Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE debate -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 2011

Common Fisheries Policy: Discussion

The item we are to discuss concerns the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and the priorities for Ireland in this regard. I welcome representatives from four organisations under the umbrella of the Federation of Irish Fishermen, of which Mr. Sean O'Donoghue holds the position of chairman. I understand Mr. O'Donoghue will speak first on behalf of the Federation of Irish Fishermen, after which I will call Mr. Ebbie Sheehan who represents the Irish Fishermen's Organisation. I will then call on spokespersons in a question and answer session.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they do not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they do not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. O'Donoghue to make his opening statement.

Mr. Seán O’Donoghue

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. Everyone 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.

I call Mr. Sheehan from the Irish Fishermen's Organisation.

Mr. Ebbie Sheehan

I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the committee as chairman of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation. Before I begin I compliment Mr. O'Donoghue on his presentation; we do not always agree on everything but on this occasion I agree with everything he said. It was a good presentation and many of the points I have to make have already been made by Mr. O'Donoghue. I do not have an elaborate presentation because my education is fairly limited.

My background is in the fishing industry and I left school at 16 to become deeply involved in the industry. I am passionate about the future but also worried about it. Now more than ever the prosperity of the Irish fishing industry is vital, and along with agriculture it is the most important contributor to the economy. The priority of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, review should be to simplify the process and bring some common sense to the equation. Currently there is a ridiculous quota system and if it is exceeded in one species, the law demands that the fish be discarded, dead, back to the sea. The Commission is supposed to be a guardian of our seas and enforcing conservation but what does throwing dead fish back into the sea do for that?

Are the people formulating new ideas for the new CFP capable of reforming the system? I am worried about that. In recent years the Irish fishing industry has been instrumental in closing fisheries and areas at sensitive times and instead of reward we have been met with closures and segmentation of areas by the Commission. With proper and simple management, the industry could have a bright future. There are currently 450,000 people unemployed but there are no young people coming to this industry. The crews on whitefish boats throughout the country are made up of Filipinos and eastern Europeans. As a result, we need more common sense in the CFP and a better approach from Brussels. We must make the industry attractive to the younger generation as currently there are no young people entering the industry, particularly the whitefish sector, and it will die on its feet.

Many from the older generation of fishermen have left the industry because they could not cope with the bureaucracy, such as electronic log books and so on. This problem is not unique to Ireland and is seen across Europe. In the budget last week there was an incentive for the younger generation of farmers to take over holdings and we need the same type of approach from the Commission to the fishing industry throughout Europe. Currently we import cheap and unregulated fish to the country, which is depressing markets, and we have no idea what processing standards some of these fish meet, or how the extended shelf life is achieved. A large number of foreign vessels fish in our waters and when they return home, they do not have to conform with the same regulations as in Ireland. That has been widely known by the Commission for many years but it has never been addressed.

The reform of the CFP must be fair to all countries, with one law for all or none. We must take into consideration the total dependency of coastal communities on our greatest national asset. We must consider using better and more sensitive conservation measures for stocks, particularly juvenile fish. As Mr. O'Donoghue has already mentioned, we need a commonsense approach and there must be a disincentive for catching juvenile fish; the system should discourage catching fish which are over quota as well. As Mr. O'Donoghues indicated, we need a bottom-up approach rather than a system operating from the top down, which has been in operation for far too long. The volume and value of fish taken from our waters by foreign vessels each year is disputed but it is nonetheless astronomical. It has not been taken into consideration in negotiations with EU partners.

The CFP review is coming at a vital time for the fishing industry and the economy as a whole. This is one of the very few positive industries, along with agriculture, that we have, and we must all ensure it is protected. Most of the responsibility is in the hands of the people in this room.

I will take questions and observations from members. We will take four at a time and see how we go. Mr. O'Donoghue may feel free to ask some colleagues to respond to these.

I concur with the final statement from Mr. Sheehan. For many decades I have argued that the basic premise of the CFP is wrong and unjust. No nations are asked to share their resources like we are asked to share the sea. I agree with the approach that at treaty negotiations and high level discussions in Europe, the issue of injustice to the coastal communities around Europe through not having access to their waters must be taken up. The submissions and their details are very useful, and it has been very educational. I take it that what the witnesses are looking for today is on two levels. The first is that the big picture should never be forgotten and continues to be mentioned at the top level when major international negotiations are taking place at European level. In the meantime, at the Fisheries Council, which is different - I accept the Minister does not see it my way - my view is that when they want to talk about corporation tax or any other issue involving a fundamental change that one would keep referring to fish in terms of the Common Fisheries Policy. At the Council where one is exclusively talking about the fishing effort, one would then talk about the specific issues that are raised so well and comprehensively in the document. The witnesses have outlined the issues more clearly to a non-fisheries specialist such as I and other members of the committee, better than I have seen it set out previously. I thank them for that. It is startling when one considers that €1.18 billion worth of fish has been taken out of our territorial waters. That would service the interest at 2% on €50 billion. We are getting 18% of the €1.18 billion.

Do the witnesses think it is achievable for the Hague Resolution to be adopted permanently? Do they know why it is not contained in the proposal? It has been going on since 1976 and if it is not in permanently then someone must be hoping at some stage that it will disappear. If I understood correctly, if the agreement were not in place that would mean 5% to 20% of the catch would be gone overnight.

We previously debated individual transferable quotas, ITQs. The witnesses say "No" to the ITQs. Would they accept a regime where each country would make its own decision and that if we decide not to accept them that anyone else who wants to have ITQs could have them? They are correct to say it would become a factory-based industry with big companies predominating rather than family boats.

What has been said on discards makes sense. We do not need to go into the matter. In the case of relative stability of TACs and quotas, are the witnesses saying they would get a bigger share of some species without a corresponding loss in another species? Is that what they are seeking? I presume if they were to get that it would mean a bigger share of the fish in Irish waters. Would someone clarify if that is exactly what is meant?

