Thank you, Chairman. I have been nominated, as chairman, to make a presentation on behalf of my colleagues - six of whom are present - on behalf of the Federation of Irish Fishermen. We wish to address specifically some of the industry's key concerns about the proposals made by the Commission in the review of the Common Fisheries Policy. Unfortunately, as the technology is not working, I am unable to use my PowerPoint presentation, but I understand a copy has been circulated to all members. While it would have been better had it been displayed on screen, at least members have a copy with which they can follow the points I am trying to make.
We wish to cover three aspects. First, we wish to set the scene on the reason we are so exercised about the review of the Common Fisheries Policy, with reference to its economic worth to the Irish and European economies. Second, I want to express our views on the six issues covered in the presentation relating to the Commission's proposals with which we have particular problems. In addition, given the time constraints, I have identified eight other issues not covered in the presentation but which we have covered as part of our submission to the national authority, the Commission and the other bodies involved.
The third slide in the presentation displays a map of the areas covered, which I assume members can see. They will note that there are four distinct colours relating to fishing activity in the Irish zone. While the map is slightly distorted, I wish to show there is huge activity within our zone. The colour green obviously represents Irish activity, while the colours yellow, blue and red represent Spanish, French and United Kingdom activity, respectively. While there is also activity in our zone on the part of the fleets of other member states, including the Dutch, Belgian and Danish fleets, the colours denote the four main countries that participate in our zone.
The reason I am covering this resource information is demonstrated on the next slide which demonstrates the figures for 2009. Although they did not change significantly in 2010, I did not have to hand the up-to-date figures for that year. The total catch in 2009 in the area shown to members on the previous slide was slightly less than 1 million tonnes of fish. The value of that catch, by which I do not refer to the processed value but to the first sale value at the quayside to the fishermen, was approximately €1.18 billion. The Irish part of that catch amounted to approximately 18% or approximately 179,000 tonnes.
The basic purpose of the slide is to show we have a huge resource off our coast. Obviously, we are constrained in our share by what we can catch in the zone, but a huge quantity of fish still is being taken out of it. Perhaps we need to consider ways and means by which we can capitalise more on it, both in terms of share and securing more landings by some of the other member states' fleets.
The next slide starts to deal with the six key issues we have with the Commission's proposals which were published in July after a consultation period of approximately 18 months. Unfortunately, from the perspective of the federation, the proposals constitute a lost opportunity for the Commission to effect some real reforms, even though it had promised real reform in the lead-up to their production. The first issue we have highlighted concerns what we call the Hague agreement, which dates back to 1976 when Ireland was given a commitment to pursue the continued and progressive development of the fishing industry on foot of a Government plan submitted at the time. Unfortunately, even though we secured that commitment in 1976, by the time the total allowable catches and quotas finally reached fruition in 1983, we had not used the intervening seven years to write the blank check we had been given to secure a decent share of the quota.
One thing that happens each year - it will happen again this week - is that at the December Council meeting Ireland must fight to maintain the additional quantity of fish it was awarded under the aforementioned Hague agreement. We are disappointed the Commission did not propose the provision's specific inclusion in the text to avoid the need for Ireland to argue for it each year. Members may take it as read that the other member states involved never wish to give Ireland its Hague preferences and, consequently, Ireland needs to have it fully enshrined in the proposals. This is very important because it could make a difference of between 5% and 20% in the additional quantities of fish we receive for particular species in a particular year.
Before the launch of its proposals, the Commission made great statements to the effect that, on foot of the future review of the Common Fisheries Policy, rather than having a top-down centralised policy, there would be a bottom-up stakeholder-involved policy. Unfortunately, other than a single mention of regionalisation in the document, we can discern no mention of regionalisation within the proposals. Responsibility still rests with member states for multi-annual plans and conservation measures. Our point is that a new approach is needed.
While I will not go into the contents of the next slide in detail, as an industry, we have come up with a structure which we believe fits into the legalities of the treaties, as well as providing for a bottom-up approach to regionalisation.
That is one model, but there are others. The current proposal does not contain any regionalisation. That is a big problem because if we are to move forward there is no point in the Minister deciding in Luxembourg what mesh size should be used in Donegal Bay or off the Cork or Kerry coast. That centralised policy does not make sense and it has to change. It is unfortunate that the Commission's proposals have done nothing about that in the meantime.
The third issue is what we call ITQs or individual transferable quotas. For its own good reasons, the Commission has not called them ITQs; it calls them transferable fishing concessions. A spade is a spade no matter what language is used, so these are ITQs. The real problem is that for the first time the Commission proposes that individual transferable quotas would be mandatory in every member state. It would not be a matter for the member state to decide what method to use. That clearly indicates that ownership of the quota will be by individuals, companies or large companies. In its present form, we can take it that there would be a serious threat to the Irish fishing industry if this was to go ahead as the final proposal. It would only be a matter of time before our white fish and pelagic industry was bought up by external factors outside the country.
