to talk to each other occasionally and live in different camps. We must move together. Otherwise we will continue further to the right of the diagram indicated, towards the jellyfish area.

Chairman

Much of the scientific advice dealt with by-catching and discards. What is Dr. Connolly proposing?

Dr. Connolly

We are saying that we need better data on the landings for a lot of the stocks. Some of the data on some stocks are all right and we can do assessments and give good advice, but the number of stocks for which scientific data are becoming so poor that we cannot give proper advice, is increasing. We are very concerned at that trend.

The third question related to Celtic Sea herring. We work very closely with a pelagic management committee in the Celtic Sea and have regular meetings with it. We do not always agree, but we work closely together. We have problems with Celtic Sea herring. We were advising a 30% reduction in Celtic Sea herring. There is still uncertainty in the science, and to impose a 30% reduction on a community that relies on Celtic Sea herring might be going too far, given the uncertainty. We therefore came up with a compromise, based on us working closely with the pelagic management committee, of a 15% reduction, which we will review in March-April. If things are bad, and as bad as we think in terms of a 30% reduction, we will have to revisit the advice, but that is where the matter currently stands.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

If that is one fishery which was managed, where we had some confidence in the landings, why is it that the stocks are under such pressure?

Dr. Connolly

There are major factors impacting on fishing and on fish stocks, particularly in the Celtic Sea. The issue of climate change is involved. Herring are at the southern limit of their distribution around the Celtic Sea, and we know temperature changes are occurring which are affecting fish stocks. If one has a fish stock right on the limit of its distribution, and temperature changes occur, that will push the stock back. Allied with fishing activity, that means one has a complex equation to sort out — is it fishing activity, is it mother nature's natural fluctuations or is it a real change in climate? Those are the issues with which scientists must grapple in order to come up with advice, but it means working closely with the industry. The Celtic Sea herring is a good example of that.

The fourth question related to cod recovery in the Irish Sea. That recovery was built around the idea of a closed box on the prawn grounds off Dundalk and Meath. This is where the cod spawn, but we said we needed to close and protect that box. At a series of meetings, lobby groups, the industry and politicians said that this could not be allowed. The measures were increasingly watered down and we got various derogations. We got to a point where the closed box became completely unrealistic in terms of protecting cod because of so many derogations. As a scientist I sometimes wonder if we had accepted the pain in 2000, we might now be in a far better situation. Instruments that scientists introduced to close that area were watered down so much that they became ineffective, and we still have a problem with cod. There is also the issue of the climate affecting cod in the north Atlantic.

Deputy Broughan

Is Dr. Connolly saying that the box was not closed at all?

Dr. Connolly

No, it was closed, but only for certain months of the year, after which it was opened. Then some vessels were allowed in, provided that they used certain gear. Then other vessels were allowed in. The initial plan, which was to close the box completely, was so watered down in the course of 2001 and 2002 that it was rendered ineffective.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Should we not close it, then?

Dr. Connolly

I do not know. If one is talking about protecting cod and trying to restore the cod stock, the answer would be "yes". However, the situation is much more complex, since there is one of the largest and most important prawn grounds in Europe in the same area. There is a very lucrative and sustainable fishery in that. Does one also close off that fishery? I would like to see matters developing as follows. Fishing should be allowed only if one can show that one does not catch cod. We and BIM have been working on those grids. The problem is that, although we have developed them, the industry will not use them. It requires dialogue between the industry, managers and scientists. I say very strongly that we should close it unless one can show that cod are not caught.

Deputy F. O’Malley

I thank Dr. Connolly for his very interesting presentation. Following Deputy Eamon Ryan's comments, I was struck by the deterioration in the quality of data. Dr. Connolly's response to his question is rather worrying. Can he or does he not trust the fishermen when they are landing catches? What is the problem with the data? It is very worrying that Dr. Connolly does not know the status of stocks and cannot plan ahead. If the way in which data are gathered is by landing stocks, and there is misreporting and the other problem that Dr. Connolly mentioned, is the biggest problem downright dishonesty? Is the biggest problem that we are not receiving enough data?

