Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1991 > Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities (6th Committee) > Report No. 11 - Proposal for the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

A. SUMMARY

1Under Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83, which established the fishery management aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Commission is obliged to report to the Council before the end of 1991 on the condition of Community fisheries and the steps which need to be taken to conserve them. A Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament, sent last December 1990, indicates that this “mid-term review” could be quite wide ranging.

2The Joint Committee decided that, considering the importance of the Irish fishing industry, and the extent to which it is influenced by the CFP, it would be desirable to review the Commission’s Communication and the effect of possible subsequent changes in the CFP on the industry. The Joint Committee assigned this task to the Sub-Committee on Agricultural and Fishery Matters under the Chairmanship of Deputy John Ellis.

3The primary objective of the CFP nowadays is to allocate rights to fishing in Community waters amongst the member states. It aims to do this in a way which is equitable to the member states, having regard to their traditional fishery activities and the need of fishing communities for an adequate income. The CFP must also take account of the fact that the fishing capacity of the member states is in excess of fishing stocks. It exercises control by assigning fishing quotas to the member states and by controlling “fishing effort”, notably by limiting the size of member states’ fishing fleets.

4Access to coastal fishery waters is also an important aspect of the industry coming under Community control. At present Ireland has an exclusive fishing zone up to 6 miles from the coast and shares the zone from 6 to 12 miles with certain other countries. From 12 to 200 miles all member states have rights to fish subject to their quota and some other restrictions. It is up to the member states to ensure that these rules are observed in the waters under their jurisdiction.

5The Irish fishing industry is small by European standards, accounting for about 5% of total Community fish landings from Community waters. About 14,000 persons are employed in it (including aquaculture) both off-shore and in processing on-shore. This employment plays a crucial role in the fishery dependent parts of the country, many of which have few alternative economic opportunities. The Irish fishing fleet comprises about 600 vessels with an aggregate Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT) of 49,800. This represents about 2.5% of the Community fleet. Total value of Irish fish landings is about £86 million per annum and the bulk of this is exported - mostly in fresh or semi-processed form. Though small, the Irish fishing industry has expanded rapidly since entry to the Community.

6The Joint Committee believes that Ireland has very good grounds for demanding an increase in its quotas given that Ireland is a relatively underdeveloped country. In addition, the fishery-dependent areas of the country are themselves underdeveloped by Irish standards. These considerations should be seen in the light of the numerous commitments the Community has given to taking steps to reduce regional disparities.

7A second argument for increased scope for development is the fact that a high proportion of Community fishing waters are in fact Irish whereas Ireland’s fish landings are a small proportion of the total. The figures speak for themselves, Ireland has 16% of Community coastal water and lands only 5% of Community fish landings from Community waters.

8Finally, the Irish quotas were determined at a time when the Irish fishing industry was in its infancy. Although some expansion has been permitted under the CFP, the industry is still underdeveloped. The need to permit further expansion is recognised by the Community in the Hague Resolution. ¹

9The more important of the Joint Committee’s recommendations are:

Access

aIreland should have exclusive rights up to 12 miles with participation by other countries with which Ireland has reciprocal rights;

bToken quotas should be abolished;

cConservation boxes should be established in the Atlantic from time to time with regard to specific species in the interests of conservation and the quotas of non-migratory species (like Dublin Bay prawns) should be allocated to their ICES areas;

dOnly boats with a substantial “economic link” (such as the location of its management, control of its operation, or landing of a proportion of its catch), with an Irish harbour should be allowed fish against Irish quotas;

eAccess should be given to Irish vessels in third country fisheries or compensation should be given in terms of increased quotas in coastal waters;

Allocation

fIrish quotas should be expanded;

gIrish quotas should be adjusted to take account of changes in the relative price of different species since the quotas were established;

Fleet Modernisation

hThe Irish fleet should be permitted to expand to take account of the need for modernisation. Aid towards the cost of decommissioning should be introduced by the Department of the Marine;

iThe Community should insist that all member states observe the same method of calculating Gross Registered Tonnage;

Conservation and Enforcement

jCommunity conservation measures need to be enforced more vigorously;

kThe concept of satellite surveillance as an aid to monitoring is endorsed;

lConsideration should be given to reducing the quotas of member states which the Commission feels are not taking adequate enforcement measures;

mPenalties for indictable fishing offenses should be increased and made mandatory;

nThe Community should consider placing inspectors on the largest fishing vessels;

oMore investment should take place in Irish fishery harbours;

pLocal authorities should undertake improvement works on roads in the areas of fishery harbours;

qMore investment needs to be made in fishery research.

B: INTRODUCTION

10In December 1990 the Commission addressed a Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the Common Fisheries Policy (Com (90) 2244 final). This Communication reviewed the present situation in the Community’s fishing industry and listed the problems confronting it. In discussing the solutions which might be adopted towards these problems, the Commission intended to give pointers to the future direction of the CFP. The ultimate impetus for the Communication is the requirement in the basic Regulation governing the Common Fisheries Policy (Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83), that the Commission should submit a report to the Council on the fisheries situation in the Community before the end of 1991. As indicated in Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83 this report would lay the basis for a “mid-term review” of the CFP which could lead to changes in the allocation of fishing quotas and access to fishing grounds. According to the Whitaker report (Review of Common Fisheries Policy: Report of Advisory Group, page 11) there are indications that the Commission may be considering an even more far reaching review than is provided for in Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83. Discussions on the shape of this review have taken place at the Council of Fisheries Ministers and the Commission has launched a number of studies of the industry. A Commission Task Force has already visited Ireland.