The maps did not show the Irish Box clearly. I cannot differentiate the old box from the new box. Perhaps the witnesses would clarify for the uninitiated exactly what is the advantage to this country of the box other than conservation issues in terms of taking the catch out of that box. The maps that we were given at the outset seem to show we do not have a disproportionate benefit of the catch out of the box so what does the box do for us? Perhaps I am misreading it. I have often heard of the Irish Box but I never got a full explanation of it.

I thank the Chairman and Mr. Seán O'Donoghue and Mr. Ebbie Sheehan for their clear presentations. Some say there is not much point in looking back at what is already done and decided. I do not take that view because if we do not understand from where something comes we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to change and improve matters.

From the outset when the Common Fisheries Policy was introduced, this country got an extraordinarily bad deal on fisheries. That is borne out by the figures that have been outlined in the report. A EUROSTAT finding indicated that in the first 20 years of the Common Fisheries Policy the total value of fish caught in Irish waters was five times the total agricultural and infrastructural support paid to this country by the EU. That is the extent of it. Someone has a mobile telephone switched on.

God knows I requested people to turn them off enough times.

My focus is not just on the scale of the problem in fisheries but also on the scale of the opportunities that exist, but we must change the way we set about our negotiations. I am just learning about fisheries. I have not been involved in any of the negotiations at European level. I have not talked much yet with those who negotiate, but when I read reports it appears that previously we have been negotiating just the fringe elements of the package that was agreed originally. That is not where the big prize is to be found. We must look at going back to the root cause, recognise that we have had a bad deal from day one and use that fact. Perhaps we cannot change the fact now but we should use it to get the best possible deal for this country.

It was indicated to me by someone who was involved in the original negotiations that a number of mistakes were made at the time. The first was that the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy negotiations were going on at the same time. Strategically, that was a big mistake. The second mistake that was made was even more stark. Because we did not have the fleet to anywhere near fully exploit our waters, less regard was paid to the resource that was under the sea. It is the equivalent of a farmer with 1,000 acres who does not have the resources to farm all of those acres intensively and decides to sell 700 or 800 acres for nothing because he cannot use them, instead of getting the resources to exploit the rest of his holding to the best of his ability.

Reference was made to €1.18 billion in key site value. Let us imagine if that were finished product value the difference it would make to the economy and our employment figures. We need to consider a different approach to negotiations. We must be far more ambitious than just holding what we have.

I share the concerns expressed in a number of specific areas. The Hague Resolution must be in the text because I suspect what is happening is that if we are fighting every year to hold the concession it distracts us from the more ambitious fight we should be having in the negotiations. The resolution should be included as part and parcel of the agreement and should not come up for discussion every year.

The second area of concern I share with the witnesses is the mandatory obligation on all member states and the uniform nature of individual transferable quotas for all member states. We cannot allow that to happen because it would change forever the nature of the industry in this country.

As Deputy Ó Cuív said, discards never made sense. There must be room for negotiation on the range of this country's share from 1% to 90%. I could not argue against a supportive tax and the quota system, if it done fairly.

I agree that the restrictions in the effort, the days at sea, must be resisted. There must be a more sensible, more logical and more effective way of sustaining stocks. I am concerned when I hear that EU officials are, more and more, talking about the Irish box as a biologically sensitive area. Terminology can often dictate how an area or resource is to be handled.

How do the witnesses see Irish authorities policing the Common Fisheries Policy area and conservation efforts? Are the Irish fisheries protection authorities protecting Irish fisheries?

Can the witnesses comment on the use of our State harbours? When I see the number of empty sheds at our harbours I think about their potential for employment. Why are ships sailing past our harbours for maintenance in yards elsewhere when valuable employment could be created in our harbours?

I thank Mr. Seán O'Donoghue and Mr. Ebbie Sheehan for their useful and interesting presentations.

I share other members' views of the historical problem our fishing industry has had. It is important that we not lose sight of that. I disagree about the historical origins of our situation. The problem began even before we joined the EEC, when the EEC changed its own rules and made the conservation of fishery stocks the sole responsibility of the Commission. At that time fishing was the only activity that was the sole responsibility of the EEC. I believe that change was made because our European partners knew what we were bringing to the table and we did not. It is important that the Minister put that matter on the agenda and raise it as often as he possibly can in negotiations. It might strengthen our negotiating hand to highlight these historical wrongs. We must be aware of history when we negotiate for the future.

Deputy Colreavy mentioned concerns about the Hague Preferences and the importance of having them written into the final policy document. I imagine we have had to concede on other issues in order to have the Hague Preferences included. Could the witnesses give some examples of concessions we might have given in past negotiations in order to protect the Hague Preferences?

Everyone is agreed that we are totally opposed to the individual transferable quota, ITQ. The Minister is strongly opposed to the introduction of ITQs. Last September, members of this committee attended a conference organised by the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, in Brussels. The Commissioner's stance on ITQs appeared to have softened a little. She seemed to indicate that individual countries might be allowed to proceed and that ITQs might not be compulsory for all countries. If the principle of the ITQ is established across the EU, with Ireland and one or two other countries opting out, our overall position in later years may be weakened. Do the witnesses have any thoughts on this issue?

With regard to discards, has the Commission given any hearing to the Irish stance, as outlined by Mr. Seán O'Donoghue, of avoidance, minimisation and incentives or is it still holding to the blanket ban, which seems to be driven by environmentalists and celebrity chefs and has little connection with the reality of fishing?

When we raise the issue of enforcement with the Minister, or indeed with the Commission, we are told the introduction of electronic log books will solve the problem. I have my doubts about that. Will the introduction of electronic log books be rolled out simultaneously throughout Europe or will we be the best in the class, as we always seem to be in Ireland, and roll the system out for Irish fishermen years in advance of anyone else? Do the witnesses have any views on that?