Dr. Connolly mentioned a complete ban on gill nets. Do we have any in Ireland, and is anyone fishing with them? In the effort chart, Dr. Connolly indicated a 10% decrease in use of such nets, but I thought he had said that there had been a complete ban. On the effort system, how will we know when stocks are increasing if we have such bad data? The point made was that, until we see that stocks are increasing again, the number of effort days will keep being reduced. However, we will not know if we do not have reliable data. Everything turns on the data. Is Dr. Connolly totally dependent on landing statistics? How are the data collated?

Who is represented on the regional council? I presume that it is national. Which people are involved in it? Dr. Connolly said that the way to deal with orange roughy was not to allow them to be fished on certain mounds. However, how is one to know whether that is the case? I was listening to the radio last night and heard about fishermen who were out for five days, during which time one can trawl a huge area. How can one rely on what people say?

Dr. Connolly started his presentation by saying that people believe that EU fisheries policy is that if one can prove that one is not catching shark, one can fish away. Otherwise, one should stop fishing. However, fishermen cannot prove that, since they are clearly catching them. The same is true of the point regarding prawns and cod. It is very difficult. There is a contradiction between the needs of the fishing industry and ensuring ecological sustainability. One is dependent on those who work the seas. It is in their own long-term interest to maintain a sustainable ecosystem. However, at the same time, when they are dealing with payments for boats or whatever each month, one can see why they should wish to land as much as they can. How can we resolve that tension?

Chairman

Before I call Senator Kenneally, when Dr. Connolly answers the question on gill nets, perhaps he might tell us who is laying them. We have banked those questions, and I am conscious that we have two more speakers and another session.

Senator Kenneally

I too welcome Dr. Connolly. I would like to address one of the points Deputies Eamon Ryan and Fiona O'Malley mentioned, namely, a lack of data so that one does not know exactly what is going on. We are talking about herring, which has been a very important fishery in my part of the country for many years. There has never been any confidence in figures for herring landings, which have been misreported for as long as I have been involved in politics. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has been told that for years, and nothing has been done. It is happening again this year. As recently as a month ago, a vessel entered Cork harbour and filled four articulated lorries with herring. Afterwards, it went to the designated area to land its herring quota. That was one boat on one day.

Dr. Connolly is wasting his time regarding the scientific advice that he is putting forward. Until such time as this is policed, it will never be resolved. That may ultimately happen, since there is so much pressure from the EU. Judging from what Dr. Connolly has said, scientists too have become totally fed up with the situation. It is high time that it was sorted out. If that happened, we would have sustainable herring fisheries.

Regarding deep water fishing and the ban introduced at the Fisheries Council meeting in December on miles of nets left for months and sometimes never gathered in, I had always thought that the practice was illegal, but that may not have been the case. Perhaps Dr. Connolly might clarify that. If someone finds such nets, the problem is proving whose they were so that those involved might be prosecuted.

Cod is under pressure in the Irish Sea. I am not sure whether this was included in the agreements made in Brussels in December. Some 12 months ago the South and East Fishermens Organisation put forward a proposal. It said that much of the problem of cod stemmed from boats fishing within six miles of the coast and catching many of the immature fish, something more damaging to the fishery than anything else. At that time, it sought a ban, which would have affected its members more than anyone else. However, it did so in an attempt to preserve the species. It was not implemented 12 months ago, and I do not know whether that happened in December.

On by-catch and discards, the figure for what is thrown away is astronomical. It is insane that we are catching food like that and then discarding it. Surely some sort of system can be put in place. I understand that the Norwegians have a quota-balancing regime whereby, if one catches something, one can land and get a quota for it, with a corresponding reduction elsewhere. Surely we should be doing something of that kind so as not to do away with perfectly good fish.

I crave the indulgence of the Chairman to raise another matter. It is not something that was part of the recent negotiations, but it concerns a very important fish species in our waters. I am not sure when I will get the opportunity to question Dr. Connolly about the scientific advice on salmon. Has any progress been made in putting counters in all of our rivers? When hearings took place in this committee last year, we were given an undertaking that counters would be put in all the rivers. I am not aware of any progress on this issue since then.