11There are a number of aspects of the fishery industry and the CFP which give rise to particular problems as far as Ireland is concerned. Of course, in the aggregate all Community member states have to face the difficult task of adapting to an environment in which opportunities are constrained by limited fish stocks while technology and market demand are pushing relentlessly for ever larger catches. But the task confronting the Irish industry and the Irish authorities is arguably more difficult than that confronting other countries. The Irish task is to establish - in the face of the large and well established fishing industries of other member states - the right of our industry to expansion. These rights are based on the large size of the fisheries adjacent to Ireland and the relatively underdeveloped size of the Irish industry. The fact of Ireland’s comparative underdevelopment and the absence of alternative economic opportunities in our fishery-dependent regions are further arguments for the allocation of increased opportunities for Irish fishermen.

12It was against this background that the Joint Committee decided that a report should be prepared on the industry. Aspects of the Irish fisheries industry and the CFP have been examined by the Joint Committee on previous occasions. In its Eight Report, the Fourth Joint Committee examined the possible impact on Ireland of Spain and Portugal’s entry to the Community (The Implications for Irish Fisheries Industry of Accession by Spain and Portugal to the European Communities (pl 2736), October 1984) while in its 33rd report, it reviewed the position of the Irish aquaculture industry (Aquaculture, October 1986). The scope of the present report is, however, wider than either of the previous inquiries. Given the potential long term significance of the Commission’s proposed review of the CFP, it is also the case that the current report addresses more fundamental issues.

13The preparation of the report for the Joint Committee was entrusted to the Sub-Committee on Agricultural and Fishery Matters under the Chairmanship of Deputy John Ellis. The Joint Committee is indebted to Deputy Ellis and his Sub-Committee for their work on the report. The Joint Committee would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. James Dorgan, consultant.

14In the course of its work, the Sub-Committee heard submissions from Mr. Tom Carroll, Mr Brendan Cahill and Ms Deirdre O’Keeffe of the Department of the Marine; Mr. Joey Murrin, Chief Executive, Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation; Mr. Mark Lochrin, Chief Executive, Irish Fish Producers Organisation; Mr. Joe Maddock, President, and Mr. Frank Doyle, Secretary General of the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation; Mr. Pat Keogh, Deputy Chief Executive of Bord Iscaigh Mhara; and Mr. Tom Geoghegan, Secretary of the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association. As the guests of the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation, the Sub-Committee also visited Kilmore Quay, Dunmore East and Killybegs to inspect harbour facilities, fishing vessels, processing plants and to talk to representatives of the fishermen and those engaged in ancillary activities. The Joint Committee would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation during these visits and also of the fishermen’s organisations and processors at these harbours including the Kilmore Quay Fishermen’s Cooperative, the Dunmore East Fishermen’s Cooperative, the South and East Coast Fishermen’s Cooperative, the Kilmore Fish Company, the Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation, Mooney Boats, Gallagher Brothers, Cosmos Trawl and many other individuals engaged in the industry either at sea or on shore.

C. THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

The European Community Fishing Industry

15The European Community is one of the four major sea fishing powers in the world, the others being Japan, the Soviet Union and China. Total production is around 7 million tonnes which is about 7.5% of world production. The Community is also the largest importer of fish and fish products absorbing about 3.5 million tonnes (less about 1 million tonnes of exports) each year. About 300,000 persons are engaged in fishing in the Community with as much as another 1.7 million employed in processing and other related industries. The total of 2 million accounts for about 1% of the Community workforce. As a proportion of Community GDP, fishing and associated activities probably accounts for something less than 1% reflecting the low average incomes generally earned in the industry. A further important characteristic of the industry is that it tends to be concentrated in particular regions of the Community member states.

16The Community fleet comprises vessels with an aggregate Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT) of 2 million. Improvements in all aspects of fishing technology including means of locating fish, the power of machinery, design of the nets, capacity to hold and process fish on board, have greatly enhanced the productivity of this fleet. At the same time changes in the market, both autonomous and those induced by the marketing efforts of processors, have stimulated consumer demand for fish. Unfortunately, these developments have long since boosted the total annual catch beyond the reproductive capacity of many species of fish. In its Communication of December 1990, the Commission reported that according to expert advice, there was overcapacity for 90% of the fish stocks in the North Atlantic and that for 14 out of 35 fish stocks, mortality was four times its estimated level of reproduction. As a result stocks of most of the main commercial species are declining and some have reached dangerously low levels. How the capacity of the Community’s fishing industry can be brought into line with biological capacity in a way which reconciles efficiency and equity objectives is now the central preoccupation of the CFP.

Objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy

17The Treaty of Rome laid down that the common market should apply to agriculture and it stated that agriculture should be taken to include fish (Article 38(1)). The Treaty therefore provides that there should be a common fisheries policy (Article 38(4)) and that the object of this policy should be the same as for agriculture namely, the improvement of productivity, the enhancement of living standards for the fishing population, stability of markets, the guarantee of regular supplies and reasonable prices to consumers (Article 39).

Access

18An essential principle, applicable to all aspects of Community affairs is laid down in Article 7 which states

“within the scope of application of the Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.”

Community legislation in relation to fishery access was laid down in 1970 in Regulations (EEC) No. 2141/70 and (EEC) No. 2142/70, subsequently consolidated in Regulation (EEC) No. 101/76. This provided:

“Rules applied by each member state in respect of fishing in the maritime waters coming under its sovereignty or within its jurisdiction shall not lead to differences in treatment of other member states. Member states shall ensure in particular equal conditions of access to and use of the fishing grounds situated in the waters referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph for all fishing vessels flying the flag of a member state and registered in Community territory”.

19This basic principle, which implies free access for Community member states “up to the beaches”, has been modified in a number of important respects by a series of international and Community instruments.

20The London Convention of 1964: Signed by thirteen European countries, this Convention assigned to each of them the right to fish exclusively inside their 6 mile limits. The Convention also provided that a number of other countries who had long standing entitlements would be allowed to fish in each signatory’s 6 to 12 mile zone. As far as Ireland is concerned this included the UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Spain. (Spain subsequently waived its rights in the context of its Treaty of Accession). In return Ireland received entitlements to fish inside certain UK coastal waters. Outside the 12 mile limit was open to “all comers”.

