Mr. Tom Moran:

My two colleagues, Mr. Cecil Beamish and Ms Josephine Kelly, on the fisheries side are based in Clonakilty but have been spending much more time in Brussels in recent times. There is much discussion about the Common Agricultural Policy and the MFF and so on without giving full vent to the fact that the other major reform that is also landing in our Presidency is the Common Fisheries Policy, which is receiving huge attention in the Department. It is an overarching policy framework which governs the fishery and the wider seafood sectors in the European Union. It is a policy that was first put in place in 1983, subject to review every ten years, and is currently undergoing a reform process which we would hope to conclude also during the Presidency.

The CFP comprises three separate pieces of legislation - a basic policy regulation, a regulation on the common organisation of the market, and the European maritime and fisheries fund. The position on the reform was prepared following intensive negotiations with stakeholders throughout the country. A series of meetings was held throughout the country which involved the former Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Killeen, under the chairmanship of Mr. Noel Cawley, formerly of the Irish Dairy Board. In early 2010, a report entitled Ireland's Response to the Commission's Green Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, a pre-document, was published and that has formed the basis of our negotiating position in these negotiations.

At Council level there has been a series of intensive discussions to secure an agreed position on the main policies of the reform. In June 2012, under the Danish Presidency, Council agreement was secured on a general approach to the basic regulation, the common organisation of the market.

At the October 2012 Council, the Cypriot Presidency of the EU got agreement on a partial general approach on the financial instrument - it is the second element. While establishing a Council's general approach is significant, it is an informal step in the process of working towards a final agreement. These agreements give a clear message as to the direction the Council wants to take but they also form the basis of determining the negotiating mandate for the Council with the Parliament as it heads into that process.

It is important to note that the negotiating mandate must be formally adopted by the Council and will determine the Council's position in the process with the Parliament. The general approach already secured does not cover all aspects of the policy as some key and contentious issues have not been agreed.
The timetable for the reform was discussed in the previous discussion on agriculture and it is changing on the fish side. On the basic regulation, a vote in the European Parliament fish committee, called the PECH committee originally scheduled for 9 October has now been postponed until 8December with a plenary in early February, during our Presidency. On the common organisation of the market, the European Parliament committee has secured a first reading of the CMO but it is unclear if the Cypriot Presidency will advance it over the coming months. Agreement on this is likely to be linked to that of the basic regulation. On the fund, originally scheduled for vote in the PECH committee in November and the plenary in January, it now appears that the committee will vote early in the new year with a plenary vote in March. The Irish Presidency will actively endeavour to reach agreement.

On the key issues, I will set out some of the key developments at the June and October Councils. At the June Council the general approach on the Common Fisheries Policy regulation saw movement and consolidation on a number of fronts, namely, a new compromise approach based on a proposal tabled by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, setting down a definitive timetable for the elimination of discards, which was an extremely contentious issue and is a contentious issue in the proposals. The measures which would be introduced on a phased basis are as follows - it would apply to pelagic fish from 1 January 2014; from January 2015 and not later than 2018 for fish - cod, haddock, whiting and saithe - in the north-western waters. The general approach also provides for de minimis exemptions of up to 5% of the total annual catches of species in certain situations; and derogation from the obligation to count catches against the relevant quotas to allow a deduction of quota from the target species. Plans will be designed to bring the fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yields, MSY, by 2015.

On regionalisation, member states involved in a region would work together in consultation with the EU advisory councils and formulate general recommendations for fish conservation and management in the regions. A key element is the removal of the mandatory nature of the proposed system of transferable fishing concessions, to which Ireland was vehemently opposed since the outset. This had serious potential to concentrate quotas in the hands of a few powerful European fishing companies.

The so called Hague Preferences - which are a bone of contention most years at the end of the year - are mechanisms which give Ireland additional quota when TAC levels are below a certain threshold. They are referred to in the "Whereas" clauses. Ireland had sought that the Hague Preferences be built into the allocation keys determining relative stability. This has not been done. However, their retention in the traditional format is important. It could have been an awful lot worse than that.

With regard to the future negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council, one of the biggest difficulties may be resolving the institutional deadlock over long-term management plans. This issue concerns the roles of Council and the Parliament in setting parameters for out-take, known as the harvest control rule.