I have been informed that for 2007, scientific advice states that salmon fishing will not be allowed in large parts of the country, mostly along the east coast and parts of the west coast. However, the south-west coast is not affected, which is nonsense. The rivers in that area can only take 11,000 or 12,000 spawners and have a quota of approximately 50,000 salmon. The rivers in the southern regional fisheries area can spawn 37,000 salmon, yet fishing is to be suspended there. In the first four days of August people were allowed to fish in the Waterford estuary as they stopped fishing for a week during the tall ships race. During those four days, 2,500 salmon were legally caught in the estuary. The reason for that is that fishermen in the south-west area were not intercepting the fish, so the fish were able to get by. The waters are teeming with salmon after the end of the fishing season every year. I cannot understand why there is a proposal to close down fishing in some parts of the country and allow them to continue fishing in those areas where the damage appears to be done.

Dr. Connolly

A number of issues were raised and I will try to deal with as many as I can. I already explained that we have major problems with the data, but it is not just landings data. We also have a problem with countries that do not supply data. For example, we carry out important assessments of the angler stock of monkfish off the south coast. France, which has approximately 80% of the fishery, supplied no data and we cannot give advice with 20% of the data. The problems, therefore, are not just with landings, but also with countries that withhold data. These countries do not allow scientific advice to be given because they think it is in their best interests. That is very frustrating for scientists.

Deputy F. O’Malley

Is France not obliged to give that information?

Dr. Connolly

It is obliged to give it. A few months ago, France was heavily fined by the EU for this behaviour. I hope that a clear signal was sent out at the December Council meeting and by the scientists, so that this type of thing does not recur.

The gill nets mainly belong to Spanish UK flagged vessels. There are no Irish vessels involved. We are working with BIM and with the Norwegian authorities on retrieval surveys, where we go out and bring up these nets. We have absolute proof that they are there and what they are catching. The other gill net fishery takes place in-shore, which is traditional fishery that targets cod. The Irish boats are involved in that, but there is no major problem there. It is not a deep water fishery and there was a 10% reduction in that traditional gill net fishery. The deep water gill net fishery was completely closed.

There are seven regional advisory councils, or RACs, being established throughout Europe. One of them represents the north-east Atlantic, in the waters around Ireland. They are mainly stakeholder driven, with the industry and some NGOs involved, as well as a secretariat. The Commission is not a member of any RAC, nor are scientists. However, the scientists interact with the RACs, they explain advice given and the problems they have with the data and how to improve it. The RACs provide a forum for both the Commission and the scientists to interact with the industry. They are very valuable, but they are very much in their infancy.

A question was asked about orange roughy mounds. Recently, every vessel has been obliged to carry VMS which shows exactly where the vessel is. It is very easy to show where a vessel has been fishing. We know the location of the mounds so it quite easy to show if the vessel is near them. It is illegal for any vessel to turn off the VMS, which is like a tracking device.

The scientific advice on sharks was to stop catching them. That scientific advice was ignored by the Commission this year, but it was the first time it was alerted to the problem. In the years ahead, as we think more and more about the ecosystem, rather than just cod and whiting, we will recognise that we must protect these species because they are an important part of that system. The signal was sent out for the first time this year, but it just was not followed up. It may be followed up next year.

Scientists estimate the landings and do not just use the official landings that are given. If we are doing our job and have a good interaction with the industry, then we will talk to the industry and get estimates from it. However, the estimates and the official data on landings have become so distinct that we have reached a point where we do not know what to believe any more. We are at that point for some fish stocks. In the case of Celtic Sea herring, the relationship with industry is good because of the pelagic management committees and we have been able to get good estimates.

The catching of immature cod is a problem. When we have been able to find out that the industry has been catching immature cod, we have set up projects with the industry to try to stop it and close down areas. An example of this is the work we did off Greencastle, which is ongoing. At the Greencastle co-op five years ago, one would see boxes and boxes of immature cod. That has been stopped and we are now working with the co-op, tagging the cod to find out where they move, and we will catch them when they are mature. We need to learn from that and operate similar programmes elsewhere.