21The Treaty of Accession Ireland of 1972. Ireland, together with the UK and Denmark carried their entitlements under the London Convention into the Community, but only up to 1982.

22The Hague Resolution of 1976. With international acceptance of the concept of the exclusive 200 mile fishery zone, the member states decided to act collectively. Under the Hague Resolution it was agreed that in the 12 to 200 mile zone there would be free access to all member states. The Hague Resolution and its Annex VII also explicitly recognised the need for the Irish industry to develop and conceded that the Irish catch should be allowed to double by 1979 with “continued and progressive” expansion thereafter.

23Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83. This Regulation, which is the basic regulation laying down the management aspects of the CFP in its present form, provided, inter alia, that the entitlements in the 6 to 12 mile zone were extended to the end of 1992. At this point they can be adjusted, but if no decision is made these arrangements will last until 2002.

24Iberian Act of Accession 1985. Under their Act of Accession Spain and Portugal have restricted access to the 12 to 200 mile zone. The restriction is in terms of the number of boats which may enter the area. This arrangement also expires in 2002. In addition there is a box around the west coast of Ireland (The “Irish Box” is the area between 12 degrees West and 56.30 degrees North and 50.30 degrees North. See Figure II) from which Spanish and Portuguese ships are excluded altogether until 1995. Of course, overriding all these aspects of access is the fact that each nationality is limited by quota to the amounts which it can catch.

25The attached Figure I shows the Community 200 mile limit (dotted line) and the Irish 200 mile line (shaded area). Also shown are the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) squares (roman numerals) set up for the purpose of defining management zones.

Allocation

26Under Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83, the available catch for each species, the so called “Total Allowable Catch” or TAC, is to be distributed among the member states “in a manner which assures each member state relative stability of fishing activities for each of the stocks concerned.” The TAC for each species is determined each year by the Council on the advice of the Commission and after taking technical advice about the level of stocks. TACs have been adopted for each year since 1983. Originally only seven species were subject to TACs, but since then the number has increased. The TACs are divided out amongst the members in the form of quotas. These quotas are allocated by reference to the quotas in 1982 which in turn reflects fishing effort in the years 1973 to 1978 (or 1975 in Ireland’s case). In 1982 the Irish quota was 4.4% of the EC TAC. Individual member states’ quotas vary from year to year depending on shifts in the size of the TACs for the different species and on the number of species included in the TAC. As of 1991, Ireland’s allocation amounted to 9% in tonnage terms. (See Table 1).

Fleet Capacity

27Concerned that the TAC mechanism by itself would not bring catches into line with resources prompted the Commission to take a number of steps to limit the size of the Community fishing fleet. One measure is enshrined in the Iberian Accession Act where it is required that when vessels in the Spanish or Portuguese fleets are retired they can only be replaced by vessels of half the size until equivalence is reached between capacity and fishing stocks. Starting in 1985 the Commission has also been putting pressure on the other member states to reduce the size of their fleets. First it set a target that by the end of 1986 fleets would be the same size in terms of GRT and engine power (kilowatts or kW) as in 1983. Next, within the Multi Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP) 1987-91, it required member states to reduce their fleets to 3% below the 1986 level in terms of GRT and 2% in terms of kW.

28The Community fleet was about 1.972 million GRT in June 1990 (the latest available figure) while the target for 1991 set by the Commission is 1.842 million. The Community GRT appears to have been falling in recent years, but a drop of 7% in eighteen months seems improbable. As far as Ireland is concerned, the actual tonnage at the end of last year was 49,800, a drop of 9,000 in three years. This decline was due to the application of stricter criteria for admission to registration and the elimination of vessels involved in aquaculture. The target for the fleet at the end of 1991 is 43,900, a decline of

Figure 1. - The Irish and Community 200 Mile Limits

Figure II. - The Irish Box

6,000 in a year. The desirability and practicality of attaining this figure is discussed below. (Paragraphs 80 to 83)

29One further point should be adverted to here. The Community has adopted a regulation (Regulation (EEC) No. 2930/86) setting down a standard method for calculating GRT. But it appears that this is not being followed by all of the member states. The evidence is that vessels of the same class show different GRTs under different flags and when vessels are transferred from one flag to another, their recorded GRT changes. All of this suggests that the Community fleet is bigger than it appears and that the Irish fleet forms a smaller proportion of it.

Conservation and Enforcement

30Enforcement of the Community’s restrictions with respect to access, quotas, fleet sizes and net sizes are the primary responsibility of the member states. However, the Commission has powers of inspection which it applies to the surveillance activities of the member states. The Community has also helped fund the purchase of fishery protection equipment for less well off countries with extensive responsibilities (e.g. Ireland). However, the Commission exercises very little direct control over enforcement by the member states. As the sanctions which the Commission can apply are cumbersome, and as there are strong pressures from fishing interests to the contrary, it is clear prima facie that conservation measures are not likely to be fully enforced. Table 2 below, extracted from the Commission’s Communication is instructive. Only 3 member states are adjudged to have sufficient inspectors, four to have sufficient vessels and five to have sufficient aircraft for surveillance. Only one member state (the UK) is judged to have adequate resources of all kinds. Put otherwise an additional 400 inspectors, 17 ships, and six aircraft are required to enforce conservation measures.

Third Countries

31The Community also has responsibility for negotiating fishing agreements with Third Countries arising from the activities of member state fleets in these countries’ waters. The Community has negotiated access to these fisheries for these member states by offering financial assistance, access to markets, and reciprocal rights of entry to Community waters.

Structural Aids

32Under the CFP the Community can give financial assistance to enable member states to finance the modernisation of fleets. This assistance is given in the context of reducing the overall size of the Community fleet. The Community also helps to fund a number of other aspects of the fishery industries in member states including aquaculture, harbour development, training, fish processing, marketing, research and surveillance.

