Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 28 November 2017

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Sea Fisheries Sustainability Impact Assessment: Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine

4:30 pm

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

I remind members, witnesses and those in the Gallery to make sure that their mobile phones are turned off. The purpose of the meeting is in keeping with the committee's examination of EU matters in relevant policy areas. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, is here to brief the committee in advance of the next agriculture and fisheries, AGRIFISH, Council meeting and, specifically, on the sea fisheries sustainability impact assessment statement.

Before we begin, members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should 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. Before I ask the Minister to make his opening statement, on the behalf of the committee I would like to sympathise with him on the death of his father yesterday. We all pass on our sympathies to him. I now ask the Minister to make his opening statement.

Photo of Michael CreedMichael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this opportunity to present this sustainability impact assessment to the committee. A rigorous assessment, as in previous years, has been undertaken to examine the implications for Ireland of the EU Commission's proposals for the fixing of total allowable catches, TACs, for the coming year.

The European Commission proposal was issued on 7 November and several non-papers updating the proposal have issued since. The final arrangements for 2018 are due to be negotiated at the Council scheduled for 11 and 12 December. The levels of total allowable catch, TAC, and the quotas for Ireland will be determined at that meeting following intensive negotiations with member states and the European Commission.

The waters surrounding Ireland contain some of the most productive fishing grounds in the EU. We have a duty of care to protect their biological richness and, as such, they must be managed responsibly and sustainably. Ireland’s total allocation of quotas in 2017 amounted to 233,500 tonnes with a total value of €280 million. There are also valuable inshore species which are not subject to EU TACs, such as crab, whelk, scallop and lobster, and are fished by the Irish fleet inside our six-mile coastal zone.

The process of preparing for the Council is now well under way. The proposal covers stocks which are not subject to third party international agreements and are, in the main, whitefish and prawn stocks. Stocks which are subject to ongoing international negotiations such as blue whiting are not included in the proposal as yet.

With regard to the coastal State pelagic stocks, the mackerel TAC was agreed in October. The new quota for Irish fishermen for 2018 will be 69,143 tonnes. There was new scientific advice this year which showed that, while the stock is in good shape, a precautionary approach for long-term sustainability was necessary with a significant reduction in quota recommended. Accordingly, following careful consideration of scientific advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, ICES, and discussions with the Marine Institute and industry stakeholders, I supported a reduction, in line with the agreed long-term management strategy, in the quota for 2018.

The blue whiting negotiations will hopefully be concluded in early December. This agreement involves some transfer of blue whiting to Norway. I will be seeking to keep that transfer as low as possible. The EU-Norway negotiations began in Bergen, Norway, yesterday and will last all week.

Next year will see the continued phasing-in of the landing obligation or discards ban. This was a central element of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and agreed by all member states, as well as the European Parliament. It will, in effect, phase out the dumping of perfectly good fish at sea and end the catching and discarding of juvenile fish. This is a common-sense goal but the obligation comes with significant challenges. We must be determined to face these challenges head on, if we are to ensure the sustainability of our vibrant coastal communities which depend on healthy fish stocks. That is why I have, in co-operation with my colleagues from other member states, requested that the landing obligation and, in particular, the issue of choke species be discussed at the December Council. There are several challenges that can only be addressed by common action from the Commission and the member states. I will be pursuing this issue vigorously.

One of the key objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy is maximum sustainable yield, FMSY. This is the largest average catch or yield which can continuously be taken from a stock under existing conditions without damaging the future returns from it. Our shared ultimate objective is to bring and maintain our fish stocks to levels that can deliver FMSY by 2020 at the latest. However, in line with the Common Fisheries Policy, it is being implemented in a progressive manner and its introduction may only be delayed if a strong case can be made that its immediate application seriously jeopardises the social and economic sustainability of the fishing fleets involved.