I welcome the presentations made by Mr. Seán O'Donoghue and Mr. Ebbie Sheehan. I welcome the members of the fisheries organisations to the committee to hear their views on the Commissioner's proposals for the review of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP.

In almost every way, I support what Mr. O'Donoghue and Mr. O'Sullivan are trying to achieve. With the Hague Preferences having to be argued for every December, their teeth must be worn from going through the same issues year after year. We managed to succeed in retaining the Hague Preferences and it would be interesting to know if we have made any concessions in return for copperfastening them, as Deputy Pringle has suggested. I am not so sure. They are worth fighting for. It is worth fighting for their inclusion in the CFP document so that we do not have to go through this process every December.

One of the major successes of the fishing industry in recent years is the drawing up of management plans by the industry and by fisheries organisations. In reviewing the CFP, the Commission should take note of some of these successes, in Celtic Sea herring or prawns on the Porcupine Bank, for example. These are clear examples of successful management at a local level and go to the heart of what the EU should be about. The CFP goes in the opposite direction in centralising decision making, even to the extent of gear selection. That element of the case should be fully supported. We have the expertise, the institutions and the organisations to provide for local management, and that should be supported.

I am concerned at Commissioner Damanaki's presentation of the ITQ system as a way of consolidating the European fleets and of saving money centrally. This is an over-simplified presentation of the proposal. It may well have benefits for some countries, and the Commissioner may have been lobbied strongly by some countries to include this proposal in the CFP. However, it will not suit Ireland's mixed fishery or our obligation to allow visiting fleets into waters we are required to manage. It would be suicidal for our industry at a local level. If the ITQ system were allowed we would no longer have an industry as we know it. Fish would be caught in our waters but not by an Irish industry. We should note the UK example and the flag of convenience for effort they have seen. It was interesting to see the yellow sections on the map showing the UK effort. One would not find many English accents in those areas, I would wager. Boats catch fish in those areas and land them in the north west of Spain. That is the reality of the UK fishing industry. We do not need to go down that road and we should not do so. The precedent is there.

In support of her argument for introducing ITQs, Commissioner Damanaki quotes the Danish example as a model of how it has worked. I have a very basic knowledge of what the Danes have done. The pelagic industry in Denmark is controlled by 12 or 14 companies or families. That is a good way of doing things, if it is the road one wants to go, but I do not think it is the way we should go. We have a varied, family-based industry and that should be maintained.

I do not see how we could have a safeguard that would be legally binding throughout the EU. It would not work. It would go against the grain of the European Union. I agree with the sentiments expressed.

The public has been bombarded with regard to the discards issue. It is difficult. No fisherman I know welcomes the idea of having to throw dead fish overboard. It is abhorrent and goes against their nature, but that is what our policy provides for currently. While it is not illegal to catch them, it is illegal to land them, which creates a difficult problem. However, the solutions are being presented as simple. Celebrity chefs and the head of Sainsbury's and everybody else say fishermen should land everything, including discards, but what is to be done with them then? Should they be given away? If the discards are given away, some buyer will decide to take the discard and fisherman who caught it legally and is trying to sell it is completely disadvantaged. He is then told to take it off his quota and next thing is quota is diminished on a fish he did not want to catch in the first place. This is a hugely contentious issue, particularly in mixed fisheries in the commercial sector and I hope that any deliberations on this side will be led by the industry.

On the pelagic side, we have a simpler, cleaner fishery industry, but we have a huge problem with visiting fleets that have the ability to grade fish and discard those that are not optimum for the market. For the life of me, I cannot see why we allow huge pelagic fishing ships, with graders on board, in Irish waters which we manage. They are there for one reason only, to take the small juvenile fish out and discard them. The small juvenile fish should be avoided, but if they are caught, they should be landed and put into the market. The anecdotal evidence is frightening with regard to the level of some of the discards on the pelagic side by the visiting fleets. The Irish fleet does not do this traditionally and it is not an issue for them. If we are to tackle the issue of discards, we should start with the pelagic side and the visiting fleets.

The issues of the relative stability, the quotas and TACs were always going to be difficult. I welcome the comments of our delegates on trying to amend the relative stability, but I am sure they would almost have a better chance of trying to redraw the borders of Europe. It is an issue that should always be on the table and should be discussed, but it is a difficult prospect. I accept and agree fully with the idea of days at sea. We have very unpredictable conditions here and fishermen cannot just say they will go out for certain days and stay ashore on others and try and curtail the effort that way. That is unworkable and I support the industry's view in that regard.

I have other concerns. For example, we had a tuna quota allocated over several years, which we failed to catch and as a result our allocation was reduced. Many people might say that if our fishermen did not catch the quota, it should be reduced and somebody else should be given the opportunity to catch it. However, when other fleets that catch species in our waters do not reach their quotas, their quotas are often not reduced, yet we might have run out of quota in those same species by October or November. I find that confusing and unfair. This should be addressed this week, rather than through the CFP. There should be some way to sort it out.

Fishing in the Irish Box, particularly by visiting fleets, must be curtailed and stocks must be maintained. We have very little real time information on those fleets. I get mixed messages with regard to the introduction of electronic log books. I can see no other way to introduce the electronic log book unless it is introduced on a pan-European basis. I have made the point several times that we cannot ask one nation to be completely up-front on something like enforcement and have boats from other nations fishing alongside them on a completely different system, leaving that nation, us, totally disadvantaged. We have heard from the industry on achieving a level playing field with regard to the knowledge of what is being caught by other fleets. Again the message is mixed. I suspect that in some quarters the electronic log book would be unwelcome, but welcomed in others. It is a difficult issue.

