Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1980 > Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities > Report No. 77 - Proposals relating to the Common Fisheries Policy

REPORT

Introduction

1. The question of adopting a new common structural policy for the fishing industry of the EEC following on the extension of their fishing zones to 2(H) nautical miles has been before the Council of Ministers since 1976. On 30th May, 1980 the Council issued a statement declaring its intention to adopt “the decisions necessary to ensure that a common overall fisheries policy is put into effect at the latest on 1 January, 1981.”. The Joint Committee has examined the Commission’s proposals for Community legislation on the subject and related documents which were on the Agenda of the Council at its meeting on 3rd and 4th December. 1979 and which are listed in the Appendix to this report. Arising out of that examination the Joint Committee has decided to make this report in order to recall for Members the background to the protracted negotiations, to summarise the proposals of the Commission and to indicate in broad outline how the Committee would like to see the more important issues resolved as far as Ireland is concerned.

2. A detailed examination of the relevant proposals was carried out for the Joint Committee by its Sub-Committee on Agricultural and Fishery Matters under the Chairmanship of Deputy Michael Smith. The Sub-Committee had discussions on the subject with Mr. J. F. Doyle, Secretary General of the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation Ltd., Mr. F. Murphy, General Secretary, National Salmon and Inshore Fishermen’s Association and a representative of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. It also considered written memoranda received from the Department and the two bodies mentioned. The Joint Committee is indebted to Deputy Smith and his Sub-Committee for their work.

Original Common Fisheries Policy

3. Prior to the accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom the structural policy of the Community was laid down in Council Regulation 2142/70 which has since been replaced by consolidating Regulation 101/76. The basic principle of the policy was that the rules of each Member State relating to fishing in its coastal waters should not lead to differences in the treatment of other Member States. Equal access for all Community fishermen was to be allowed to the maritime waters coming under sovereignty or within jurisdiction of the coastal state but a derogation from this provision was to be permitted for five years in a three mile zone off coasts where the local population was heavily dependant on fishing. The coastal state was allowed to continue regulating fishing on a non-discriminatory basis but the Council was empowered to take conservation measures if there was a risk of overfishing.

Treaty of Accession

4. Regulation 2142/70 was modified by the Act accompanying the Treaty of Accession of 1972 both for the new and original Member States. The principle of equal conditions of access was retained subject to an important ten year derogation under which Member States were permitted to reserve fishing in a six-mile coastal zone exclusively for “vessels which fish traditionally in those waters and which operate from ports in that geographical coastal area.”. In respect of specified areas off the coasts of Denmark, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom the six-mile zone was increased to twelve on condition that, as regards fishing activities therein, there would be “no retrograde change by comparison with the situation on 31st January, 1971.”. It was also provided that following on a report from the Commission, to be made before the end of 1982, and acting on a Commission’s proposal the Council would “examine the provisions which could follow” the aforementioned derogations.

5. The Act of Accession also provided that “from the sixth year after accession at the latest, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine conditions for fishing with a view to ensuring protection of the fishing grounds and conservation of the biological resources of the sea.”. It would appear from the judgement of the Court of Justice in Cases 185-204/78 [1978] ECR 2345, that this obligation should have been discharged by the end of 1978.

Extension of Fishing Limits

6. While the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (UNCLOS) was still in progress it became clear early in 1976 that the United States, Canada, Norway and some other States were planning to extend their fishing limits to 200 miles from the beginning of 1977 along the lines emerging in UNCLOS negotiation texts. The Council followed suit by adopting a Resolution on 3rd November, 1976 agreeing “that, as from January 1st, 1977, Member States shall, by means of concerted action, extend the limits of their fishing zones to 200 miles off their North Sea and North Atlantic coasts.”. Four Member States (Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom) extended their fishing limits by the agreed date and France and the Netherlands followed somewhat later. It is understood that Belgium has deferred enacting the necessary legislation pending agreement on certain aspects of the common fisheries policy.

7. The increase in the fishing limits of the Member States from 12 miles or less to 200 miles clearly called for a revision of the common fisheries policy. The Commission addressed a communication to the Council on the subject in September, 1976 and subsequently submitted formal proposals for legislation.

Proposed Regime

8. The regime to regulate fishing within the Community which the Commission envisages would include the following:

(a)Conservation measures including restriction of fishing,

(b)Fixing of a total allowable catch (TAC) for species of fish or a group of related species,

(c)Fixing quotas or the volume of the overall catch that may be taken by individual Member States,

(d)A licensing system involving the registration of fishing vessels and their skippers,

(e)Reporting by Member States to Commission on the operation of conservation measures, quotas and licences and supervisory measures to be adopted by the Council,

(f)Structural measures involving EAGGF aid for investment in vessels, fish farming and training of personnel.

(g)Limitation of access to inshore waters, and

(h)Scientific research and advice.