As constituted, the proposal does not provide any safeguards to ensure that will not happen. There is a question mark over whether those safeguards could be provided. The bottom line is that the proposal does not mention such safeguards.
The key issue for us is the mandatory nature of this proposal and its uniform nature across member states. That must be vigorously opposed. It should be a matter for member states as to how they allocate their individual quotas; it should not be a mandatory system. There is a real danger for Ireland if we do not make this proposal optional, rather than mandatory.
The fourth issue concerning the Common Fisheries Policy, as members of the committee may have heard, is that the Commission has been undertaking a major campaign on discards. I am sure members of the committee have seen television programmes on the scandal around discards. Every one of us here agrees there should not be discards, but the Commission's solution is fundamentally flawed. That proposal basically states that all catches should be landed, irrespective of whether they are small or large, or good or bad fish. The point that is being missed is that, if the incentive is to land the catch, the fish will be dead. Therefore the Commission's policy does not make sense. We suggest that, rather than having this concept of landing all catches to solve the discard problem, this is a much more complex issue. We should avoid discards by not catching them in the first place.
Second, there are fisheries where no matter what one does one will have a certain amount of discards. There are ways and means of minimising that to an acceptably low level and, provided there are some incentives, one can actually do so. Rather than landing all discards, therefore, we are saying the buzz words should be avoidance, minimisation and incentives. That would solve the discards problem, rather than the simplistic view put forward in the Commission's proposal.
The next issue is a key one for us and I touched on it at the beginning in terms of relative stability of TACs and quotas. Relative stability is the percentage share of the stock which Ireland and other member states get every year. It was set back in 1983. We got an opportunity through the Hague agreement to have a higher percentage share but, unfortunately, we did not seize it at the time. We now have a set percentage share of most of the stocks, which is laid down. This week, the Council of Fisheries Ministers will argue about the quantity of fish. Ministers will not argue about each member state's percentage share because that has already been set and is known as relative stability. In Ireland's case, we have a vast array of those. We go from a very low percentage share of 1.5% up to 90% for some herring stocks.
A critical issue is that we have a very low share - between 8% and 12% - for some of the key white fish stocks, which are critical for us. We are therefore seeking changes in those percentage shares. The problem is that in order to obtain changes, one must take fish off somebody else to get more. Nonetheless, there is more than one way of skinning a cat, so we must be innovative in how we approach this matter. We believe that there are ways and means of doing this for certain stocks, so that everybody can be a winner - not only Ireland but other member states also. It will not do much for us to go into the talks saying that we want an increase in stock.
As an industry we support the maintenance of the TACs and quotas system, provided we get some changes in some of the key stocks. We emphasise that we do not support the days-at-sea issue, which has caused us enormous problems and simply does not work.
The Irish box is a significant issue. It was established at the time when Spain and Portugal joined the EU in 1996, and was subsequently changed in 2003. I do not have a powerpoint slide to show the committee, but members have the relevant two-coloured map. A black line shows the new box, while the yellow-green area shows the old Irish box. One can see that the new Irish box is off the west and south-west coasts.
The significance of the Irish Box is that there is a restriction in effort there at the moment. Unfortunately, unlike our friends in the Azores, there is no provision in the Commission's proposals for the Irish box, which is a highly productive area. Earlier, I showed the committee a map but the same map, with the Irish box in it, is in the next slide. Members can see the black line of the box to the west and south-west, which takes in a huge amount of activity in the Irish exclusive economic zone, EEZ.
It must also be remembered that there are significant spawning and juvenile areas in that region, which need to be protected. Our simple message is that, at a minimum, this must be maintained and included in the Commission's proposals. If the Azores can have their area included, why can the Irish Box not be included also?
The Commission no longer calls it the Irish Box but rather the biologically sensitive area. Everybody in Ireland would certainly know it as the Irish Box.
I have spent the past ten or 12 minutes dealing with six big issues for us and there are several other significant matters. They would have taken another 15 or 20 minutes to go through and I would prefer to allow ample time for discussion so I will summarise. I will not go into detail. There are issues that include: objectives, the maximum sustainable yield; the days at sea, with which I mentioned we have a big problem; funding, which was not included in the current document, although the Commission has published its funding proposals for 2014 to 2020; control and enforcement issues, which are always very important in having a level playing field; and scientific advice and data requirements, on which I could have spent 20 minutes alone because it is a significant matter. I have not dealt with the raft of the proposals, including a new proposal, on the external policy dealing with third countries and fishing opportunities with community fleets in third country waters.
I hope I have not spent too long speaking and that the contribution was useful in giving a flavour of where we are coming from. We feel there is a lost opportunity for the Commission and we are looking to the European Parliament and the Agriculture and Fisheries Council for the next 12 or 18 months to rectify the matter. It may very well fall to the Irish Presidency - we believe it will - at the start of 2013 to reach agreement in this. We should have some leverage in that regard.