The proposals are based on formal advice received from ICES, the independent international body with responsibility for advising on the state of fish stocks. It also takes account of the views of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, STECF, which gives the Commission its views on the economic, technical and social impacts of the scientific advice. To inform my negotiations at the December Fisheries Council, I have had an assessment of the impacts of the Commission proposal undertaken. To facilitate the assessment, an open consultation process was initiated, whereby stakeholders were asked to submit their comments and observations on the Commission proposal for fishing opportunities for 2018.

From 7 November, an online web portal on www.fishingnet.iewas activated to enable the transmission of electronic submissions for consideration. These portals remained open until 22 November and in all four submissions were received by the closing date. The full content of all the submissions received by the deadline will be published on the fishingnet.iewebsite.

In addition to the written submissions, I convened a meeting of stakeholders, fishing industry representatives and environmental NGOs, on 24 November. The purpose of this meeting was to give a further opportunity to the main stakeholders to outline their positions on the many aspects of this proposal. Unfortunately, due to personal circumstances, I was unable to attend in person but I have been fully appraised by my officials of the views expressed. I thank all the various stakeholders for their contributions to this impact assessment.

As always, there were a range of views among stakeholders. However, there were also commonalities and I agree with many of the sentiments expressed through the consultation process. These include a call for adherence to the available scientific advice to enable responsible and appropriate management decisions to be taken. This however must be balanced with the concern that major cuts to TACs could have severe socio-economic impacts. In that context, I will not support cuts unless I am satisfied they are absolutely necessary and fully supported by rigorously assessed and clear scientific evidence. To illustrate what we are facing next week, some of the cuts for some of our important stocks will involve a cut of 62% in herring in the Celtic Sea, 34% for haddock in the Celtic Sea, 59% for whiting in the Celtic Sea and 12% for monkfish in the Celtic Sea.

Following the consultation process and the expert advice of the Marine Institute, I do not believe that all these reductions in quota are either justified or necessary. However, I accept cuts where the scientific advice available to me makes the case for such reductions. The Marine Institute and BIM have again this year made an invaluable contribution to the assessment of the Commission’s proposal, which is contained in the sea fisheries sustainability impact assessment before the committee.

From a purely biological perspective, the Marine Institute’s view, which coincides with the ICES view, is that there has been an improvement in the status of some fish stocks. However, others remain a concern, namely, in the areas west of Scotland and in the Irish Sea. In the impact assessment, the Marine Institute summarises the pressure on the 74 stocks dealt with in the 2017 stock book and compares this assessment with the same evaluation presented in previous years stock books. There is a higher number of sustainably fished stocks, 29, and percentage, 39%, in 2017 compared with last year. The percentage, 23%, and number of stocks, 17, overfished have also increased in 2017, whereas the stocks with unknown status declined slightly from 31 to 28 or 42% to 38%. The specific details for all stocks are available in the document which has been laid before the Dáil and in the stock book, which was prepared by the Marine Institute and is available on its website.

The socio-economic impact assessment of the Commission’s proposals does not fully account for Ireland’s share of fishing opportunities. The current proposals exclude a number of important stocks, mackerel, horse-mackerel and blue whiting, where the final European Union TAC, as well as member states’ quotas, depend on external, third country, agreements.

If agreed as they currently stand, the Commission’s proposals would see net reduction in fishing opportunity, quotas of 27% by volume, tonnes, and 12% by value. In financial terms, this amounts to a direct income reduction of €17.4 million. A net reduction in fishing opportunity for the demersal sector, whitefish and nephrops, of 21% by volume and 10% by value would have a direct income reduction of €12.9 million. A net reduction in fishing opportunity for the pelagic sector of 34% by volume and 39% by value would have a direct income reduction of €4.56 million. This is due mainly to a decrease in boarfish and Celtic Sea herring.