The partial general approach adopted at the October Fisheries Council addressed a number of Ireland's priorities while leaving some unresolved. Of particular note is the agreement - this is on the fund - that decommissioning is now eligible for expenditure under the financial instrument under certain circumstances. This is a very welcome development as there had been strong opposition to it from a number member states and the Commission. Modernisation of vessels, including engine replacement,is permitted under restricted conditions. This relates to the climate change area in that they can be more efficient from that point of view. Ireland's request for safety equipment, even where it is mandatory, could be eligible for expenditure under the review - we wanted that but that was not accepted. The allocation criteria among member states was left unaddressed and will be returned to at a later date. Measures supporting the entrance of young fishermen to the sector are welcomed.

Looking forward to the Irish Presidency, the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy will be foremost on our work programme with agenda slots on most of the Councils - there will be joint Councils - Agriculture and Fisheries - throughout our Presidency. The Minister's aim is to facilitate negotiations between the Council and Parliament with a view to trying to broker a compromise by June.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Moran.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. Can the Secretary General confirm that at the beginning of the negotiations Ireland made a strong protest that the whole regime is totally inequitable as we own 18% of the fish of Europe and yet are allocated a quota of 4%? I presume he can confirm that the Department made a strong stand that we are starting from the wrong place and that he will continue to make that stand until we get our proportionate allocation. I understand that if we had kept our fish we would have no national debt; in other words we have given a free present to Europe. I accept that Fianna Fáil was in government for most of those negotiations and it was one of the big mistakes it made and I opposed it.

On the issue of discards, I support any effort to reduce these in a practical way. The rules outlined by the Secretary General appear complicated and it will take some time to get my head around exactly how they will work and whether there will be unintended consequences. There are people who say there will be such consequences. However, the principle is bang on. It is absolutely wrong to take fish out of the sea, kill them and return them to the sea.

Will the Secretary General confirm whether the transferable fishing concessions are gone off the table and, if so, that it appears that fishing in Europe is being taken over by major companies, which does little for Ireland and its coastal communities? It is important that Mr. Moran dig his heels in on the Hague Preferences because while they are in that form they will always be seen as a concession. Every year one goes to Brussels there will be negotiations and the major concession will be to get back what one already had and should have permanently. This time we need to get it written in permanently that it is part of the regime and not something we get every Christmas as a present to keep the good kiddie quiet. There is a BIM programme for coastal communities the name of which escapes me but Mr. Beamish will be aware of it.

Mr. Cecil Beamish:

The fisheries local action groups.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A meeting took place in Rosmuc last night. The fishermen went along thinking it would be about fishing, better equipment and better opportunities to fish, to find there was nothing about fishing. It was all about getting them out of fishing to do something else in rural development. I share the disgust of the fishermen that this is not where they want to be. Will there be a better deal to protect coastal zones from the major factory trawlers and ensure they are kept for coastal fishermen in smaller boats, for whom the sea has been a way of life and who, through various methods, have been progressively pushed out of the poly fishing in which they engaged, that is, a bit of this, a bit of that and a bit of the other, where they are all meant to specialise? Traditional coastal communities are decimated from an income and a fishing point of view.

As I said on another occasion when I was sitting beside a Kilkenny man, as someone was arguing about the unimportance of a way of life, if one took hurling sticks away from Kilkenny men, one would soon find out that maintaining a way of life is as important as making a profit. I know that Kilkenny men play hurling purely for the fun of it. It is important to recognise that for many people, agriculture and fishing are not all about the profits they make. I see accounts from fishermen and farmers. Many of them are not making much of a profit out of it, but they still do it because it is a part of their lives. A fair number of young people are still inheriting the traditions, skills and knowledge of the sea. They want to keep at it. In these discussions, it is absolutely vital for an enhanced area out from the coast to be preserved for these small-time fishermen.

Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I am not a member of this committee, I would like to thank the Chairman for giving me an opportunity to listen to the presentation. I thank Mr. Moran and the other officials for their attendance. Obviously, there is great interest in the Dáil when the Common Agricultural Policy is discussed. It gets quite a broad audience. Regrettably, the Common Fisheries Policy and this island's important sea-fisheries industry are of narrower interest. It is a shame. The review of the Common Fisheries Policy is of critical importance for the fishing industry, just as the Common Agricultural Policy is for the agriculture industry. Perhaps it is even more important.

I would like to ask about the approach being taken by Ireland during the Common Fisheries Policy negotiations. Can the officials indicate whether any political alliances are being agreed or harnessed with regard to issues like discards and transferable fishing concessions? Mr. Moran mentioned that agreement has been reached on decommissioning. Can he give us some idea of how much money will be available as part of the financial plan for the decommissioning of the Irish fleet?