9. Although the Council has as yet been unable to reach agreement on an internal fisheries regime it is understood that broad agreement on many aspects of the Commission’s proposals should not be unduly difficult to reach if the main problem were solved. This centres on the question of exclusive national limits. The basis on which quotas should be allocated to Member States has also been the subject of controversy but it is thought that the quotas’ issue could be solved if the question of exclusive national zones, with which it is closely connected, could be resolved. Already this year the Council has adopted Regulations (a) fixing TACs for 1980 and (b) adopting a system of recording catches and reporting by the Member States thereon to the Commission.

Hague Resolution

10. The Irish fishing industry is unique in the Community in that it is still only at a developing stage whereas the industry is contracting in the other Member States. The Joint Committee believes that it is essential that the Irish fishing industry must be given scope to reach its full potential and that whatever common fisheries policy eventually emerges must enable such development to take place. In its Hague Resolution on Certain Aspects of the Creation of a 200-mile Fishing Zone in the Community of 3rd November, 1976 the Council appears to recognise this position. In the Resolution it declares its intention to so apply the provisions of the revised common fisheries policy “as to secure the continued and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry on the basis of the Irish Government’s Fisheries Development Programme for the development of coastal fisheries.”. In the Committee’s opinion it is vital that this commitment be maintained.

11. The coastal areas of Ireland which are heavily dependant on fishing are amongst the poorest in the country. In the Hague Resolution the Council recognises that there are regions in the Community, notably Greenland, Ireland and the northern parts of the United Kingdom, “where the local communities are particularly dependant upon fishing and the industries allied thereto. The Council, therefore, agrees that in applying the common fisheries policy account should also be taken of the vital needs of these fishing communities.”. The Joint Committee considers that Ireland is entitled to insist on practical effect being given to this agreement in whatever common policy eventually emerges.

Limitation of Access to Inshore Waters

12. The issue of exclusive national zones has given rise to the sharpest difference of opinion in the Council. Under the basic draft Regulation as it stood at the beginning of 1978 Member States were to be allowed to restrict fishing within a 12-mile coastal zone “to vessels which fish traditionally in those waters and which operate from ports in that geographical coastal area” but without prejudice to existing special rights enjoyed by Member States including the rights mentioned in Article 100 of the Act of Accession. The arrangements established by Articles 100 and 101 of the Act of Accession would be maintained after 31st December, 1982 subject to any decision taken in the meantime by the Council, acting on a Commission proposal and following a review of the position by the Commission. The Joint Committee understands that there has been virtually no discussion at Council level on this proposal since late 1978 when some work was done on establishing the extent to which existing rights within 12 miles were being availed of.

13. The Joint Committee had been concerned that negotiations on this issue might be allowed to drag on until after the end of 1982 when the derogations provided for in the Act of Accession expire. It therefore welcomes the Council’s announced intention to resolve the matter before the end of this year. In the interest of Irish fishermen the Joint Committee would like to see the widest possible exclusive coastal band that is negotiable. Within the exclusive coastal band special rights of other Member States should be phased out as far as possible as the Commission suggested in its original proposals in 1976.

TACs and Quotas

14. The fixing of the total allowable catch-for each different species of fish is based on scientific advice and, as the Council has adopted a Regulation fixing TACs for 1980, the Joint Committee assumes that there is now general acceptance of the method employed. The problem of apportioning the overall catch permitted remains to be solved. In the past there has been controversy on whether and to what extent historical performance, loss of fishing rights in non-community waters and the needs of regions dependant on fishing should be taken into account. The Joint Committee considers that from Ireland’s point of view the Irish quota must allow for the continued and progressive development of the industry in this country in accordance with the Hague Resolution.

Conservation of Fishery Resources

15. A draft Regulation proposed by the Commission provides for various technical measures to conserve fish stocks such as minimum mesh sizes, minimum landing sizes for fish, closed areas, close seasons, limitations on types of fishing gear, by-catches and certain types of factory ships, etc. The Joint Committee is informed that the main areas of disagreement relate to mesh sizes for white fish, arrangements for fishing of Nephrops (Dublin Bay Prawns), the “Norway Pout Box” in the North Sea and the safeguard clause under which Member States would be authorised to act unilaterally where conservation measures were required urgently. It is advised that the main difficulty on all of these points is with the United Kingdom because of unilateral measures taken by it under the existing safeguard arrangement viz Annex VI of the Hague Agreement of 1976 which have affected fishing by other Member States principally France and Denmark. The Committee understands that the United Kingdom wishes to go further and faster than other Member States in accepting scientific advice in the interests of stocks.

16. Apart from emergency measures the Commission’s proposal would allow Member States, with the Commission’s agreement, to take its own measures for the conservation and management of fish stocks of interest to local fishermen only. The Joint Committee considers this a very necessary provision and hopes that it will be adopted.