Table 1

IRISH QUOTA AS % OF TOTAL TAC (EC SHARE) IN ALL WATERS AND ADJACENT WATERS BY SPECIES 1991

Source: Review of the Common Fisheries Policy: Report of the Advisory Group, July 1991

Source: Commission Communication to the Council and the Parliament:

Common Fisheries Policy. (Sec(90) 2244 final)

Column A: Commission estimate of existing reources and their utilisation

Column B: Commission estimate of supplementary resources necessary for control.

Source: Commission Communication to the Council and the Parliament:

Common Fisheries Policy. (Sec(90) 2244 final)

Column A: Commission estimate of existing reources and their utilisation

Column B: Commission estimate of supplementary resources necessary for control.

D. THE IRISH FISHING INDUSTRY

The Irish Catch

33Total landings by Irish registered vessels amounted to 188,000 tonnes in 1989, the latest year for which figures are available. The value of this catch was put at £86 million. To this should be added another 25,000 tonnes of mackerel transhipped at sea worth about £4.5 million. Finally, wild salmon and farmed fish, amounted to at least another 7,000 tonnes valued at around £30 million. Thus the entire fishing sector in Ireland produced about 220,000 tonnes of fish of all types worth about £120 million. In terms of the European Community this is a small amount: as noted above, Community catches (in and outside Community waters) amounted to about 7 million tonnes so that the Irish share of the total is 3%. The Irish total has, however, grown very rapidly. In 1973, Irish landings were about 86,000 tonnes worth about £7.5 million (See Table 3). Thus landings have increased by 120% since the country entered the European Community while in value terms it has risen by 11 times - the latter reflecting rapid increases in prices. To this should be added the volume and value of transhipments and farmed fish which did not exist in 1973.

Foreign Trade

34It is estimated that about 90% of the Irish catch is exported in one form or another: the remaining ten percent being retained for home human or animal consumption. According to BIM about two thirds of landings, other than those for industrial use, go out in chilled or fresh form. While the value added to these landings is therefore small, the species involved include high value shellfish and white fish which attract the highest prices in this form. About one quarter of the Irish landings are subject to simple processing (filletting, salting, marinating) while the remainder, about 10%, are subject to processing into

Source: Department of the Marine. Sea Fisheries Statistics

prepared foods. In the aggregate, Irish fish and fish product exports in 1988 amounted to 233,000 tonnes (including salmon and farmed fish) worth about £147 million. Ireland is also a major importer of fish: in 1988 imports amounted to 55,000 tonnes worth about £45 million. The bulk of this is re-exported in processed form so that net imports, plus landings for home consumption amount to about 22,000 tonnes of fish. This represents about 14 lbs per capita which is approximately double the per capita consumption in 1963.

35The most important export market for Ireland is France which takes over one quarter of our landings in value terms, mainly in the form of demersal and shellfish. France is followed by Spain, the UK, and Germany in that order. Japan is also important as a market for herring roe. Fresh fish and shell fish are mainly despatched to the UK, France and Spain while Nigeria and other African and Middle Eastern countries are outlets for pelagic fish in frozen commodity type consignments. Germany, and to a lesser extent other European countries are important markets for semi-processed fish but the economies of scale in the larger continental plants make it difficult for Ireland to be competitive in this area. This is even more true of the prepared sea food segment where in addition there are serious supply constraints.

Processing

36According to a survey by BIM (Charting a New Course Development Strategy for the Seafish Industry, 1988) there are about 113 fish processing firms in Ireland with estimated sales of about £100 million. Department of Marine estimates for 1990 indicate that there are 2,047 people in full time and 1,658 people in part-time employment in processing. In the main fish processing establishments are small scale. Only 6 firms employ more than 100 persons and 90 employ 20 or less. In the pelagic sector, processors have limited opportunities for expansion given the strong demand for mackerel in semi-processed form. White fish processors are hampered by uncertain supplies on the one hand and strong demand for fresh white fish on the other. However, that having been said there are important markets for smoked fish, especially salmon, processed shellfish and herring roe.

Employment

37Total employment in the fishing industry amounts to about 14,000 persons of which about 7,800 are full and part time fishermen while the remainder are engaged in aquaculture or processing. To this should be added numbers engaged in ancillary activities such as supply and maintenance of equipment, transport and distribution. A study of the Donegal fishing industry found that for every job at sea there were two ashore. If that applied to the whole industry, it would suggest that total dependent on the industry might amount to 24,000. Donegal is probably exceptional in the intensity of its fishing operations so that the national figure is unlikely to be as high as that. However, it is clear that fishing has implications for employment far beyond the numbers directly engaged in fishing and processing.

Regional Importance

38A notable feature of the Irish fishing industry is that it is heavily concentrated in certain areas which have relatively limited alternative employment possibilities. The North West and West account for 60% of total employment in the industry. In addition, Castletownbere, another important concentration of employment, is in an underdeveloped area on the southern coast. Fishing apart it would seem that the fishery centres in Donegal, Galway, Kerry and West Cork have little indigenous economic activity.

The Fishing Fleet

39The Irish fishing fleet comprises about 3,000 vessels of all types with a GRT of 49,800 (as of the end of 1990). Eliminating boats of less than 12 metres length, the fleet comprises about 600 vessels (See Table 4).² Following some modernisation in the early 1980s, including the acquisition of large craft, the rate of acquisition of new and refurbished vessels has slowed down. The position now is that of the 600 or so boats in the fleet, only 63 were launched since 1980 (See Table 4). Only eight are more than 48 meters in length. Indeed, it has been estimated that the average age of the Irish fleet is 30 years. Most of the modernisation has been in the pelagic sector where there are opportunities in distant waters for herring and mackerel. On the other hand, the demersal fleet is extremely antiquated. Poor fishing, pressure on margins and the operation of the Community’s limits on fleet tonnage are the main factors responsible for this.

