Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Dr. Pikitch mentioned that 90% of forage fish is processed into feeds. Is there a case to be made to restrict the use of fish meal in the production of animal feed, for example, as a conservation measure to reduce fishing effort on forage fish? It might have some benefit in sustaining the stocks.

With regard to the Humboldt Current slide showing the predators that depend on the forage fish, mackerel are 62% dependent. Would the same level of dependency on forage fish apply across the world to Atlantic mackerel stocks? Over the last years there have been very severe restrictions on herring fishing around the coast of Ireland. It coincided with increases in TAC levels for mackerel. Would there be a direct correlation there? The science is probably not available yet to say that, but I wondered about it and whether there might be some merit in that as Dr. Pikitch gave her presentation.

In the case of the mathematical probability slide, Dr. Pikitch spoke about the three scenarios. I presume they are all inter-related in terms of their outcomes. In the case of the probability of collapse if one is aiming for the precautionary system, would that have a knock-on effect?

Perhaps the level of decline in predators could be less than 11% or is it that they are all found together?

I refer to the maximum sustainable yield. From what Dr. Pikitch stated in her presentation, it is probably defined incorrectly. Given that the Common Fisheries Policy is aiming towards sustaining a maximum sustainable yield for the next ten years, or for as long as the policy is in place, does it mean that EU policy is way behind the curve in terms of what needs to be done?