Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadór freisin. The 2009 management arrangements for mackerel in the north-east Atlantic were agreed recently during fisheries consultations between the Faroe Islands, Norway and the European Union. These negotiations, which Ireland attended, were conducted over two days at the end of October at the headquarters of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in London. A significant outcome of these consultations was the agreement to substantially increase the total allowable catch of mackerel in the north-east Atlantic during 2009. The overall total allowable catch agreed for this fishery is approximately 33% higher than it was in 2008.

For Ireland, this should mean a net 2009 mackerel quota in a best case scenario of 62,000 tonnes, an increase from 45,500 tonnes in 2008. That figure, which must be confirmed at the December Fisheries Council, may be subject to some changes as a result of complex transfer arrangements. There is also a strong lobby proposing that mackerel be used to pay Norway for fishing opportunities under the EU-Norway Agreement. I have expressed my total opposition to any such proposal at the Fisheries Council, most recently last week. However, the likelihood of a mackerel quota increase of considerable tonnage for Irish fishermen in 2009 is a very welcome outcome.

This increase is generally recognised in Europe and in Norway as resulting in large part from improved control and enforcement, with fishermen adhering more strictly to the quotas in this fishery in recent years. The mackerel fishery is of major importance to the Irish pelagic fishing fleet, and this is a welcome reward for Irish fishermen for the sustainable fishing practices evident in this fishery in recent years.

In value terms, the overall Irish quota for mackerel is likely to be worth approximately €75 million to the fishing fleet in 2009, an increase of some €20 million over 2008. Critically, the increased quota should also enable increased processing activity and employment in Irish fish factories. This will add significantly to the value generated for Ireland from the quota increase.

I have already received a range of diverse views from industry representatives and operators regarding how the additional mackerel quota should be allocated. The divergence in the views received so far is between the members of the Irish fishing fleet's polyvalent fleet segment and those in the refrigerated sea water, RSW, pelagic fleet and from the factories serviced by these fleets. Under the existing agreed arrangements for managing Ireland's mackerel quota, the total annual mackerel catch for polyvalent vessels is capped at 7,000 tonnes, of which 1,500 tonnes were set aside to cover catches by vessels less than 65 feet in length. The balance of the mackerel quota is divided between the 23 RSW vessels of the pelagic sector, according to set formulae.

Members of the polyvalent sector, which includes those vessels in Ros a Mhíl referred to by Senator Healy Eames, have argued that while the capacity of the RSW sector has remained fixed for many years, the number of participating polyvalent vessels has increased significantly since 2001 when the existing arrangements were adopted. As a result, the 7,000 tonnes set aside for the polyvalent sector is shared by an increased number of vessels, which they argue undermines the viability of all the vessels in this sector. They have requested that the existing mackerel management arrangements be amended to provide the polyvalent sector with a share of the 2009 mackerel quota increase.

The polyvalent sector also argued that the number of pelagic processing factories on the south and south-west coast has decreased from 12 to four. The remaining factories depend on a regular supply of fish, including mackerel, to remain viable. In return for an increase in its mackerel quota allocation, the polyvalent fleet has offered a commitment to land a fixed minimum quantity of mackerel within the State to support the viability of the factories on the south and south-west coast.

For their part, members of the pelagic sector have argued that under the 2001 agreement, the 7,000 tonnes set aside for the polyvalent sector is a fixed allocation. At the time of the agreement, the Irish mackerel quota was 72,000 tonnes. The Irish quota fell during subsequent years, reaching 49,643 tonnes in 2008. However, despite these quota reductions, the 7,000 tonnes reserved for the polyvalent sector remained unchanged. In addition, the likely Irish quota of 62,000 tonnes for 2009 would still be considerably below the quota of 72,000 tonnes that was in place in 2001 when the 7,000 tonnes allocation to the polyvalent sector was agreed.

Pelagic representatives have also said that, unlike the polyvalent sector, the RSW fleet is dependent on mackerel for its financial viability. This situation has become more acute as the RSW sector has suffered severe cuts in quotas for blue whiting and north-west herring in the years since 2001. The reductions in mackerel quota in recent years have put an enormous strain on this sector's finances.

The pelagic sector has said the large processing industry in Donegal is very dependent on landings from the RSW vessels and it processes almost all the mackerel landed into Ireland. Representatives of the RSW fleet said there has been an increase in recent years in the portion of the mackerel catch that their vessels land into the State, some 50% in 2008 and perhaps as much as 60% in 2009. They feel that any increase in the fixed quota allocation to polyvalent sector would lead to further job losses in Donegal and the loss of Irish jobs at sea, as some of the RSW vessels would no longer be financially viable.

In the context of these differing perspectives, I held a meeting today with all interested parties on the catching and processing sides to discuss the issues. I have read, considered and listened to the full diversity of views on this issue and note that there is no agreed fishing industry position on the matter. Differing interest groups have widely differing and strongly held views on the issue and I will have to take these into account in determining the matter.