For north-west stocks in area 6, there would be a 6% reduction in fishing opportunity, valued at €460,000, for the demersal, whitefish and prawn, fleets. This will directly impact the ports of Greencastle and Killybegs. For the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and west coast, area 7, stocks it is estimated there will be 23% reduction in fishing opportunity for the demersal fleet. This reduction is valued at €10.8 million and will directly impact the ports of Clogherhead, Howth, Dunmore East, Kilmore Quay, Dingle, Castletownbere, and Ros a’ Mhíl, as well as other smaller ports.

In addition to the direct losses to the fleet, income is also lost from the processing sector as a direct result of reduced catches and in several ancillary industries, such as net-making, chandlery, engineering and refrigeration. Based on turnover multipliers from fish landed in distinct Irish ports, BIM estimates the full costs, direct, indirect and induced, of the proposed quota reductions are in the order of €54 million. This will obviously have a knock-on effect for employment. BIM further estimates, on the basis of the most recent employment surveys of the catching sector, these reductions could impact between 200 and 300 full and part-time jobs.

This could occur either through reduced incomes, partial lay-offs or redundancies in the seafood sector.

The proposals do not include the Hague Preferences which are a safety net for the Irish fleet in the case of specific stocks, in respect of which total allowable catches, TACs, are in decline. Essentially, they are additional quota amounts Ireland and the United Kingdom claim for important whitefish stocks. Many member states object strenuously to their application as the additional quotas comes off their allocations. Ensuring the preferences are applied will be a key political objective for me in the negotiations. The loss of these allocations in 2018 will amount to 2,726 tonnes of fish, with a direct value of €5 million and an associated impact on between 60 and 80 full and part-time jobs, either through reduced incomes, partial lay-offs or redundancies.

I fully concur with the findings made in the sea fisheries sustainability impact assessment. It highlights the significant impact the current proposals could have on the fishing industry. Significant challenges lie ahead in the next two weeks, but I will do my utmost to agree to a fair and balanced package for Ireland that will ensure the continued vibrancy of the fishing industry and the long-term sustainability of stocks. I thank and acknowledge all those who contributed to the production of the impact assessment and look forward to the debate on the conclusions reached.

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

Does the Minister wish to take questions on that issue or does he wish to move to the other fisheries related topic?

Photo of Michael CreedMichael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can make the opening statement on the regulation.

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

We will also hear that opening statement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Photo of Michael CreedMichael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The 2013 reformed Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 introduced the landing obligation or discards ban, that is, the obligation to land all catches for stocks under catch limits or minimum conservation reference size. The long-term implementation of the landing obligation was to be set out in regional multi-annual management plans, MAPs, adopted through co-decision. However, since it was envisaged that the adoption of MAPs would take some time, the CFP provided for the adoption of discard plans through Commission-delegated acts shaped through joint recommendations of the member states concerned. These discard plans could last for a period of no more than three years.

The first Commission-delegated regulations establishing discard plans entered into force on 1 January 2015 and are expiring at the end of 2017. After the expiration of the initial three-year period, the CFP only empowers the Commission to adopt very limited delegated acts to implement the landing obligation, since the objective was to have all MAPs in place after three years. To date, however, only the Baltic multi-annual plan is in place. Two Commission proposals for multi-annual plans for demersals in the North Sea and small pelagics in the Adriatic are under negotiation between the co-legislators. A proposal for the north-western waters multi-annual plan which is of greatest concern to Ireland is expected to be published later this year.

Against this background, the intention of the proposal amending the basic regulation was to extend the empowerment of the Commission to adopt discard plans for a further total period of up to three years while the remaining MAPs were being negotiated. The purpose is to allow the regional group of member states' discards plans to have legal effect for a further three years in order to facilitate the implementation of the landing obligation. For Ireland’s pelagic industry the concern was not immediate, but all were conscious of the implications for demersal discard plans which would expire at the end of 2018. It is demersal fisheries that will require the full use of the flexibilities available under the CFP to try to avoid so-called choke situations where there is insufficient quota to cover catches that must be landed.