State Involvement

40The main state agency involved in the development of the fishing industry is Bord Iscaigh Mhara (BIM) which provides financial and other assistance to fishermen and processors. The financial assistance covers acquisition of vessels, development of on shore facilities, processing and marketing. Training and research are also undertaken by BIM. The Department of the Marine is the ultimate source of funding for BIM. The Department also funds some research activities and it is directly responsible for five state fishery harbours (Killybegs, Rossaveal, Castletownbere, Dunmore East and Howth). Most of the other fishery harbours (there are about 30) are the responsibility of the local authorities.

Table 4

STRUCTURE OF THE CATCHING SECTOR - vessels over 12m

Footnote: This analysis is based on the Organisations’ data files and, while every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, 100% verification has not been possible. The figures should therefore be taken as indicative rather than definitive.

Source: Ireland’s Commercial Sea-Fishing Industry and the 1992 Review of the Common Fisheries Policy.

November 1990. Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

E. PROPOSED REVIEW OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

41Under Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83 the Commission must, before December 1991 submit to the Council “a report on the fisheries situation in the Community, the economic and social development of the coastal areas and the state of stocks and their likely evolution.” Upon the basis of this report, the Council is to decide on adjustments to be made on the allocation of available stocks and access rights. The Communication of last December, addressed by the Commission to the Council and the Parliament, is intended to give an indication of what the Commission’s thinking is likely to be in this Report.

42The central point in the Communication is the emphasis on the need to bring capacity into line with resources.

“The inadequacies as regards the application of the technical measures and the disadvantages resulting from the TAC and quota system have meant that virtually all stocks for which analytical data are available have deteriorated. As fishing mortality in these stocks has increased, the biomass has decreased and the percentage of juveniles in catches has increased.”

Management of Resources

43The aim of the Community’s conservation policy is to “maintain sufficient abundance to sustain stocks at levels that make fishing sufficiently viable.” The cornerstone of this policy is the setting of TACs and their distribution amongst the member states in the form of annual quotas. The TAC system has been in use since 1983. The Commission acknowledges that it has certain administrative advantages. However there are two disadvantages:

There needs to be control of fishing effort, otherwise surplus capacity will continue and fishermen will strive to beat their rivals in the using up of the quota;

In multi-species fisheries, species caught after the quota has been exhausted are discarded.

Multiannual Guidance Programmes

44The structural programme was launched in 1983. The objective of the current programme is to reduce fishing capacity over the period 1987-91 by 3% in terms of GRT and by 2% in terms of power (in Kw). While the effect of the policy has been to strengthen control over capacity, it is estimated that capacity is in excess of resources. An expert group (Gulland Committee) proposes that the Community fleet needs to be reduced by 40% to bring capacity into line with resources. The expert group proposes that:

reductions in the fleet should establish a balance between capacity and quotas in each national fleet by 1994;

reductions should continue thereafter so as to match fishing mortality recorded by each fleet with long term mortality rates;

but this average reduction should be modulated from place to place depending on the condition of the relevant fisheries.

45The Commission has proposed some new structural measures which are aimed at identifying new fishing resources, adjusting capacity and encouraging redeployment. The Commission is also proposing initiatives to link identifiable fleets with specific stocks and to bring in new parameters permitting an evaluation of fishing effort such as fishing time, gear and detection methods.

Control of Fishing Activities

46The monitoring of the quotas has been devolved to the member states. However, the Commission has taken steps to help ensure that these rules are observed. Commission inspection powers have been increased, additional measures to limit fishing effort through licenses or permits have been developed and funds have been made available to certain member states to strengthen their inspection capacities. However, the Commission notes that there are still serious inadequacies. These it attributes to:

the excess capacity, which encourages fishermen to break the rules;

inherent difficulties in policing a large area and the heterogenous nature of the industry;

the lack of political will.

47The Commission therefore suggests that modern communication measures based on satellite observation might be an effective complement to inspection of fishing by sea or air. The satellite system could be used to identify vessels in a particular area and to guide the activities of inspection vessels. The Commission claims that the system would also improve safety, speed up dissemination of commercial information and improve fishing performance.

Access to External Stocks

48Under the Law of the Sea, the extension of exclusive fishery zones to 200 miles meant that the fleets of member states were excluded from traditional fishery grounds. The Community has negotiated with the third countries concerned to enable member states to reenter some of these zones. A combination of reciprocal fishing rights, monetary compensation and trade concessions have been used in exchange for access. The Commission proposes to pursue this policy with other countries such as those in Latin America and the Pacific. It is also considering widening the range of incentives for less developed countries to encourage them to grant access to Community fishermen.

Aquaculture

49Aquaculture has expanded rapidly in the Community. It is proposed to continue to assist its growth, especially as a means of providing alternative employment for those obliged to quit fishing.

Conclusion

50Reverting to the main issue, the overexploitation of stocks and the failure of existing measures to contain it, the Commission concludes that there must be:

“(an) overhaul of the TAC/quota system, with stronger measures for monitoring fishing effort and more stringent technical conservation measures.

revision of the structural policy in order to improve control over fishing effort, particularly through new multiannual guidance programmes for fishing fleets and a thorough assessment of the expected regional and social impact of the various policy adjustment hypotheses…

greater transparency of fishing activities by transmission of data relating to all catches taken by Community vessels.”

F. VIEWS OF INTERESTED PARTIES

51In February of 1991, the Minister for the Marine, established an advisory group under the Chairmanship of T.K. Whitaker “to examine and advise the Minister for the Marine on the issues which should be pursued by Ireland in the context of the review of the Common Fisheries Policy”. The Advisory Group was representative of all the main interest groups in the industry including fishermen, aquaculturalists, processors, state agencies and the Department itself. There were also some independent members in the Group. The report of the Group was published in July 1991 and reflects a high degree of consensus amongst the members about the shape which the CFP should take. This was also reflected in the views which the Sub Committee heard from the interested groups which came before it, and from the groups which members of the Sub Committee met at fishing ports in the south east and north west.