Mr. O'Donoghue mentioned other extra issues, but one was not mentioned, namely inshore fisheries. We tend to gloss over and fail this area. Inshore fisheries are an important industry in some of the minor and smaller ports and on the islands around our coast. However, they have, regrettably, been forgotten. We always look at the big picture and the bigger concessions, but the inshore industry has taken a huge hit in recent years and seems to be forgotten. I would like to see some acknowledgment of the people working in that industry. It is a difficult job and difficult to get young people into it because they are away from home and in a difficult environment. We should do everything we can to support the industry as it has brought huge benefits to coastal communities where no other industry exists or could be brought in. Recent studies in Killybegs and Castletownbere have shown the dependence these communities have on the industry. This should feed into ministerial documentation and negotiation on the CFP.

I will call on Senator Ó Domhnaill and Deputy Ferris to make their comments now before allowing the delegates respond as they both represent coastal communities and are involved in the issue as part of a working group of the committee.

I thank Mr. O'Donoghue and Mr. Sheehan for their presentations. I will not go over the same ground, but these presentations come at a timely time for this committee, before we prepare our submission to the Commission and the Minister. The information we are gathering from our witnesses today is very useful to us and we appreciate the opportunity to discuss it.

The slide we were shown of the Irish European waters demonstrates that the Irish fleet's catch is approximately 18% and that 82% of the fish caught in that area is caught by fleets from elsewhere, whether England, Spain, France or some other country. That says a great deal. The point has been made about the initial negotiations Ireland had back in 1973 and prior to that, and about the outcome from those negotiations and the quota we now have as a result of those and other negotiations over the years. Looking at the bigger picture, Europe and the eurozone are vulnerable currently and the Government should make every effort to try to renegotiate positively for the country, as part of whatever other negotiations are taking place regarding the eurozone and the euro, a more favourable quota for the Irish fishing fleet. It is important it does that and advances the proposals made by the delegates.

I agree with colleagues who have spoken on the issue of regionalisation. I understood that Commissioner Damanaki looked at the model of regionalisation, up to a certain point. I understood she had an appreciation for regionalisation, due to the fact that she comes from an island community, and that she was considering a regionalisation model that would benefit this country. The submissions made by the NGOs here would have laid out a path she could have followed, but she decided not to follow that path and the issue is not categorised in the CFP, which is a missed opportunity. Deputy Harrington referred to the islands. The islands of the Irish coast are unique and often the only source of income for people living on them, down through the generations, is fishing. There is no appreciation for those smaller communities within the CFP as currently laid out, which is a missed opportunity. This is something we must argue strongly with the Commissioner. We must seek some element of local or decentralised decision making that will favour smaller fishing communities and fishermen.

The transferable quota brings us to uncharted and dangerous waters. It could lead to the privatisation of European fishing quotas and the transfer of same to the highest bidder. The Commissioner has hung her coat out on this issue, but I fail to understand the logic. I appreciate that she is viewing the matter in a cold, commercial capacity, but she is not taking into consideration the realities on the ground and the difficulties that member states and small fishing fleets have with their quotas. How do the witnesses believe we should argue our point in our submission?

Plenty has been said about discards. A simplistic approach is being taken and will lead to the destruction of further fish that cannot be used. The ending of discards is being proposed by the Commission, but there are no alternative suggestions as to how the species landed under its proposal will be used commercially or otherwise. The witnesses have the committee's support in this regard.

The Irish box is shown in the slides presented to the committee. Mr. O'Donoghue has mentioned that it is seen as a safe haven or biologically sensitive area. Slide No. 3 details Spanish, French and even British fishing, the majority of which appears to be occurring within the Irish box. If there is a logical explanation, being told what it is might be useful.

I will not refer to any of the other points that have been made. This meeting is a useful exercise.

I thank Mr. O'Donoghue and Mr. Sheehan for their presentations. I also thank their organisations for attending. Meetings such as this enlighten us all as to the best way forward for the industry. The main handicap to the development of our industry has been the quota system, which restricts what we can land. I concur with most of the comments made at this meeting regarding a lack of vision as regards the development of the industry. The sector could be more beneficial to coastal communities and to the economy in general.

The transfer of quotas is concerning, both for us and for the Minister and his Department. When they attended our meetings, they told us they believed they could win the argument. They will receive every necessary support in that respect. Whatever benefit quotas are to the economy would be greatly reduced by mandatory transferable quotas and would depress the sector further.

I take it that whatever quota is not filled by other countries is lost in perpetuity. Is there an opportunity for negotiators to ask to take up that lost quota for the Irish fishing sector?

In Mr. O'Donoghue's presentation, he stated the solution to the discard issue was to buy discard, thereby creating incentives. Will he elaborate on the incentives he has in mind? We all share the same opinion, in that dumping good fish into the sea because they cannot be landed without the fisherman being criminalised is disgraceful.

According to Mr. Sheehan's presentation, a large number of foreign fishing vessels in our waters do not conform to the same regulations or stringent enforcement measures when they return home as the Irish do. This fact is widely known to the Commission and I have heard it stated along the coast. Will Mr. Sheehan elaborate on this point?

Alongside protecting fishing sources, the Minister proposes to increase employment and profitability in the seafood sector and to develop the industry further. How do the witnesses view these proposals? Many of the fish caught in Irish territorial waters make their way back to other countries to be processed and to contribute to their economies. In light of this, if it was mandatory to land fish in the countries in whose waters they were caught, it would have a significant effect in terms of onshore jobs in Ireland. Could this avenue be pursued? I am trying to think outside the box.

I concur with Mr. O'Donoghue's point about the 2013 Presidency being an opportunity, given the decisions that will need to be made at that time. We will be able to apply an extra bit of pressure and the opportunity should not be lost. All parties and none in the Houses are well aware of the situation obtaining in coastal communities and the fishing industry. We are also conscious of the industry's potential. It only needs to be realised and developed properly. We all must put our shoulders to the wheel in the coming two years to get the best outcome possible.