Member states were only informed in July that the Commission intended to bring forward a proposal for an amendment to Regulation 1380/2013 to deal with this issue. My Department had previously raised it with industry representatives at meetings of the sea fisheries liaison group, SFLG, in March and May. The SFLG is the formal group where either my officials or I meet the representatives of the producer organisations – the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, KFO; the Irish South and West Fishermen's Organisation, IS&WFO; the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation, IS&EFPO, and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation, IFPO - and the representative organisation for processors, the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association, IFPEA, to discuss issues arising.

With the announcement of a specific proposal, a more in-depth discussion took place at the SFLG meeting held on 19 July. At that meeting all representatives agreed that there was a need to allow discard plans to continue and that if that required a change in the regulation, that is what should be done. The formal proposal was circulated to both industry and NGO stakeholders on 31 August. Only one response was received and it was supportive of the amendment. During the discussions that took place at the Council fisheries working party Ireland consequently supported the proposed amendment so as to allow the continuation of discard plans. The proposal received the full support of the EU Fisheries Council and the European Parliament and the amendment was given legal effect earlier this month.

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

I will now take questions from Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn who was the first to indicate and he will be followed by Deputy Charlie McConalogue.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his presentation and wish him well in the negotiations. I wish to make a few points, of which the Minister is probably aware as we had a conversation about this issue at the committee not long ago.

Approximately 1.2 million tonnes of fish are caught annually in Irish waters. Some 20% of the total catch is allocated to Irish boats, while 80% goes to others from abroad. Currently, 5% of all fish caught in Irish waters is processed in the State. Of the 250,000 tonnes caught by Irish vessels, only 50,000 are processed, which is, of course, where the value is added. These are unbelievable statistics. Can the Minister imagine the loss the State is facing because of this? We must have a conversation about it now in the context of Brexit. The committee heard the presentations made by the fishing organisations which were deeply alarming on the potential impact of Brexit and the denial of access to British waters. If the removal of access to British waters materialises, as the British Government has indicated will be the case, will the Minister to ensure it will not trigger displacement? In other words, under no circumstances can the EU boats currently fishing in British waters be transferred to Irish waters as we would be squeezed even further. Considering the stark realities of the percentage of fish caught by Irish boats in our waters, the tiny percentage processed in the State and the huge potential loss of income, will the Minister give the committee a clear assurance that his objective in the negotiations is that we will not concede any further in the context of Brexit? We must make it clear now that under no circumstances will the fleets currently operating in British waters be squeezed into Irish waters. I appreciate that the Minister must negotiate on these matters, but I wish be given an assurance that this will be the objective of the Government.

Photo of Charlie McConalogueCharlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. He has outlined that the current proposals could lead to an overall cost of €54 million for the fishing sector and the economy. It is quite stark and the Minister and his officials will be seeking to mitigate that figure at the Council meeting. We had a similar meeting in this regard last year when there were similar difficulties with proposals related to a number of catches. Can the Minister recall how it worked out at the Council versus what was on the plate beforehand? How far was he able to mitigate the figure last year and how exactly did it pan out?

The mackerel allocation is particularly significant for an important sector in the fishing industry. The Minister has indicated that it will depend on external agreements.

Where does that stand? Last year scientific advice was given by ICES on the available fish stocks. How did it come about that incorrect information was provided which led to a correction? Does the Minister believe the factors that led to that incorrect information being provided have been addressed? Can he stand over what is included in the stock book and the proposals made?

Photo of Willie PenroseWillie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending and giving an expansive view on the fishing industry. I am not as familiar with it as perhaps I ought to be.

Fish processing which could contribute significantly to employment seems to be minimal within the industry. It is similar to the old argument about the beef industry when many jobs were lost when cattle were exported on the hoof. Thankfully, that trend has been reversed a little and we are in the peculiar position where if we did not have live exports, the beef industry would not be doing as well. Is there any correlation with what could happen in the fishing industry?