Access

52Ireland has about 16% of the Community’s territorial water including some of the more productive fisheries in the Community. Access to this by other member states is extensive and as the previous paragraphs have emphasised, it would appear that it is intended that it should be widened. Obviously, the greater the access to Irish waters by foreign vessels, the more restricted the opportunity for the development of the Irish industry. Therefore opening up access to other countries within Ireland’s 6 to 12 mile zone would be a major blow for the Irish fishing industry. While it is possible that this access might be granted as a result of the review now under way, the expiration of the relevant provisions of Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83 means that open access to coastal waters is certain by the turn of the century unless a specific decision to the contrary is made. This is not much more than a decade away and does not provide much time for the Irish industry to reorganise itself - even supposing it was free to do so. Limits on the size of the fleet, amongst other things, greatly restrict the fleet’s options in this regard.

53In the meantime, one other threat to the industry exists in the scope for “quota hopping”. This is the practice whereby Spanish (and other Member State) owners register their vessels in Ireland and the UK and so gain access to UK and Irish quotas as UK or Irish vessels. A restriction that 75% of the crews of vessels fishing Irish quotas be Community citizens has partly controlled this, as far as Ireland is concerned. (In fact there are 12 foreign boats in the Irish fleet, see Table 4). But in 1993 Spanish and Portuguese citizens will become Community citizens, so that defence will be of no avail. Ireland also requires at the moment that licenses only be given to Irish nationals or companies established in Ireland. However, this has been contested in the European Court and seems likely to be overturned.

Allocation

54The Joint Committee cannot emphasise enough that the basis on which quotas are allocated was made at a time when the Irish industry was underdeveloped and hence Ireland’s position has been frozen. Although the concessions provided by the Hague Resolution have helped, there is still considerable scope for expansion of the Irish industry. The Joint Committee adds that other arguments which justify a review of central aspects of the TAC and quota system as far as Ireland is concerned include:

Certain fisheries in Irish waters were underdeveloped at the time when the quotas were initially allocated. These could now bear increased fishing and so larger quotas.

The relative prices of pelagic and demersal fish have changed over the years with the result that the value of Irish quotas has declined. Thus, although Ireland has 9% of the EC quota in tonnage, in price terms it is worth 6%.

55A point which is likely to be used against Ireland in any renegotiation of the quotas is the fact that the Irish quotas for demersal and shellfish are unfilled. There are two counter arguments to this. First, some of these quotas are in the Irish Sea and it would appear that a lot of these fisheries have dwindled to very low levels. Secondly, the demersal fisheries off the Porcupine Bank in the west are beyond the reach of the Irish demersal fleet. As noted in paragraph 39 restrictions on the size of the Irish fleet have made it difficult for demersal fishermen to upgrade their vessels.

Conservation and Enforcement

56While the system of TACs and quotas is acceptable in principle, in practice measures to enforce the regulations are inadequate. Resources in terms of inspection vessels and aircraft and inspection personnel are too limited. Even if there were more resources there is a fundamental question about the political will of some member states. In the view of some fishermen, this also applies to Ireland. Assistance has been given by the Community to Ireland to enable it to acquire equipment for fishery protection purposes. But the material available is too limited having regard to the large area to be policed. In addition the penalties which are applied under Irish law are minor relative to the damage done by illegal fishing. In several other member states it would seem that the penalties are even less significant which further reinforces doubts about the effectiveness of the level of enforcement in the Community.

57Limits on mesh sizes have been imposed by the Community as part of its conservation programme. It is accepted that such restrictions are desirable. But recent increases for pelagic species, ostensibly intended to reduce the catching of juvenile fish, are believed to represent a purely political compromise. The nets in use in Ireland are close to the new limits. The increase required to take account of the new regulations are unlikely to have any effect on the incidence of juvenile fish being caught but will have the result of increasing costs to fishermen.

National Policy

58Harbours: The Committee received strong representations about the quality of the harbours at Kilmore Quay and Dunmore East. It is understood that many other fishery harbours have similar problems. A contributory factor is the fact that most harbours are owned by local authorities who lack the money, and perhaps the interest, to undertake improvements. The consequence for fishermen are excessive wear and tear on their vessels, congestion and restrictions on operations to fit in with tides.

59Infrastructure: Most of the fishery harbours are remote from the exports to the UK and the continent. Their problems in this respect are compounded by the fact that many roads are of poor quality from the viewpoint of width, alignment and surface. The consequence is a lower “net back” price to processors and fishermen. This is particularly true of the road situation around Killybegs, but the situation is common throughout the North West, West and South West.

60Fleet Replacement: The cost of new or modernised vessels is very great. In addition, it is necessary for an intending investor to purchase existing tonnage (if he does not already own any himself) in order to comply with the Community’s limits on the size of the fleet. The combined cost is beyond the means of all but a very few individuals. The result is the poor condition of the fleet. The recent decision of the Minister to licence another 20 vessels, while welcome in itself, will meet with little response unless some measures are taken to assist intending purchasers.

61Research: the development of Irish fisheries and the strength of our position at the bargaining table is handicapped by limited scope of our fisheries research. The total of about £750,000 allocated to marine research by the Department of the Marine in 1991 is small in relation to the overall output of the industry and especially when crucial negotiations are in prospect.

G. VIEWS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

62The kernel of the Joint Committee’s view is that Ireland’s claim for scope for the expansion of its fishing industry is soundly based on three considerations:

That Ireland is an underdeveloped member of the Community, and our fishery-dependent areas are themselves underdeveloped parts of Ireland;

That the allocation and access arrangements now in force were made when the Irish industry was in an underdeveloped condition;

That principles of equity and efficiency dictate that a member state should have priority claim on its contiguous waters.