I assume the Hague preferences will be part of the negotiations on total allowable catches towards the end of this year, perhaps in the next couple of weeks. Can the officials give us an indication in that regard? We have seen some of the Commission's proposals on total allowable catches. They are quite frightening for the industry, but that is usual before agreements are reached. The industry is looking for some reassurance that we will give the maintenance of the total allowable catches our best shot.

The Minister has not mentioned something that needs to be said but has not been touched on yet. It needs to be supported. As Deputy Ó Cuív said, the Minister's hands are tied in terms of relative stability with the total allowable catches. The Minister has said that when scientific information shows that there has been an increase in stocks, we can move to a position where the Irish share can increase proportionately. It would be remiss of me not to mention the difficulty we have. The opinion of the industry is that in the cases of certain stocks, such as hake and cod, the scientific advice from ICES, the Marine Institute or another part of the troika - if we can call it that - is falling far behind what is happening at sea. In other words, the information on what is out there is subject to a huge time lag before decisions are made at Commission and Council levels. That is becoming a huge problem. It relates to issues like discards and maximum sustainable yields. The Marine Institute does a fantastic job in assembling the information, but I think we could do a better job in getting it from the institute to the Council. It is taking far too long.

I have spoken to people in the industry who are working on technical measures to alleviate some of the discards. I have been told that some of the measures are proving reasonably successful. That is encouraging, but I do not think it will solve the entire problem of discards. It is a delicate problem. Morally, it is wrong to throw good fish overboard. It is criminal, in my opinion, but the quota system does not allow for anything else. The Minister has agreed that discards in pelagics will be signed off in 2014 and in mixed fisheries and demersals in the next few years after that. It is the right thing to do. The difficulty is in getting the industry to come on board in the first instance and then to agree the technical measures that are required to see it through. I would like to know whether the officials have any comments or further technical information on that.

I will conclude by talking about safety equipment. It is disappointing that financial assistance is not more forthcoming. We have heard anecdotal evidence at this committee about incidents in which lives have been lost at sea. It is clear from the comparison that has been done between Iceland and Ireland - I do not know if it is like comparing apples with oranges - that for various reasons, we have a problem with lives lost at sea. A strong case should be made for further supports to enhance the safety equipment of vessels. God knows that the owners of vessels are coming under enough pressure from the Marine Survey Office, the Health and Safety Authority and the insurance industry to bring their vessels up to spec, and rightly so. It is disappointing that they are not getting the financial recognition that is required. Will a further attempt be made to see whether we can get more assistance in this regard under the Common Fisheries Policy or any other instrument?

Michael Comiskey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials for their presentation on the fisheries industry. I do not come from a fishing county. I am learning a little as I go along. I have been lobbied by a number of fishing organisations. The progress being made on whole area of disregards is very welcome. That is a good move. We all agree that it does not make any sense to be throwing perfectly good fish overboard.

The second point I would like to make reminds me of a debate we had earlier about farmers in the west and the east in the context of the single farm payment. A similar problem arises at sea when bigger trawlers come in and take away the livelihoods of smaller fishermen. Deputy Ó Cuív referred to that issue. Having been lobbied by a local group, I know that a number of jobs have been created in the Galway area recently on foot of work done by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to get quotas allocated to smaller fishermen. That has to be a good thing. It is important to support those who have depended on fishing over the years, even if they might have had a small way of working or might have caught different species. As I said, it is like the question of small farmers versus big farmers. We have to look after the smaller people as well. It will create jobs in smaller areas.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the officials from the section of the Department that deals with fisheries. I am pleased that we have been given an update on the ongoing review of the Common Fisheries Policy. I generally agree with what the Secretary General said in his presentation. The whole area of discards is a feature of the global fishing environment. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, some 7.3 million tonnes of fish are discarded overboard each year. That is disgraceful in a world of poverty and hunger. In this country alone, approximately 400,000 people are out of work. A fisherman in Kilmore Quay who recently gave away fish he had brought ashore - he did the right thing by not charging for it - is being brought through the courts through no fault of his own. Ireland and other EU member states have to observe the discards rule as a result of an outrageous European ruling. This is an example of one good thing that can come out of the review of the Common Fisheries Policy.