The Minister faces difficult negotiations and takes everybody's best wishes with him in trying to secure the best deal in the context of various external reports and advices with which he must contend regarding reductions that will be foisted on us in our TACs. To whom will he look for support around the table? We are able to cultivate support from, say, France and others in the case of the agriculture industry. Who are our best friends when it comes to the fishing industry? While many fish are being caught, they are being caught by large trawlers. What about the small entrepreneurs in the industry? Where do they fit in? Surely, because of these proposals they will suffer a significant adverse disproportionate impact. As Deputy Charlie McConalogue said, the Minister will try to mitigate the impact as best he can - we all wish him well in that regard - but will the harshness of the proposals be visited disproportionately on those who operate small trawlers and boats? Large trawlers can absorb such cuts better than small fisherman who are trying to rear families and do not have the wherewithal to compete or seek alternatives.

Photo of Michael CreedMichael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn made an important point in the context of Brexit, a matter on which we have had some exchanges of views at the committee previously. It is almost an existential challenge for the fishing industry because the consequences will be enormous. The Senator has made reference to the fact that while Irish fishermen catch a proportion of the TAC in Irish waters, fishermen from other countries catch the majority of it. However, it is interesting in the context of Brexit to consider the volume of fishing endeavour undertaken by the industry in what are deemed to be UK territorial waters. The advantage in some respects of the CFP is that where we have a quota, fishermen can chase it in other waters also. Therefore, in that context, there have been swings and roundabouts. The most important issue is the health of fish stocks, not so much where the line is in the Irish Sea or UK territorial waters because a country's quota allocation determines the entitlement to fish at any given time. We have a system which is different from that in the United Kingdom in that the quota is a publicly owned resource allocated on the basis of one's track record annually, whereas it is a privatised resource in the United Kingdom. The most valuable fish stock in Ireland is mackerel. Approximately 60% of our mackerel is caught in UK territorial waters, while 40% of prawns, our second most valuable stock, is caught there. That is a major concern for us.

If the United Kingdom opts for a hard Brexit and pulls up the drawbridge behind it, stating these are their waters and that no one else can fish them, displacement will be a concern. However, it is also impacted on by quota availability because nobody is supposed to fish without an allocation and the danger is that more people will look for a share of the available sustainable fish stocks in a smaller pond. That is the challenge. We have been working extraordinarily hard with like-minded member states that will be equally adversely impacted on. It would not serve our purposes well to engage in a solo run. A shared analysis of what the impact will be for the industry across member states is likely to bring us the best dividend. I have heard the view expressed that we should use the negotiations to revisit the isssue of relative stability and so on. They are issues to be considered in a new CFP. There is a shared analysis among member states, including Spain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden and Ireland, which is being fed into the Commission to try to make sure our interests are protected in the negotiations. With regard to relative stability, it is a reasonable position to take that the shares allocated under the CFP will be the legal entitlement of the United Kingdom on leaving. It is not the territorial area but, legally, the United Kingdom's share of the fish stocks. I cannot state definitively what the outcome will be, but our best opportunity to secure a good result for the industry which is part of a pan-European industry alliance that has a similar shared analysis to like-minded member states is by sticking together in the negotiations because if we try to fight individually, we will be picked off. That is what we are trying to do in the negotiations.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue raised the issue of the advice given by ICES. It is the international body that provides scientific advice. No mistake was made in the Department or the Marine Institute in providing advice on mackerel stocks. The issue was the collation and interpretation of the scientific data ICES had available. We subsequently contacted the body. There was a belief at one stage that ICES might correct the quotas mid-year, but that did not happen. The correction has been made this year. While that was disappointing, the industry recognised that this outcome was not unexpected. For example, Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation is the one impacted on most by the reduction, but there was a realisation that, in the context of the scientific advice available, the outcome achieved was not unreasonable.

