Gerry O'Sullivan
Ceist:17 Mr. G. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for the Marine the steps he proposes to take to safeguard Irish fishermen's interests and earnings in relation to the conservation measures being introduced by EC Ministers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EC Conservation Measures.
I assume the Deputy is referring to the proposals to amend Council Regulation 3094/86, which are currently on the table. There are two such proposals: the first — the Tenth amendment to Regulation 3094/86 — incorporates a package of amendments concerning net geometry, mesh size and mesh geometry and protection of whiting; the second — the Eleventh amendment to Regulation 3094/86 — concerns chiefly the limiting of the conditions under which driftnets may be used.
The Tenth amendment has been on the table now for some time. It has been discussed on a number of occasions at Council of Fisheries Ministers level. At these meetings, I have stated quite clearly that I believe early adoption of effective conservation measures is essential to the preservation of the stocks, particularly of stocks in the North Sea.
This is not an academic matter. It is a practical matter of maintaining a sustainable livelihood for thousands of fishermen. In the negotiations I have, however, cautioned the Commission against extending to areas outside of the North Sea the solution to a problem which is essentially a North Sea problem. In addition, I have indicated that I would be very concerned that no decisions be taken in this matter without sufficient evidence having been obtained to corroborate the decisions.
The Eleventh amendment is a more recent proposal. The proposal is for a ban on driftnets greater than 2.6 km, with the added stipulation that any driftnets greater than 1 km must remain attached to the vessel during fishing.
My view at the Council has been that we should not apply the solution to what is essentially a largescale, high-seas problem, on a global basis, the more so in the light of the almost complete lack of scientific evidence on the use and effects of driftnets within Community waters. In addition, I have argued that we should ensure that any proposals adopted take account of the circumstances of the use of driftnets in different sea areas.
For these reasons I have opposed the introduction of a ban on all driftnets of length greater than 2.5 km. I have, however, indicated that I could support the introduction of a limit on the maximum permitted length of driftnet provided the limit is set at a level which does not undermine established fisheries or the possibility of their development, unless it is sufficiently clear that the environment is at a significant risk.
At all stages of the negotiations, the fishing industry here has been consulted in regard to the proposals, and the views expressed have been taken into account in formulating Ireland's response to the proposals.
Does the Minister agree that by implementing these restrictions, the earnings of Irish fishermen could suffer dramatically? Would he further agree that Irish fishermen understand the need for conservation but that the Irish waters have been raped by other countries and the Irish fisherman should not have to suffer in this instance?
The latter half of my reply stated exactly what Deputy O'Sullivan has just stated.
Has the Minister presented a very strong case on behalf of the Irish fishermen to his counterparts in Europe in the light of our being an island country on the periphery, of our fishing waters having been raped by other member states over the years and from the Irish viewpoint that there is a need to increase the catch of the traditional species, especially mackerel and herring?
If we had reached the question the Deputy had tabled on this matter, she would have got some useful and consoling information about the increase in the mackerel quota which I succeeded in getting at the Council meeting in December 1990.
The fact is that the Celtic Sea herring fishery was so badly hammered by our own fishermen as well as by others that at one stage it was closed down for six years in order to allow the stocks to be replenished. Happily that has happened and the fishermen have quotas in the Celtic Sea but let me say that the question of the conservation of cod and halibut in the North Sea is very serious. There is a grave danger of the stocks dying out completely. The point I made in my reply is that what would remedy the dreadful effects of over fishing in the North Sea is not necessarily applicable in areas 6A and 6B, where similar fish are caught here. I have been arguing that case at Council.
Would the Minister agree in respect of the use of driftnets for sea trout and salmon — and in view of the serious depletion of stocks and the serious effect of that on the tourist trade — that he should take steps to buy out the nets and compensate the fishermen, thus allowing the fish up the rivers?
If the laws are strictly adhered to and applied we will see to it that enough salmon get up the rivers. With regard to the driftnets the big excitement and concern derived from the use of miles and miles of net in the Pacific Ocean which had a serious effect on marine life in those areas. Again it is important not to transfer a remedy from one area to another where it does not suit.