How will the regionalisation issue raised in the Secretary General's presentation pan out? What would be the position if the fishing activities here were to be regionalised? I am thinking of the offshore islands in areas such as Donegal and the islands off Connemara? What if there were specific regionalised measures in place? Commissioner Damanaki comes from a small region and she has been very vocal in her support for the regionalisation of smaller fisheries. What steps have been taken and has any progress been made in that regard? During the negotiations at Council level or even among officials dealing with the Commission were any steps taken to seek protections for smaller island fishermen, particularly those with vessels of 10 m or less? Were any specific measures sought to protect the smaller fishing fleet?

While it is not exclusively an area within the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, fishermen on the north-west coast are prohibited from mixed stock fishing in area 6A. I refer in particular to the fishermen in Arranmore Island and Tory Island whose way of life until now would have involved mixed stock fishing but they are precluded from doing that because of the draconian rulings brought in through the Common Fisheries Policy and, moreover, by our own Department. I am aware there is scientific data to back up the reasoning behind the decision but at the same time we are talking about only a few fishermen. I understand the Commission is moving towards a view that area 6A could be opened up but we must be careful not to open it up to the massive trawlers also. If it is to be opened up it should be opened up for the local smaller fishermen who will not exploit the fish source in area 6A but who will fish it, earn a livelihood from it and add to an island way of life which has been a tradition through the centuries. Is Mr. Moran aware, outside of the CFP, of any movement in bringing about favourable steps in that regard?

Mr. Tom Moran:

I will hand some of those questions over to the specialists because some of the fishing aspects are extremely specialised and my colleagues have been working on them for a long time.

I will make one or two points. In terms of linking the Common Agricultural Policy and 2020, a key point in 2020 is seafood and one of the highlights of the 2020 strategy has been the development of the seafood sector. It is not that long a period since it came into our Department. We were lucky enough to bring in the team that was already dealing with, and they are excellent people. The deep sea aquaculture projects, for example, are serious game changers in the development of the sector. We often hear 2020 being discussed in terms of a huge increase in the value of milk, beef or pigmeat output but the seafood sector is up there with the best of them in terms of its potential, and it is something we are driving.

I will make some general points. I welcome the comments made on the discards. That got to where it is now based on an Ireland proposal in the Danish Presidency but all of this must go through the Parliament. Nothing has been finalised on that yet. The same would apply on the concessions. There are strong forces that would like to make that element of the CFP mandatory and therefore the fact that it has been written into the general approach does not necessarily mean that it is out. The Parliament will still have to answer in that regard.

On the Hague Preferences, something I came to know and love in the late December negotiations when I learned all about their importance and how vital it is to protect them, we are pleased that has been kept in in the same way under the existing regulations. That is hugely important.

On the general point, we are dealing with Commission proposals. There is no appetite in the Council for a complete change in the approach to quotas. We must deal with the hand we have been dealt but the relative stability issue is something to which we strongly adhere. We are trying to get the best possible deal within the set of current proposals, get those through Council and Parliament and perhaps steer a deal that best suits Ireland. Mr. Beamish might want to answer some of the other questions.

Mr. Cecil Beamish:

On Deputy Harrington's point about the fisheries fund, the overall fisheries fund is not yet agreed; it is part of the multi-annual financial framework. In the discussions that will take place in November the quantum available to the fund globally will be part of that agreement. What the Council has agreed is on the way aspects of the fund can be spent subsequent to agreement on the actual quantum involved.

Regarding decommissioning, the agreement reached at 4 a.m. over a week ago was that the available fund to a member state would be a maximum of €6 million or 15% of the national allocation. The national allocation and the criteria governing that will fall to be decided during the Irish Presidency subsequent to the agreement on the global amount in the fund.

On the point about hake and industry science, science is an area where Ireland has developed a strong competence in regard to fisheries. The Department, working with the Marine Institute, has tried to build up our science competence and our place in Europe. In fact, the leader of the fishery science division in the Marine Institute is taking over as the president of ICES, the European fisheries science body which advises the Commission. That is an important development.

Nationally, we have also put in place arrangements whereby the scientists and the industry talk on a regular basis in the industry science partnership to ensure that the distance between the fishermen and the scientists is narrowed to the greatest extent possible and the communication maximised.

Mention was made of the time it takes to get the science the institute has to the Council. We have been part of the International Commission for the Exploration of the Seas, ICES, for almost 100 years and its purpose is to vet everybody's science to ensure that when the science is done it must go through a peer review. The Commission will only be interested in that science if it has gone through peer review through ICES. There is a process that must be gone through when scientific work is done to get it through ICES and then back to the Commission to influence its proposals. Unfortunately, it is a long process but it is structured within the year and we work hard to try to get our science through that peer review process and into the Commission.