Senator Kenneally

Was any regulation brought in about the six mile limit?

Dr. Connolly

No.

Deputy Broughan

How does Dr. Connolly know that British or Norwegian fishermen off Inishowen were not then catching the same fish?

Dr. Connolly

The areas in which we stopped juvenile cod fishing were within three miles of the shore from Greencastle. We knew exactly where the fish were in that project. If someone tells us that we must stop catching immature cod off Galway, we need to know where they are, if a fishery exists there and other information before we can implement anything. We need all the information before we can begin a project.

A question was asked about by-catch, discards and the Norwegian model, which I believe to be a very good model. Before we land everything, we should ask the industry to prove that it is not catching these small juvenile fish and to use gears that allow the small juvenile fish to escape. Otherwise, they must be brought ashore and they must come off the industry quota. These tiny fish are not marketable anywhere and the fishermen lose out, so that creates an incentive.

Senator Kenneally

I am also talking about landing other quota species for which a particular fishery may not have a quota.

Dr. Connolly

The Senator has hit on one of the biggest problems we have, known as the mixed fishery problem. Fishermen may have a quota for cod, whiting and haddock and the quota for cod and whiting is gone, but there is still much haddock left. Fishermen will catch haddock, cod and whiting. However, they are not supposed to catch cod and whiting so a dilemma arises and they discard it. If they land it, they will be prosecuted. There is plenty of haddock in the sea so why are fishermen not allowed to fish for it? It is one of the major questions scientists are trying to answer, working with gear technology and industry people.

The final question referred to salmon. My remit does not cover salmon so I cannot answer the question. If I had known there would be a question on salmon, I would have asked members of the National Salmon Commission, who work in the institute, to attend.

Deputy Durkan

I was first introduced to this subject some years ago, when I was a member of the secondary legislation committee of the European Union. Some of the questions that arose at that time still arise, for some unknown reason, which indicates a lack of progress in a particular area.

How accurate are stock measurements? I am disappointed to note that the only measurement available is calculated through contact with the industry and the recording of catches. I do not know why that system is used as it will not provide accurate information. Electronic systems must be available. I was informed long ago that electronic systems were available that could accurately record stocks in various areas. I would be grateful if Dr. Connolly could clarify this point.

What recommendations do the scientists make to the European Union and the Department? What is the reaction? If the reaction is as Dr. Connolly states, either the Marine Institute is being ignored or something is seriously wrong with the way we address issues of this nature. Ten years ago it was possible without difficulty to identify endangered fish stocks but the position has worsened since then. Dr. Connolly suggested that various interest groups, perhaps including politicians, had become involved and — no pun intended — muddied the waters. If the situation is as serious as Dr. Connolly suggests, there must be clear evidence and clear indicators as to what is required to deal with the issue.

My next question concerns the number and location of heavy vessels that are most threatening to the various species involved. I am aware of the development in the past four or five years of some very large vessels that have huge capabilities. Nobody can discover what they are doing, where they are doing it and what effect they have on stocks. I cannot understand why this information cannot be discovered. GPS is clearly capable of establishing the position of any vessel anywhere. Advanced technology exists to allow one to measure catches in ways other than going to the skipper of a trawler and asking him what he caught, while knowing what the answer will be. Senator Kenneally referred to a boat landing half of its catch in one port and half in another, thus avoiding the need to record the catch accurately. Unless science and conservation measures can be married in a more realistic fashion, we will not get anywhere.

What kind of inspectorate exists? The careful monitoring of set-aside farm land is of such accuracy that even the smallest deviation can be recorded and instantly brought to the attention of the person concerned — I have dealt with countless cases in this regard. I cannot understand why the tomfoolery that happened with regard to set-aside is beginning to move into the marine area. Given all the technology that exists, I do not accept the notion that ways and means cannot be found to deal with this issue. I particularly emphasise the weight, size and capability of at least one major factory ship that was put on the high seas not long ago. I presume it was allowed to dock somewhere to land its catches.