Deputy Willie Penrose raised the issue of support from other member states at the upcoming Council meeting. Unfortunately, unlike the aforementioned Council meeting on Brexit, at the December Council it tends to be each country for itself to maximise its yield. There may be occasions when a temporary alliance can be formed in dealing with a particular stock, but my initial and only experience, at last year's Council meeting, was that it was a fast moving, dynamic set of negotiations across a range of species and that one made alliances where one could. Sometimes one is standing on one's own, but it is primarily driven by the sustainable management of the resource and then trying to get one's maximum share.

We have to bear in mind the critical importance of things like the Hague Preference, for example, a provision that has enabled us to achieve a higher rate when an overall allocation in a species is going down, thereby recognising the importance of that to us. It is extraordinarily challenging now because, for a number of very important stocks, the science suggests very significant cuts and the impact on employment, both on the high seas and onshore in terms of processing, is significant.

Senator Mac Lochlainn referred to the level of fish processed here. What we have been trying to do in recent years, in a co-ordinated way, through investment in our port facilities, is to encourage foreign vessels that are fishing off the south or west coast of Ireland, for argument's sake, instead of steaming back to the north of Spain, France or wherever, to drop into Castletownbere, Killybegs or Rossaveale and have their catch processed there, where they can also re-fuel and obtain all other necessary provisions. That is an industry that would bring benefit both in terms of onshore processing and the provisioning sector. We have been reasonably successful to date and I am aware, for example, of a significant industry that has built up around Castletownbere on that basis. It is the kind of investment we are putting into facilities in Killybegs, Castletownbere and Dingle, where significant dredging works in the harbour are ongoing at the moment. This gives an opportunity to try to increase processing opportunities and the jobs that go with that to the Republic. I believe it is more cost-efficient for those boats to land and have their catch processed here, and then have it shipped onwards by ferry to wherever the markets are.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his response. The issue of international transferable quota has emerged in terms of-----

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

Sorry, Senator. A phone is interfering with the sound.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It may have been mine. The issue of international transferable quotas arises where corporations that own super-trawlers have been able to buy massive quotas, which impacts on our indigenous fishing industry. Is this an issue that has come onto the Minister's desk? Obviously, we have discussed the issue of super-trawlers in this committee and we looked at the challenges of ensuring the catch they report is actually happening, and we looked at the issue of inspectors going on board to monitor this more closely. There are big concerns about super-trawlers within the fishing industry and I would like to hear the Minister's thoughts.

The Minister talked about trying to attract more of the foreign trawlers to land here to the benefit of our processing industry and to have that added value. Is there anything we can do to oblige those trawlers which access Irish waters to land their catch in Irish ports? I was able to tell the Minister that 1.2 million tonnes of fish are caught in Irish waters. I assume that, at some point, every one of these trawlers has to report this catch, whether they land in an Irish port, a home port or a port on the neighbouring island. The Minister might advise us how that reporting is done and how the catch is monitored. I assume it is all under the jurisdiction of the European Union. Is there any way we can oblige or encourage them to land their catch here or to directly connect that fishing in Irish waters with Ireland? We need to do more than just market or encourage this. If we look at the 5% of overall catch that is processed here, we have do much better than that and we have to get more value out of that for our island. I would like to get a sense of all of that.

Photo of Marcella Corcoran KennedyMarcella Corcoran Kennedy (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for coming in. I welcome the strong statement from the Minister in regard to his endeavours to achieve a fair and balanced package for the industry in his negotiations. The figures are very stark when we look at the potential impact on jobs, ports and all of the knock-on impacts. We need to be very aggressive in ensuring we can make the best case for ourselves.

There is information from the IMI and ICES in regard to the impact on stocks of overfishing. I believe we would all agree this is bad news for everybody in terms of smaller catches and the knock-on effect on jobs. I wonder how we would go about rebuilding, protecting and maintaining stock levels so we can ensure there are enough fish in the sea to make sure the industry is protected.

