Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Dec 1995

Vol. 459 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Proposed Mackerel Quota Reduction.

Miss Coughlan

I thank you for allowing me raise this matter on the Adjournment. I wish to share time with my colleague, Deputy McGinley.

I raise this matter because it will have serious implications for the fishing industry especially in the west and north west. We all agree that the overall share of fishing stocks allocated under the quota to Ireland falls short of being fair and reasonable. We also agree that the proper management and protection of our fishing stocks is imperative for the survival of the industry in the long-term.

How can the EU Commission say it wants an 80 per cent reduction in the mackerel quota? If our stocks are so much in danger the fishery should be closed and operators compensated until such time as fish stocks are replenished. I am sure the Minister will agree this will not happen. Any reduction of this nature is equal to closing down an industry and it would decimate an already weak peripheral economy. I hope the Minister will get enough support at the Council of Ministers meeting to ensure that this reduction does not become a reality.

In Killybegs there are 12 factories and approximately 2,000 people are employed there, not to mention those who work on the boats. The same applies in Burtonport, Moville, Greencastle and other fishing ports along the west coast. It is of the utmost importance to these areas to ensure that this industry is kept viable. The Commission and the Government must reconcile the socio-economic realities with the need to preserve fish stocks. Any reduction must be where it will have the least effect on the economy. My constituency should suffer the least number of cuts in the Irish quota. The cuts would not have such a devastating effect on Scotland and Norway which have traditional commercial fishing industries and stronger economies than the west and north-west coast of Ireland.

An additional problem is that the fishing industry will not accept scientific evidence and research undertaken in May when there is no mackerel. It is important to provide adequate funding for proper research into the preservation of fish stocks. I know it would be expensive but an inspector or biologist should work on a trawler for the entire mackerel fishing season, to conduct a proper research. This would be money well spent and would ensure that it is recognised that mackerel stocks have moved from their traditional locations. No cognisance has been taken of the new stock available along the west coast.

I implore the Minister to try to ensure there is not a cut in our quota but, if there is a reduction, to address its effects on local economies. I also ask him to make every effort to protect this part-time and seasonal industry which is probably the only real industry along the west coast.

Mr. McGinley

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil don Teachta Coughlan as ucht a cuid ama a roinnt liom. Recent reports of a possible reduction of 80 per cent in the mackerel TAC for 1996 have caused consternation in the pelagic fishing sector. Mackerel is the backbone of the fishing industry in the north-west, particularly in Donegal. Any reduction, however small, in our quota would have very serious implications but a reduction of 80 per cent would be catastrophic and would mean the death of the industry. Such a reduction would be a mortal blow to the economy of Killybegs and a wide area of south-west Donegal stretching from Glencolmcille to Donegal town and up into the Rosses. It would also jeopardise the huge investment by native fishing entrepreneurs and super-trawlers which depend entirely on mackerel fishing and would give fishermen no option but to put their vessels on the scrap heap while the thousands of people working in onshore processing would be out of work in areas which have very few employment alternatives. The only alternative for most people would be the dole or emigration. This cannot be allowed to happen.

The demand for such a drastic reduction in the quota is based on scientific surveys which indicate that stocks are being seriously depleted. Such surveys must be taken with a pinch of salt. Fishermen have reported that there is no noticeable reduction in stocks, and they have often been proven to be accurate in the past. The Minister has a heavy responsibility in this area and I know he is gallantly fighting the battle on behalf of fishermen. He knows from his visits to the north-west and elsewhere the importance of mackerel fishing to the industry. I assure him that he has the support of all Members of the House in his battle on behalf of Irish fishermen with the Norwegians and others.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Barrett)

I thank the Deputies for their positive and constructive approach to this matter. I am very glad to have the opportunity to update the House on the current EU negotiations with Norway on the 1996 fisheries agreement and, in particular, on the very hard line I am taking on any proposed mackerel agreement within those negotiations.

The EU and Norway are in the middle of the annual round of fisheries negotiations which cover a number of species where there is joint EU-Norwegian interest. Ireland's only interest is in the mackerel agreement. While the Commission negotiates, we are fully involved in EU co-ordination on the matter in Brussels. The second round of talks with Norway broke down last Friday and no date has been set for a resumption, although there will be EU co-ordination in reviewing the situation in Brussels tomorrow.

These are vitally important negotiations for the Irish pelagic sector and we are to the forefront in taking a tough line with Norway. Since taking office I have urged the Commissioner and my colleagues in the Fisheries Council to ensure that the EU adopts a robust approach to Norway's demands in this year's talks. Current arrangements on mackerel shares are unbalanced in favour of Norway whose share of the total allowable catch is approximately 30 per cent. While this would have been stabilised under the 1994 Accession Agreement the subsequent vote by that country against EU membership left the arrangement open-ended and subject to annual negotiation. Earlier this year we fought hard to contain any further increase in the Norwegian mackeral share and managed to keep the increase to a symbolic .05 per cent in the face of the Norwegian demand for an increase of 50 per cent or more. Norway continues to look for an increased share of the mackerel stock and to rule out any significant flexibility to fish for mackerel in its zone, and this despite the fact that its fishermen have significant rights to fish for species in EU waters to the north and west of Ireland.

The context of the negotiations on the 1996 agreement is grim and the scientific advice on the mackerel and other stocks is pessimistic. Scientists have recommended an 80 per cent cut in the mackerel TAC for 1996 in order to restore viability. A reduction of this magnitude would have devastating effects on our pelagic fleet and the related processing sector which is of such major economic importance to north west coastal communities. That being said, this scientific advice has to be taken seriously. We cannot afford to be complacent about the state of stocks and it is clear that decisive action must be taken if the collapse of stocks is to be avoided. In other words, a level of reduction is unavoidable but the approach should be incremental and sustainable over a period. I want to achieve a balance between scientific and conservation imperatives and the industry's need for certainty and sustainable fishing in the foreseeable future. The so-called "quick fix" solution of imposing such a major reduction does not strike the necessary balance. Anything other than an incremental approach would decimate our pelagic fleet which does not have the scale and extent of fishing opportunities available to the Norwegians not just in their own fisheries but in EU waters as well.

To date, the Commission, in leading the negotiations with Norway and other member states, has shared our view on the need for a medium term approach to the mackeral TAC. The negotiations broke down last Friday on this very issue and both sides are now reflecting on their positions. In the interim I have written to Commissioner Bonino and the President of the Fisheries Council, Minister Atienza, setting out the Irish position in strong terms. I have stressed that any reduction in Ireland's mackeral fishing rights relative to Norway would be unacceptable and would create the gravest difficulties for Ireland in the Fisheries Council. I have pressed for a balance between acknowledged scientific concerns and the vital economic needs of the mackerel industry. I have made it clear that, in the context of the already unbalanced mackeral sharing in Norway's favour and the existing rights of Norwegian fishermen to fish in EU waters, I cannot accept the drastic "quick fix" of a massive cut in the TAC favoured by that country. We will keep the pressure up in the days and weeks ahead.

I am confident that the fishing industry supports my tough stance on this issue and I will continue to keep in close touch with the fisheries organisations as the negotiations develop. I am sure Deputies will support my strongly held position on the need to resist Norwegian demands on share and other entitlements while at the same time pressing for a balanced and careful approach to the mackeral TAC for 1996 and future years.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 December 1995.