In terms of discards on technical measures, the Deputy commented also that the technical measures were showing good results in terms of reducing discards. That is a positive outcome and is something we will have to drive on much more in the new reform because under the new reform the elimination and reduction of discards will be a critical element.

Eliminating or reducing discards is vital from the point of view of not wasting food. It is also vital from the point of view of rebuilding the stocks. Rebuilding the stocks is a central element to how Ireland will get higher quotas because when we have a fixed share but continuously declining stocks our fisheries are in decline. If we can rebuild those stocks through those kind of technical measures, avoiding discards etc., we have larger quotas and a more viable fishing industry.

On the point of safety, as the Secretary said, agreement in the Council is only one step in this process. The Parliament must come to a position on that. When we have a Parliament position on that early next year the Irish Presidency can try to marry the Council and Parliament positions to get to the final point but it is still possible to give some support for mandatory safety equipment. There are still possibilities to move forward in that area.

Senator Ó Domhnaill also commented on the discards issue and the points I made on that are equally applicable in that case.

Regarding regionalised measures, Ireland drove hard early on in the process of CFP reform to try to deal with the issue of how to get greater regionalisation into the Common Fisheries Policy.

We get matters agreed at a broad level in Brussels but many actors who are not involved in the fishery do not have detailed knowledge and that makes it more difficult. On the other hand, if one is getting measures agreed that affect our area but where two or three big member states are the big players, there is a danger for Ireland, tactically, of being in an arrangement whereby two large member states could be dominant. We were conscious of how that might affect Irish interests. We pushed hard for an arrangement, which is largely reflected in the general approach that the Council agreed in June, which is essentially one whereby when the concerned members agree working with the industry through the advisory council on a regional set of measures, those can be fast-tracked into European law and then will be equally applicable to all fishermen in the area. It was an important element from Ireland's point of view that all the fishermen should be playing under the same rules in a given area. The last thing one needs is fishermen being able to state that there are different sets of rules for different fishermen under different flags. Therefore, those measures can be fast-tracked if all the member states agree working with the industry. If the member states do not agree, it has to go back to the normal Community co-decision procedures for establishing European legal provisions governing it. That is what has been reflected in the Common Position. That is something that is welcomed by the industry and by the authorities in Ireland.

On Area VI, there have been particular technical measures in place for a couple of years and they have created many difficulties in Area VI. The stock position has not been good in Area VI for a long time. What is in place in Area VI are EU rules. Senator Ó Domhnaill stated that the Department had made rules. We simply implemented the EU rules. The Department and the Minister, working also with the rapporteur, Mr. Pat "The Cope" Gallagher, MEP, have worked to try to get amendments. We have pushed hard to get the changes, which are now coming through, in new technical measures for Area VI which will permit lesser spotted dogfish fishery with gill nets and also a skate fishery using gigging. These are fisheries which fishermen have asked us to try to open up and to get available to them. We do not see them as being harmful in relation to the stocks that had to be protected and we built up the science to make that case at a European level, and I think it is now being accepted. We see greater possibilities there.

Senator Comiskey also raised the issue of discards. Last year the Minister published an atlas of discards. It was the first one ever done in Europe. He put it out there, warts and all, and took the view that unless we know what we are dealing with, we do not know how to deal with it. We must have the information on the table. He then pushed hard at European level that this would be done equally in other countries so that we could see what were the real level of discards in different fisheries for different fleets, and only then can we properly deal with it.

On the issue Senator Comiskey raised on quota allocation for different types of vessels, the quota allocation is done in close conjunction with the fishing industry. There are national quotas set which the country has an obligation to abide by, but within that it is essentially a partnership arrangement with all the industry stake holders to try to come to the greatest level of agreement possible on how those quotas are allocated across the fleet and over time within the annual cycle. The arrangements on quota allocation that are being made are done very much in partnership with the industry.

Mr. Tom Moran:

On the tax on the quotas, in line with the commitment in the programme for Government the Minister will be bringing the sustainability impact assessment into the Dáil in December and the consultation with the various players in the industry is ongoing.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That completes the questions. I thank Mr. Moran and his team for the detailed presentations. It has been a good, informative discussion and I thank them for attending.