Peripherality

63In the Joint Committee’s view, there can be little doubt about the extent of Ireland’s relative underdevelopment or that of our fishery areas in particular. According to the Commission’s statistics Ireland’s GDP per capita is 65% of that of the Community average. This puts it below the GDP of the main fishing member states, including Spain which has a GDP per capita 73.6% of the Community average. (See Table 5 below). The fishery dependent areas themselves are mainly located in the West of Ireland amongst the least well off parts of the country. Statistics show that these areas have high unemployment, high emigration and heavy dependence on agriculture - much of the latter being of the subsistence type. A comparison of Donegal with other fishery areas in the Community is an indication of the relative deprivation of Ireland’s fishery dependent areas (See Table 6 below).

Source: Review of the Common Fisheries Policy: Report of the Advisory Group, July 1991.

Source: Review of the Common Fisheries Policy: Report of the Advisory Group, July 1991.

64These data constitute a strong claim on the policies of the Community. In this respect the Joint Committee recalls a number of commitments by the Community to assist with the reduction of regional disparities. For example, Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome commits the Community:

“to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increased stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between its member states.”

The special Protocol included in Ireland’s Treaty of Accession recognised the need to ensure the success of our policy of industrial and economic development. These commitments by the Community were reinforced in the Single European Act which amended the Treaty with the inclusion of the following Articles:

“In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion. In particular the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions.” (Article 130a)

“the implementation of the common policies…shall take into account the objectives set out in Article 130a…and shall contribute to their achievement”. (Article 130b)

65In a Communication to the Council in July 1989 the Commission urged the Community to:

“help to reinforce economic and social cohesion within the Community, in the sense that the special needs of those regions where the population is particularly dependent on fisheries and related industries must be viewed as one of the basic principles guiding the implementation of the common fisheries policy, and in particular the allocation of catches” (emphasis added, OJ 1989 C224/3)

66The European Parliament has responded to this specific request in resolving that the CFP should inter alia, promote “the development of the Community’s peripheral maritime regions in accordance with the objective of economic and social cohesion laid down in the Single European Act” (OJ 1989 C47/163).

67Assistance to peripheral areas to enable them to attract industry is no doubt a valuable means of promoting regional development. However, the Joint Committee is convinced that enlarging indigenous economic opportunities is a far more effective means of promoting development. This is readily within the power of the Community to make available to the fishing industry in various ways including increased quotas, reduced access to Irish fisheries by other member states and stronger enforcement. The Joint Committee presumes that it is for this reason that the fisheries industry was excluded from the scope of the structural funds. This would certainly seem to be explicit in the Commission’s Communication referred to above.

Scope for Development

68Ireland joined the European Community in 1973 at which point, as noted above (paragraph 33) the Irish fish industry landed 86,000 tonnes valued at £7.5 million. Even by Irish standards this was small. The Hague Resolution, and the associated Annex VII, provided some further scope for development. Nevertheless, given the overcapacity endemic in the other member states and the strong pressure on their governments from fishery interests, the Community has so far been unwilling to permit any flexibility in the development of the CFP. That is why it took seven years from the Hague Resolution until acceptance of the management aspects of the CFP in Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83. With a fleet accounting for about 3% of Community GRT and 16% of the Community’s waters, it can hardly be argued that Ireland is a cause of the pressure on stocks. Nevertheless, as things stand, it would seem that Ireland’s industry is likely to be frozen at its present size as a result of these pressures.

69However, the Joint Committee shares the view of the industry that through the Hague Resolution the Community is committed to allowing scope for further development of the Irish industry. That Resolution allowed for the doubling of the Irish catch at a time when other countries were to be constrained. But in addition Annex VII to the Resolution declared that the Community intended:

“so to apply the provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy, as further determined by the Act of Accession, and adapted to take account of the existence of waters to 200 miles, as to secure the continued and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry on the basis of the Irish Government’s Development Programme for the development of coastal fisheries.”

70The Joint Committee would like to draw attention to one other aspect of the CFP which affects Ireland’s scope for development and which is often overlooked. Negotiation of agreements with third countries is an important part of the CFP (see paragraphs 31 and 48). Irish fishermen have not, in general, had much incentive to fish in third country waters. As a consequence the benefit of these agreements has accrued solely to other member states. On the other hand the cost of securing access falls on all member states. Greater access to these third country fisheries should be secured for Irish fishermen.

Proximity

71The Joint Committee believes that Ireland also has a strong case for expanded scope on the basis that with a large share of the Community’s fishing waters, our industry only accounts for 5% of Community landings from Community waters. “Traditional rights” of entry to our coastal area by other member states cannot be regarded as immutable, but rather as transitional arrangements pending, amongst other things, the greater expansion of the Irish industry. In the meantime, the practice of sailing long distances from home ports to “traditional” fishing grounds in distant waters is imposing uneconomic costs on the Community’s industry. There is also the consideration that conservation is likely to be more effectively handled when the fisheries are exploited by local rather than by foreign fishermen.

H. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

Access

72The Joint Committee endorses the suggestion of the Whitaker Report that exclusive rights should be given to Ireland in coastal waters up to 12 miles. Exceptions can be made for the UK which extends reciprocal rights to Ireland and consideration should be given to France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany if they grant to Irish vessels reciprocal rights of demonstrable equal economic value.

73Token quotas should be abolished as they have little economic justification and create additional surveillance costs.

74The Joint Committee regards the disappearance of the Irish Box in 1996 as potentially a serious problem. It accepts the suggestion of the Whitaker Report that the creation of special conservation boxes from time to time with regard to different species could be a helpful means of ensuring that exploitation is kept within reasonable bounds.

75It would also be helpful to the conservation of fishery resources if the quotas of those of non-migratory species (e.g. Dublin Bay prawns) which are now spread over a large area were broken down and allocated to those ICES areas which they are known to inhabit.