Mr. Sheehan stated that he left school at 16 years of age and did not receive an education, but he has the real education. When a person spends a lifetime in the fishing industry and lives with it on a daily basis, no one can tell him or her anything about it or the associated hardships.

Has the fishing industry an input into the scientific analysis of the protection of species and so forth? I hear from both sides that scientists make observations and determinations based on their views, but the best people to conserve the industry are the fishermen, given that they are dependent on it. I am disappointed they have no input into conservation efforts. Their involvement would be important.

I will comment on the maximum sustainable yield, which goes hand in hand with Deputy Ferris's final point. With reference to Deputy Harrington's comments on local conservation management plans, Mr. O'Donoghue referred to the maximum sustainable yield, which should be agreed in negotiations. A joint local effort on that point should focus on the structure by which maximum sustainable yields are determined.

Mr. Seán O’Donoghue

We have had a big input from Deputies and Senators on this matter and we need to address many questions. Being the chairman, I will allocate certain aspects of the discussion to my colleagues. I will deal with the questions on the Hague, the Irish box and its relative stability, while individual transfer quotas, ITQs, will be addressed by Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide. We did not cover the subject of the last comment by the Chairman, the maximum sustainable yield, but Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide can cover it. Ms Eibhlín O'Sullivan can deal with the electronic logbook issue, discards and regionalisation. A few questions remain but we will try to deal with these initial questions. I will give my colleagues some time to get their thoughts together. That is a bit unfair but it is the joy of being chairman.

A number of questions concern the Hague agreement. The agreement and what we get out of it is critical, as was correctly identified by members. We were going to get that message across, which we managed to do. Members seem to have accepted this. Deputy Pringle asked what we concede, which is a valid question. It is not a matter of what we concede. Every year, the Dutch and Danish and particularly French Ministers and administrators vigorously oppose the Hague agreement because they lose fish. It usually ends up that we do not get all of the Hague preferences and we must sacrifice one at the altar every year even though we do not want to do so. It keeps our attention focused on Hague agreements when we need to tackle other matters. Deputy Ó Cuív asked why this is not permanently enshrined. The Commission did not include it in the proposal as there is a majority at the Council opposed to it. We must box cleverly because we cannot afford to lose this. Our Hague preference concerns a number of key stocks, such as the Celtic Sea cod in the south of Ireland. If we were to lose the Hague preference in respect of this, we would lose 7% or 8% of quota. We close the fishery every year so if we lost that stock we would be in trouble. Every year we argue about this because we have to give up a Hague preference or half of a Hague preference and we want to rectify this. Perhaps if we box cleverly, the Hague preferences can be used by other member states in their waters. Perhaps we can make alliances and, rather than trying to protect what we have, we should try to get more out of it. We need to put much effort into the review to make sure that we do not end up having to fight tooth and nail every December for the Hague preferences.

I did not have the beauty of a PowerPoint presentation so I do not know what colour maps Deputy Ó Cuív referred to but one of the maps with a black line shows the new Irish box. The old Irish box, which is bigger, is shown in yellow but it is difficult to see.

It may show up in a further slide.

Mr. Seán O’Donoghue

The old Irish box cannot be seen on this map but we can rectify it. The other question concerned the significance of the Irish box. When Spain joined the Community in 1986, special restrictions were placed on Spain in terms of fishing in the Irish box because of its huge productivity. Taking away the Irish box would lead to a significant increase in fishing effort, putting more pressure on the stocks. That is not shown on the charts but that is the reality. The nursery areas for a large number of key white fish stocks, such as cod, haddock, whiting, plaice, sole and megrim and hake are concentrated within the Irish box. We do not want to see an increase in effort. The fact that it has not been included in the proposal means that there could be an increase in effort in this area. The authorities were prepared to do it for our colleagues in the Azores but I question why they are not prepared to do it for us. The Azores box was done at the same time as the Irish box.

I hope members will forgive me if I miss some members' questions because they are valid and require a response. Deputy Pringle and I may disagree on the origins of the relative stability of our share of the quota but we do not disagree about our share. The bottom line is that we have a poor share of this. Even if a member state does not catch its percentage share every year and has quota left over, that does not mean it loses that share the next year. It gets the same amount the next year, which is an important point. If France catches 70% of its monkfish quota, which is probably the case, it will not receive only 70% next year. France will have the same portion, approximately 30% or 40%, of the total quantity set aside. I was asked how we can get a greater share because we would be taking it from someone else. That is the case but we are suggesting there are ways and means to do this. The management areas could be changed or a permanent swapping arrangement could be reached with another country that is under-utilising a stock. France is under-utilising monkfish and we never have enough monkfish so perhaps we could do a deal on some other stocks. We could change relative stability and get a greater quantity. Going in to ask for a greater share will not work because the majority is against us and we would be voted down. If we come up with clever ways and get people on our side, we could end up in a much better position than we are at present. We all agree that there are certain stocks where we want a higher percentage share and it is about how we do that. We have put forward six or seven ideas for that.

France is one of the biggest countries that is not meeting its share. Is that continuous?

Mr. Seán O’Donoghue

Yes.

At the end of the day, the EU Commissioners should be in a position to allocate the share that is not taken up on a yearly basis. If it happened once every five years it would be different, but it is happening every year.

Mr. Seán O’Donoghue

This comes back to two famous words - "relative stability". Relative stability was established in 1993 based on new track records in the fishery. We got an opportunity between 1976 and 1983 to write our own relative stability but we did not manage to do it. That is water under the bridge but our problem is we are stuck with that relative stability now. Unless we can get enough member states to say that because France is not catching its percentage of one stock, it should be taken off the French, no other member state will agree. We must find a clever way to amend the relative stability so we get a higher percentage that is not seen by others as causing them to lose out significantly. One way is by using the Hague preference, which recognises the coastal, peripheral nature of things. We should work harder on that.

Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide

The level of discussion here is very positive and welcome. Individual transferable quotas are used in some other countries. The British have an individual transferable quota system, as do the Danes, but we do not. Our system needs considerable reform. From our point of view, it is not a question of principle but most of the industry opposes ITQs. Our difficulty is that the resource is a public one and access to it in our view should not be made into a sort of landlordism, which is what it inevitably ends up as, in terms of concentration of ownership in fewer and fewer hands. Iceland, which is outside the EU, went towards an individual system 15 years ago which led to successive contractions in the number of people who control that because people could circumvent rules. The Icelandic are now trying to move away from that system, which has proven extremely difficult because property rights are involved.

We have our own views. We might not entirely agree on how Irish quotas should be managed but it should be a matter for Ireland and should not be imposed from outside, as Deputy Harrington pointed out, to save money for the EU and so it can force downsizing on the Irish fishing fleet, which accounts for 2% of the total Irish fleet. We do not see how under the Treaty of Rome, which allows for freedom of movement and capital and freedom to establish enterprises in different countries, the Commissioner can supply that. If, however, she is prepared to supply it, we will look at it.

Such safeguards, in terms of the concentration and what would happen here, unlike Iceland, would mean that there would be a tendency in the pelagic industry for migration to the Dutch, who already control a substantial share of the world pelagic industry through various means in various countries. People might argue we would get the opportunity to buy from other people but the industry will follow the capital and I cannot see the banks in Ireland dishing out a great deal of money for us to expand abroad given they cannot take care of us at home.

It is a huge problem and the Commissioner's approach is cynical to a degree; she wants to use our money to rationalise our industry. When everyone else's industry is rationalised, a level of public aid is involved but she has said that will not happen. It is grossly inappropriate, unfair and completely prejudicial. We would become spectators if the system were mandatory. There might be circumstances where there would be approaches that would offer some certainty in terms of access to a resource for a period of five or ten years and those would be preferable to some of what we have now. We are completely opposed to the current proposals, however, and welcome the committee, the Minister and the Government's support.

Deputy Harrington asked about inshore fisheries. In this case, the Irish fisheries policy, not the CFP, is severely defective. Given it is proposed in the document that currently exists to retain the existing six and 12 mile limits, we have shown how not to manage inshore fisheries over the last decades. It is nothing short of a scandal and it diminishes our credibility when going abroad and asking other people to manage things better when we have done so poorly.

There were attempts at inshore frameworks from the bottom-up that have existed for 15 years. I worked for BIM many years ago to develop inshore management frameworks that were warmly welcomed. The inshore sector is in serious trouble; it lacks any sort of structure for resource management, zoning and we are now in a situation because of the failure of inshore management by successive Governments that management will be done by reference to EU directives such as the birds and habitats directives. We will be coming at this from a totally different angle.

If we are to have credibility abroad in our approach to the CFP, we have a requirement to show more leadership in this sector. This part of the sector is the most widely dispersed, least organised and has the widest social impact on the small piers all around the country. There is a great deal that could be done and I cannot understand why this level of reluctance to engage with it has existed, particularly when the industry is looking for management, not trying to avoid it. The maximum sustainable yield is complicated. On the face of it the concept of maximum sustainable yield is that one would harvest the amount over and above what is needed for the stock to reproduce itself at the maximum level and that would produce the greatest benefit. While that is very attractive, it has become a stick with which to beat the industry. There are a number of difficulties with the application of that concept which are well known to scientists. In mixed fisheries, it is not possible to have maximum sustainable yield for every fish in that fishery and it is necessary to make some choices. For example, at what level will one species be set above another? The second aspect is that there are stocks for which it would not be economic to do the level of analysis - it would cost more than the value of the fish to do the analysis to get the exact scientific basis for this MSY. We would like to see a maximum sustainable yield for as many stocks as possible but not the straight-line approach insisted upon by the Commissioner. She is abusing that notion this week in her proposals for the present round of negotiations in my view. We are very much opposed to the cuts she has proposed because of that. In terms of the CFP it is extremely important.

In terms of the scientific analysis, in addition to being the chief executive of the Irish Fish Producers Organisation, although outgoing - my successor, Francis O'Donnell, is behind me today - I also speak as a board member of the Marine Institute in this context. We have very good scientists here by international standards. I believe they are under-resourced and they do the best they can in difficult circumstances. The science needs to be independent of us in order to be credible. It would not be a good idea for the science to become the lapdog of the industry. We have made great strides in recent years in developing a more joined-up approach. We have an industry-science partnership which sets priorities and the industry has been involved in very important cod surveys off the south-east and south coasts. We insisted on having - and worked with the institute on - prawn surveys on the Porcupine Bank, which is a critical area for us. There was more of a convergence in views. All the fishermen involved around the coast do their level best to provide samples and access to vessels so that we can get better science. Science is the god and we need to have better science but there is a long way to go before we reach what I would consider satisfactory levels of co-operation and understanding. I agree with Deputy Martin Ferris that the contribution fishermen can make to the science in terms of making appropriate assessments of the stocks is incalculable. One of our difficulties is that the scientific process is very rigid, awkward and very hard for us to engage with, but I believe we are improving.

Ms Eibhlin O’Sullivan

I echo my colleagues' thanks for the opportunity to address the committee on these matters. I appreciate the understanding and knowledge the committee members have displayed today. I will deal with the three topics which Mr. Seán O'Donoghue has kindly allocated me. As has been expressed here the industry's understanding is obviously that the electronic reporting system should operate on a pan-European basis. I will explain it for those who are not familiar with it. In accordance with the new control regulation enacted towards the end of 2009, the paper logbook systems currently used on vessels are due to be replaced on a phased basis depending on the size of the vessel by an electronic reporting system which will automatically transmit at midnight each night an updated log detailing that fishing vessel's activities for that day.