Dr. Connolly stated: "We will catch the cod when they are mature". Who is the "we" in this regard? Are they Irish fishermen or others such as Spanish, Portuguese or Russian fishermen?

Dumping seems to be like set-aside in the sense that while half the world is starving, in order to control prices we set aside ground on which we cannot grow crops. How can dumping be tolerated? It is bound to affect marine ecology. The longer it continues, the dafter it becomes. It is only happening because of the way the quotas are managed and administered.

Many questions arise. I do not expect to get answers to all of them today but I would like to have them answered at some stage.

Deputy Broughan

I welcome Dr. Connolly and thank him for his usual informative briefing. Possibly the most important upcoming business of the committee is its scrutiny on Committee Stage of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill. What is the Marine Institute's view of the Bill? Does Dr. Connolly feel the Bill, as it stands following Second Stage, introduces a regulatory regime that would greatly improve the current position? Should we amend the Bill or preserve the status quo? Dr. Connolly has outlined many deficiencies, which seem to be related to lack of controls with regard to port management and so on.

My colleague asked about data. Through the Marine Institute and the Department, we provide what information we can to the ICES system. Is Dr. Connolly suggesting the data of the other five or six major fishing countries are defective? How do we and other countries perform with regard to the famous scoreboard of shame for fishing misdemeanours? What can we do with regard to what the committee heard from the Commodore of the Naval Service on the seeming total lack of control in our waters?

Using the example of Greencastle, Dr. Connolly referred to the scientific advice and the estimates of the industry. Has the Marine Institute examined certain ports, for example, Dunmore East and Rossaveal, to discover what is really happening or is that outside the institute's remit?

The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, was involved in negotiations before Christmas. I have represented my party on marine matters for the past three years. I note that fishermen are always upset and aghast in the run-up to negotiations but the day afterwards they claim they have got the best deal ever. There always seems to be a poor mouth in the run-in to negotiations but what is achieved is a great victory. Deputy Eamon Ryan has detailed some of the major falls in stocks among certain species. Was the Marine Institute happy with the result of the negotiations, not just with regard to Ireland but all of Europe?

Some of Dr. Connolly's colleagues sent the committee an interesting report on the decommissioning of vessels and the elimination of capacity across the EU. The report noted that despite the decommissioning process boats are allowed to go on the register in various countries due to rules which allow capacity to grow although, in theory, countries such as Denmark and Ireland, under Mr. Padraic White's plan, are decommissioning. Is that a serious undertaking or is it something done for the optics, the environmentalists? What is the scientific advice in regard to Ireland's capacity in the future?

Chairman

I apologise to Dr. Connolly for banking all the questions but we must finish after this.

Senator Daly

Some of the questions asked relate to Ireland's technical and professional contribution to the ICES regime. Will Dr. Connolly provide a breakdown of the figure of €200 million between the different species? I am not sure there is an Irish shark fishery. Are any sharks taken by Irish fishermen?

Dr. Connolly

Very few.

Senator Daly

Will Dr. Connolly inform the committee whether there was quota available last year that was not taken? How accurate are the figures? There has always been tension between the practitioners, the fishermen and scientific advisers. The fishermen claim that because they are at sea every day they have a better idea of stocks than the very sparse scientific information suggests. It may not be within Dr. Connolly's brief but will he say something about bass fishing?

Dr. Connolly

I will do my best to answer the questions and the Chairman may stop me if I go on too long. The first question relates to stock measurements and the idea that we talked to the industry and believed the information it gave us on landings. Speaking to industry regarding landings is only a tiny part of the dataset we use for stock assessment. We have research vessels and do acoustic and groundfish surveys. We get completely independent data that form part of the jigsaw which is stock assessment. Landings are an important part of the jigsaw but we have other huge datasets that we use also.

I was asked why the European Union did not listen to scientific advice. I have been doing this job for ten years as a scientist. For the past five years I have been going to the Fisheries Council with the Minister in my capacity as a scientist. When I first started, the science was taken on board and formed the start of the argument. As a result, we had what I would call collective bargaining. As stocks declined and the situation became more serious, society in general began to pick up on all the issues. The gap between what ultimately comes from the Council and what the scientists say has narrowed. Society, politicians and the European Commission now recognise the problem and are willing to address it. Even the industry is coming around to accepting that there are problems and that we need to try to address them. It is taking a much more long-term view rather than a short-term one. That is a big advance.