76The enhanced possibility for “quota hopping” after Spanish and Portuguese citizens become Community citizens in 1993 is very worrying. The Joint Committee urges that every effort should be made to ensure that it will be possible for the Irish Government to insist that vessels fishing against Irish quotas should have a substantial “economic link” with Irish ports. This should be defined to yield the maximum economic benefit in the form of fish landings or spin-off from the location of the management, control or berthage of these vessels in Irish fishery regions.

77The Whitaker Report suggests that Ireland should seek access to third country fisheries alongside other member states. The Joint Committee agrees with this but adds that consideration should be given to trading access to these fisheries for increased quotas in our coastal waters.

Allocation

78The Joint Committee believes that the arguments discussed earlier with respect to the relatively under developed nature of the country, the underdeveloped nature of our industry and the proximity of resources, particularly in the light of the many commitments made by the Community, constitute a strong case for the expansion of Irish quotas.

79In addition, an adjustment to the method of calculating the quota needs to be made to take account of the changes in the relative prices of the different species since the quota was originally determined.

80The Joint Committee also believes that expansion of the Irish quotas for demersal fish in the Atlantic are needed to compensate for some of the quotas in the Irish Sea which appear to be purely nominal.

Fleet Capacity

81The Joint Committee welcomes the decision by the Department of the Marine to license an extra 6,000 GRT. However, in order to ensure that this is translated into reality, it urges that the Department institute a scheme of decommissioning grants. In this context the Joint Committee notes that Ireland is one of only two member states (the other is the UK) which do not have such grants. Decommissioning grants will attract funding from the Community so the net burden on the Department will be limited.

82The Joint Committee feels that the limits set for the Irish fleet under the current MAGP are impossible to attain. The present size of the fleet can be defended by reference to the fact that Irish fisheries appear to be under less pressure than those of other countries and that, for want of adequate vessels, it is not possible to exploit all of our quotas.

83The Joint Committee would add one further point: where an expansion of capacity takes place as the incidental result of introducing safer vessels that expansion should not be counted against the national fleet limit under the MAGP.

84The Community should insist that member states comply with Community regulations governing the calculation of GRT and kW.

Conservation and Enforcement

85The Joint Committee believes that there must be effective enforcement of the management of the Community’s fisheries and especially the ones in Irish waters. Naturally, this will affect Irish fishermen, though the Joint Committee is more inclined to think that fishermen from other countries will be more affected. In the long run, and given that Irish fisheries are highly productive and relatively underexploited, all fishermen, but particularly the Irish industry, will be gainers.

86Therefore the Joint Committee urges that the Community should step up its efforts to ensure that the member states carry out effective monitoring. This should include more Community inspectors and a greater number of inspections. Consideration should be given to adopting the powers available to the Competition Directorate of the Commission which is entitled to enter premises without warning and to seize papers of companies which it believes are in contravention of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.

87The Joint Committee supports the Commission’s proposal for a satellite surveillance system.

88Another instrument which might be effective in securing compliance would be to penalise countries which are lagging in their enforcement efforts by reducing their quotas.

89The Irish authorities likewise need to strengthen their efforts. It is noted that the Commission Communication of December 1990 calculated that Ireland need to increase its air patrolling by 40% and its sea patrolling by 20%. More inspectors are required and there needs to be improved coordination between the fishery surveillance sections of the Department of the Marine and the Naval Service in order to ensure the maximum effectiveness of our resources.

90While it will always be difficult to arrest fishing vessels and to make charges “stick”, it may be possible to increase the deterrent effect of our inspection resources by increasing the penalties. Mandatory confiscation of the vessel on a second indictable offence and a gaol sentence for the skipper would seem to be an appropriate penalty having regard to the damage being done. Thus, even if it happened that the chances of being caught did not increase, the consequences would.

91The Whitaker report drew attention to the depredations done by grading fish on large factory vessels. The discarding of under size fish is not only a waste but it also contaminates the fishing grounds. The Joint Committee endorses the adoption of means to control these practices.

92Finally the Joint Committee urges that serious consideration be given to adopting the US practice of placing inspectors on fishing vessels to ensure that regulations are complied with. The inspectors would be in a position not only to monitor activities of the vessel they were on, but those of other vessels in the vicinity. The vessels selected for inspection in this way could be chosen on a random basis by the Commission. It might be that this is only a practical possibility on large vessels. But as these account for a large share of landings, it would seem to be a cost effective procedure. It would be difficult to imagine what objections member states would have to this practice assuming that they claim to be observing the conservation measures. It may be added that the inspectors could also carry out useful scientific and technical observations relating to fishery management and sea pollution.

National Measures

93Reference has been made to the needs of certain harbours for improvement works. It has been represented to the Joint Committee that local authorities lack the resources and the interest to invest in their fishery harbours. The Joint Committee did observe at Dunmore East that state harbours are also in need of improvement, but nevertheless recommends that the larger fishery harbours (see Annex) should be transferred to the Department of the Marine.

94On the other hand roads are unambiguously a responsibility of local authorities and the Joint Committee observed that roads in the Killybegs area were very unsatisfactory. The Joint Committee understands that similar observations apply to fishery harbours in other parts of the country, particularly those in the West and South West. The Joint Committee recommends that the Department of the Environment should recognise the strategic importance of good communications to this port by increasing the allocations to the local authorities concerned.

95Finally, the Joint Committee urges that the state should invest more heavily in fisheries research. As the Stride Programme for Ireland observes, there is a particular need for research aimed at encouraging diversification of fishing effort to non-quota species and to improve control of diseases threatening aquaculture. In particular the Joint Committee believes that a larger and better equipped research vessel is required to support our fishery research effort than the one now available.

Peter Barry T.D.,

Chairman

December 11th 1991

¹ Agreement reached between the member states of the Community on the development of the CFP in the Hague in 1976

(*) Equipment intended to replace existing unsuitable equipment.

(*) Equipment intended to replace existing unsuitable equipment.

² Differences between the 51,100 GRT shown in Table 4 and the 49,800 quoted above may be due to new additions since the end of 1990 and/or differences in definition.