Photo of Michael CreedMichael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the point raised by Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy, what we are moving towards in terms of sustainable management is what is called MSY, or maximum sustainable yield. We want to get to a situation where all species are fished according to this objective and it a road we have been making progress on. We subscribe in principle to that but we accept that, in certain situations, it cannot be achieved overnight and we need to have a two-step or three-step approach to it. However, it is getting to a situation where we are only taking from any particular species a level which allows us to come back the next year and also have a harvest. It is a question of moving stocks to that sustainable management process. In many respects, it is what is driving the quite considerable proposed reductions here, which, in certain circumstances, would be quite difficult economically for coastal communities to reach in one short swoop. Our position will be informed in terms of both the survival of fishermen and the survival of fish, and we must have balance in the approach. We certainly want to, and do, subscribe to the principle but it is a question of getting there over a manageable period.

On the issue of the international transferable quotas, super-trawlers and so on, the first principle is that no vessel, whether a super-trawler or a small fishing boat, can fish without having a quota to fish those species. Obviously, it then becomes an issue of policing the effort of every boat. If we had a situation where our quotas were private assets, we would long ago have had a situation where we would have maybe a dozen or so huge boats and the industry would be wiped out as we know it in very many small communities. I am glad that is not a road we have gone down. However, it is equally important that we are able to police those who come in with big quotas and take substantial volumes. The practice in other countries has been to have private assets and, therefore, to be able to sustain huge boats, rather than having the large number of small and medium size boats that our industry is, in large, characterised by.

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, is the critical agency and the Naval Service is important in terms of boardings. For example, in 2016 we had 18 inspections and we have had 30 to date in 2017. I understand that three German, one Lithuanian, ten Dutch, one Norwegian and three Russian boats were boarded, which is a significant increase in activity over the previous year.

One of the things we have been supportive of, in principle, is the idea of further ensuring compliance with quotas through the placing of onboard cameras on these boats. It is something we have been trying to make progress on in negotiations, although it has not yet been possible to get agreement on it in terms of getting access to real-time information shared by all member states. I think it would be a logical step forward.

There has been increased activity in regard to boardings and the relevant authority, the SFPA, is active in that area.

Obviously, it polices anybody who fishes in our waters, be they our own boats or others. It is important that the authority has all the necessary instruments and the use of cameras to monitor activity would be another tool in its armoury to be more effective in that area. I am aware there is a narrative suggesting the big super trawlers are the bad guys and the small community-based fisheries are good guys. What is important from a policy perspective is to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone who has a quota - be it a privatised asset in a super trawler coming from the aforementioned states that we have boarded or our own industry - and they are catching what their quota is. That is how we ensure that stocks remain viable and sustainable in the future.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister comment on the issue of landing and boarding at ports?

Photo of Michael CreedMichael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the free movement of goods and so on, I do not think we could legally enforce a situation where we would compel a trawler to land because they had caught so much here. The case we have been making is it is in their economic interest that, rather than steaming all the way back to the north of Spain with their catch, for instance, reprovisioning there and steaming back to catch whatever species they are chasing in Irish waters, they drop into Castletownbere, reprovision there, have the stock processed there and then have it carried to market via Rosslare or Cork Harbour on a roll-on roll-off ferry. We are increasingly making that pitch for business based on the investment we are putting into piers in these critical areas. For example, blue whiting is one of those stocks and we have an opportunity to make the business case to Norwegian vessels to come into Killybegs, rather than them going all the way back to a port in Norway. We also do that elsewhere.

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

Do any members have further questions for the Minister? If not, the Minister may wrap up.

Photo of Michael CreedMichael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank members for their questions. It is an important set of negotiations on an annual basis. The impact assessment shows the scale of the challenge this year. I am conscious that in these negotiations we carry with us the livelihoods and the prospects of both the fishermen and the onshore processing sector. I assure the Chairman and members that we will do our utmost in a challenging environment at the December Council.

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

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance and wish them luck and every success next week in their engagements.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.53 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 December 2017.