One of the ways that it was sold to the industry is that it will help to promote a level playing field for Irish vessels with other member state vessels fishing in Irish waters because any vessel in Irish waters will also be under an obligation to transmit its data to our authorities on a daily basis. The idea was that it would give us a better idea of the activities being carried out by those vessels. The roll-out has been much talked about and much delayed. At present Ireland has approximately 23 vessels operating an electronic logbook system. These are all in the greater than 24 m category. The latest information we have from the SFPA is that it is working on having the system operational on all vessels greater than 24 m in coming weeks. Obviously - we have expressed this on many occasions - if it is operational on Irish vessels greater than 24 m, we believe it should be operational on all vessels greater than 24 m operating in Irish waters. The information we have is that this view is shared by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. If we were asked about it in two months we might be able to give the committee a better update on the matter, but that is its status now.

It will be interesting to see how the system works. Having personally had prior experience of implementation of systems, I am sure there will be one or two hiccoughs - to put it mildly. If it is implemented as it is due to be implemented for other member states, it will give us all a better understanding and appreciation of the fish being taken from Irish waters as well as these vessels' activities in Irish waters. It will also give us a better understanding of our own fishing vessels' fishing patterns and so on.

We agree with the committee members that the Commissioner's proposed solution to the issue of discards is an oversimplification. In the CFP proposal document she proposes a timeline for the banning of all discards without detailing how this is to be achieved. As with MSY, discards is a difficult issue particularly with the mixed-fishery context we have in Ireland. Most vessels targeting particular fisheries will be targeting a number of different stocks. The current proposal for discards works on the basis of target species or vulnerable species. This means that if the entire cod quota was exhausted, fishermen would need to stop fishing for anything where there was a potential for catching cod at the same time.

As Mr. O'Donoghue has said, we believe we need to concentrate first of all on avoidance - these fish should not be caught in the first place. A landing obligation merely transfers the problem from the deck of the boat to the quayside. The fish will still be dead and will not give any discernible benefit to the ecosystem. While it has not been properly proven to certain people's satisfaction, discarding to the seabed provides some value in providing a food source to seabirds and to the ecosystem. More important, somebody asked what we are supposed to do with the discarded fish. There are three options in the Commissioner's proposal: they can go for fishmeal, pet food or go to the poor for philanthropic endeavours. We are based in Castletownbere and as a fishmeal plant is a considerable distance away, there would be an issue with transportation costs and so on. We do not have a pet food manufacturer and I am not sure how one would go about distributing fish to the poor in Castletownbere. Perhaps somebody has a suggestion and Deputy Harrington may have something to say on the matter.

As Mr. O'Donoghue has said we need to concentrate on avoidance of these fish in the first place. Any measures being adopted need to be a two-box of measures. It could be increasing mesh size on a gradual phased basis while achieving the maximum benefit in reduction of discards while at the same time minimising the economic loss to vessels and so on.

One of the Deputies asked what we mean by incentivising. At the moment there is no discernible benefit to a vessel from reducing its discards. Obviously reducing discards decreases fishing mortality. One of the suggested incentives would be to get a percentage of the reduction in discards allocated to the quota, which is quite a simple one. Catches now take into account both landed catches and discards.

We say it should be minimised. We need to recognise that regardless of the technical measures adopted there will always be some level of discards which needs to be minimised. Fishermen and fishing vessels need to work together. In addition, the Commission must give us the tools to enable us to do this.

As for regionalisation, I echo the sentiments expressed that the document constitutes a missed opportunity. On my first reading of it, I wondered whether I had missed out on something because the only place in which I could find the word, "regionalisation" was in the title. I still cannot discern where the Commissioner has put forward her proposals in respect of regionalisation although we have discussed this at length with the Commission, which has advised us of its view that it has gone as far as it legally can under the treaties. Mr. Sean O'Donoghue referred to and included in his presentation a slide outlining a suggested form of regionalisation that has been prepared by a project in which both Mr. O'Donoghue and I were involved, namely, making the European fisheries ecosystem plan operational, MEFEPO, project. As part of that project, we discussed a model we considered to be achievable with NGOs, industry representatives and various people involved with the European Commission and so on. We thought it would provide a real bottom-up approach to fisheries management, while at the same time remaining within the legal confines that are imposed on us by the treaties. As has been stated, the important point is that the Commission should not really tell one what net size to use down in Castletownbere. Instead, our suggestion was that the Commission should set the targets and then leave it to what we called a decentralised fisheries management board to enact how to achieve those targets. The idea is that there would be another body that would provide the scientific data and so on. The Commission has stated repeatedly that it is open to suggestions on this matter and we will continue to suggest our alternatives in this regard. However, we believe it will be important to have included in the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, proposal more meaningful regionalisation measures than exist at present. I thank members for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Ebbie Sheehan

I will not go back over the queries which already have been addressed. There is no point in boring members by repeatedly going over the questions that have been addressed by my colleagues in the industry and with whom I concur completely. One point raised by Deputy Harrington concerned big factory ships fishing off the west coast of Ireland, which catch thousands of tonnes of mackerel. While the Irish fleet cannot seem to catch only top grade mackerel, the foreign fleets appear to have no problem in so doing. The Commission knows what they are doing, which is grading mackerel at sea. The under-sized mackerel, by which I mean decent-sized mackerel, are minced and pumped back over the side but are not taken from the quota of the nation that catches them. This is widely known by everyone in Europe and by the Commission. Moreover, there is a fleet of foreign boats that fishes off the west coast of Ireland and lo and behold, when they land here, they only land quota species. However, when they land in their own port of origin, 90% and sometimes 100% of what they land comprises non-quota species, that is, species that are not confined to quotas. Consequently, they can land as much of them as they wish. This to me is akin to the miracle of the loaves and fishes. It is impossible. The main function of the Common Fisheries Policy review and the main function of the discussion that will take place in Europe next week, is to conserve stocks. For some reason, the Commission appears to be able to pick and choose which stocks it wishes to conserve and who it wishes to penalise. The Irish industry has been penalised for years and has been awarded smaller quotas. Although immense crimes are taking place at sea, for some reason the Commission does not wish to address them and I consider this to be totally wrong.