17. The Irish Fishermen’s Organisation Ltd. considers that there should be a ban on the use of pursue seines in the Irish 200-mile zone as a prelude to a total European ban on this method of fishing. The Joint Committee is advised that pursue seining is considered a very efficient method of fishing and that the technical advice available is against a total ban. However, there does not appear to be any objection in principle to a partial ban on the use of pursue seines as the Commission’s proposals propose such a ban in respect of herring fishing in the Celtic Sea. The Irish fishermen are concerned that the uncontrolled use of pursue seines for mackerel fishing in Irish waters could lead to a situation where mackerel stocks will be as bad as the herring in a few years. The Committee understands that there is support for a restriction on pursue seining for mackerel from the Scientific and Technical Committee on Fisheries and it urges that this matter be pursued.

Enforcement

18. A draft Regulation proposed by the Commission provides for each Member State to police the common fisheries policy within its own 200-mile zone, for the maintenance of log-books by skippers, for the designation of landing places for species subject to quota, for the making of catch returns by skippers to the Member States, for monthly returns of landings of species subject to quotas to the Commission by Member States, for the administration of quotas and for rules on the carrying of nets of more than one mesh size. It also contains provisions for the implementation of “fishing plans” which are envisaged by the Commission as one way for providing priority in coastal areas to inshore fishermen.

19. In recognition of the fact that the burdens of fisheries protection and surveillance are unevenly distributed among Member States the Council adopted Decision 78/640/EEC on 25th July, 1978 providing for a Community contribution towards the cost of inspection and surveillance in Irish and Greenland waters. Up to the end of 1982 the Community is to re-imburse 46 million EUA of Irish expenditure. Before 1983 the Council is to decide on Community participation in the expenditure of Member States thereafter.

20. The Irish Fishermen’s Organisation Ltd. is dissatisfied with the Commission’s proposals on enforcement. It has suggested the creation of a corps of observers who would go on board at least some of the bigger vessels and would act as sort of “policemen” on the beat. In addition to control work, these observers could carry out a great number of technical functions on behalf of the various Governments, such as measurement of wind speed, water sampling, etc.

21. Until common rules on fisheries are in operation and are being enforced it is not possible to pronounce on the efficacy of the methods of enforcement. Nevertheless, even at this stage the Joint Committee can see merit in the suggestion that official observers be placed on board vessels at least periodically to ensure that regulations are being observed. It is important in the Committee’s view to re-assure fishermen that whatever rules are agreed upon are being in the main observed by all concerned.

Structural Measures

22. The Commission has proposed the adoption of a Council Directive to provide for certain measures to be implemented by Member States, with partial Community funding in some cases, to re-structure the Community fishing fleet to take account of reduced fishing possibilities in home and foreign waters. The main areas involved are temporary laying-up of vessels, scrapping of vessels, exploratory fishing, publicity and promotion of new species and conversion of fishmeal plants to processing for human consumption. This proposal is intended to take care of the problems of the shrinking distant water fleets and fishmeal interests of other Member States especially the U.K., France, Denmark, Germany and Netherlands and is not really of interest to Ireland which alone of the Member States is recognised as having an expanding fishing industry rather than a contracting one.

23. There is also a draft Regulation proposed by the Commission providing for the payment of EAGGF grants for the building of vessels up to 24 metres long between perpendiculars, for fish-farming projects in salt or brackish water and for training of personnel switching to fish-farming operations from sea-fishing. The level of grant would be up to 25% (50% in Ireland, Greenland, Northern Ireland and the Mezzogiorno). Interim schemes in respect of boat-building and fish-farming have been operated for 1978 and 1979 under Regulations (EEC) Nos. 1852/78 and 592/79 on similar lines to this proposal. The Joint Committee is informed that, subject to the opinion of the European Parliament, it has been agreed in principle to have another interim scheme in 1980. This would be similar to last year’s scheme except that it would also extend to modernisation and conversion of boats.

Marketing Policy

24. The common fisheries policy of the EEC has two distinct aspects, namely, structural policy and marketing policy. In this report the Joint Committee has been concerned only with the former and has not examined the latter in any detail. However, in the course of its discussion with the fishermen’s organisations, strong complaints were voiced to the Joint Committee about the current situation in the market. It was stated that fishermen are unable to dispose of their produce at economic prices because of competition from low priced imports. The fishermen believe that the main source of the trouble lies with imports from third countries against which the present marketing organisation in the Community affords quite inadequate protection. Other factors may be the subsidisation of some fleets within the Community and the selling of withdrawn fish through unofficial channels. While the Committee has not had an opportunity of examining the situation in any depth it would appear at first sight that there is something serious amiss with the marketing of fish at the present time. It believes that it is incumbent on the Commission and the national authorities to give the matter immediate attention.

Acknowledgements

25. The Joint Committee wishes to acknowledge its indebtedness to the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation Ltd. and the National Salmon and Inshore Fishermen’s Association for the considerable help it received from them and it desires to express its sincere thanks to both bodies.

(Signed) ALEXIS FITZGERALD,

Chairman of the Joint Committee.

11 June, 1980.