The capacity of fishing vessels is a major problem. The fishing vessels that replace those of the same tonnage built ten years ago are completely different. Their capacity and power to catch fish are enormous. The killing power of vessels built nowadays far exceeds that of those built even five years ago. The electronic gadgetry they have means that fish do not have a chance. It is a very difficult issue and one cannot rely only on tonnage or kilowatt power. Modern technology means that fish do not have a chance any more. That is why one of the most important aspects is control and enforcement. If we do not get control and enforcement right, we are down to the jellyfish side of the diagram I showed the committee.

I am picking off the questions and do not know whether I will get through everything. On the Bill, I again emphasise — even the European Union is saying this — that the most important thing we need to get right to improve the science and ensure sustainability of fish stocks is control and enforcement. It will probably have to be a policing mechanism but I would like to see industry buy into it. If one overlands a certain species in Iceland, one is viewed as having undermined the whole industry. In Ireland if one does it, one is looked on as having got one over on the control and enforcement authorities. It is a cultural mindset. Until we can shift the mindset to one of looking at the whole resource with control and enforcement as part of the industry, nothing will change. It is necessary to change the mindset.

Chairman

Is that Dr. Connolly's personal view or that of the Marine Institute?

Dr. Connolly

That is my view. I was asked for my personal views on the Bill.

There were other questions on ICES and the Marine Institute and whether the data were severely defective. I have answered that question. There are problems with the data and major problems with those supplying them. We have people working in all the ports and a fair idea of what is landed. We work closely with the industry. It might not always agree with us but we have an important dialogue with it.

There was a question on bass. Bass did not form part of the CFP negotiations. I could have prepared for that question but I was not expecting it. Therefore, rather than trying to answer it, I will leave it if members of the committee do not mind.

There was another question on fishermen's knowledge. Again, it is a small part of the armoury we use to assess stocks but it is a very important part, without which our scientific advice would be a lot poorer.

Deputy Durkan

I raised a question on the inspectorate and how inspections were carried out. I do not think it was answered. I also raised the question of GPS and tracking.

Dr. Connolly

On GPS and tracking, VMS is now available. It is a box that vessels place on their masts and it enables the Navy to track and see where they are. We started a programme late last year which involves tracking vessels and looking at fleet activity in Irish waters, not alone of Irish vessels but of a number of European vessels. There are a number of European projects and if one can look at vessels, know their capacity, their kilowattage and can get a handle on what they are catching, one can have an independent estimate of the total catch. That is the direction in which we are moving and it will supplement the work we are doing by talking with the industry.

There was one other question.

Deputy Durkan

What size is the inspectorate? Are there 200, 500 or 3,000 people involved in it?

Dr. Connolly

The inspectorate is completely separate. It is dealt with by the Department. It has nothing to do with the Marine Institute. While we work closely with the Department, the control and enforcement side is dealt with by the Department. We do not deal with control and enforcement personnel, apart from obtaining data from them.

Senator Daly

What is the breakdown of the €200 million?

Dr. Connolly

We get the average value and look at all the tonnages of cod and then multiply them.

Senator Daly

What is the breakdown as between different ones, for example, mackerel?

Dr. Connolly

Pelagic fish accounts for approximately €100 million. The rest accounts for €100 million. I could give a breakdown if the committee wishes.

Chairman

I thank the delegation for coming. I appreciate, as do the members of the committee, that Dr. Connolly has come all the way from Copenhagen to make this presentation. We deeply appreciate that he has taken so much interest in this committee, and the importance of his presentation. Perhaps he might send the presentation to the clerk to the committee by e-mail.

I propose the sitting be suspended for five minutes to allow the representatives from the OPW and the Southern Regional Fisheries Board to come before the committee.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 4 p.m. and resumed at 4.05 p.m.