I refer to a point raised by Deputy Ferris in respect of relative stability that was answered by Mr. Sean O'Donoghue. On average, the Irish whitefish industry has 8% of whitefish in its own waters, while the French have 48%. The French will never catch their entire quota and I imagine they may get 60% of it. When Ireland negotiates its quota next week and when we negotiate with regard to the CFP, there will be a Europe-wide total allowable catch, TAC. However, this European TAC will never be realised because some countries like France have quotas that are far too big and they will never be able to catch it. While I do not understand the technical issues as well as does Mr. O'Donoghue, I fail to understand the reason a country on the periphery of Europe, which has the richest waters in Europe, cannot get a measly few percent more when the European TAC as a whole has never been realised. On the issue of individual transfer quotas, ITQs, I consider this proposal to be a cheap decommissioning scheme. There are plenty of fishermen at present who, like any other business in Ireland, are under serious financial strain. Were ITQs to be introduced in Ireland tomorrow morning and were someone to come along with an open chequebook, they would be gone. This would be to the detriment of rural areas such as Castletownbere, Fenit, Donegal or wherever.

As for generating more employment and money from the fish landed at home, this certainly is possible. We need more quota and as I stated at the outset, we need to attract the next generation into fishing. This is an important point that must be recognised in Ireland and across Europe. The statistics from BIM and from across Europe indicate the next generation is not entering the industry and the same phenomenon is happening in Spain and France. There must be a logical answer, which is that throughout Europe, the industry is not sufficiently attractive and there is not enough money in it. If this industry is to continue in rural areas in the future, the issue of getting the next generation into fishing must be addressed.

I seek the views of the industry on an issue I neglected to mention. It is a topical issue, not so much for the CFP, but in a European context and it certainly will affect the Irish fleet. I refer to the antics with which the Faroese and Icelandic industries have been carrying on. I have strong views on the matter but I seek those of the industry on the implications this will have, in respect of the mackerel quota that will be allocated to Ireland and regarding the Marine Stewardship Council certification. It may have a knock-on effect in terms of missing out on our quota and of losing out in respect of the quota we will catch. I strongly urge and call publically for limited sanctions to be imposed immediately on those two countries for what they have done. Immediate consideration should be given to their fish exports to the European Union and if they persist in their behaviour, these sanctions should go further. At a time when, as Mr. Sheehan has noted, the focus of discussion is conservation, they have put a coach and four through the whole thing and it is outrageous.

Mr. Seán O’Donoghue

As members know, this is a subject that is dear to my heart and in common with my other Federation of Irish Fishermen colleagues, we spent last week in Deputy Harrington's part of the country in Clonakilty with the coastal states, that is, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway and the EU, as well as with Russia as observers. The Deputy is quite correct that this is an absolute scandal. The actions of Iceland and the Faroe Islands cannot be justified. They have gone from 6% of the mackerel TAC up to 45% within four years and are exceeding the scientific quota by 300,000 tonnes. These are not small figures but are crazy figures and this must be stopped. Mackerel is the No. 1 economic money-spinner for the Irish fishing fleet and unless this is stopped, we will not have a mackerel fishery within two to three years. Not alone are we working together as an Irish industry, we are doing so as a European industry. We have joined forces with our Norwegian industry colleagues, on the catching and processing side. We all agree that the Faroe Islands and Iceland cannot be rewarded for their irresponsible and reckless behaviour. They are entitled to a share, but they are not entitled to a share that goes from 6% to 46%.

There will be a resumption of the coastal states talks in January. We understand that the Commission has finally published its sanctions proposals today. This is the one way to bring these people to heel. The amount of white fish - not pelagic fish - coming into the EU from the Faroe Islands and Iceland into the EU is 300,000-400,000 tonnes. If the EU and Norway impose sanctions in the morning, we would have this thing sorted within ten days. We have been in touch with the Minister several times on this. To be fair, he has taken it up at European level and at coastal states level as well. Hopefully, we will get a solution to this. If we do not, we are in serious trouble. Much of our time is going into this to make sure that we do not have a collapse in mackerel fisheries, as we had with the blue whiting fisheries.

I thank Mr. O'Donoghue and his colleague Mr. Sheehan. I am also aware of the presence of Ms O hAodha from the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation. Your name was not on the list, but I welcome you and thank you for coming.

Along with the committee on EU scrutiny, we have taken on board the proposed regulation of the new CFP. We are preparing a draft document on the issue, but we decided that it would be advisable to wait until we heard from the delegates today. You will have gathered from the members of the committee that we have a fair wealth of expertise on fishing across the different parties. We are working as one on this. We will have a finalised proposal fairly shortly. It will be laid before both Houses, forwarded to the Minister and forwarded to the Commissioner as the considered response of the Irish Parliament on the reform of the CFP. The document is not finalised.

It is fair to say that there are probably eight to ten headline issues involved, and while that might sound simplistic, it is a detailed and complex area. It provides an opportunity to create a Common Fisheries Policy that deals with conservation on the one hand, but on the other hand offers an opportunity for Ireland. We are trying to unlock potential that is sustainable and nothing else. The last issue raised, which could be described as maverick behaviour, undermines everything else that the EU and the Common Fisheries Policy sets out to achieve.

The report will be available publicly on the website once it is concluded.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.55 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 December 2011.
Top
Share