JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 14 Apr 2010

We will now scrutinise EU legislative proposals. We are joined by Mr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary; and Ms Josephine Kelly, principal officer, at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They will address the committee on the proposals for a Council regulation amending the 2010 total allowable catches and quotas regulation, which follows the conclusion of negotiations with Norway and the Faroe Island and was referred to this committee by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny.

Before I call Mr. Beamish to make his presentation, I draw everyone's attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to address the committee. The total allowable catch, TAC, and quota is the central element of the annual negotiations on the Common Fisheries Policy and the specific regulation we are discussing today pertains to amendments that arose from discussions between the EU and Norway following the December Council.

Normally, the December Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers sets the TACs and quotas for various fish stocks for the following year. This regulation sets out the amount of fish Irish and other European fishermen can catch and has a direct bearing on the economic well-being of our fishing sector and the communities depending on it. Other aspects of what is commonly known as the TAC and quota regulation include giving legal effect to other fishery conservation and management measures, as well as third party agreements with other countries. Council Regulation (EU) No. 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixed for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks. The package of fish quotas and other conservation measures for 2010 were agreed at the December 2009 Agriculture and Fisheries Council after a marathon 36 hours of intensive negotiations. The then Minister of State at this Department, Deputy Tony Killeen, represented Ireland at those negotiations.

However, the inability of the EU and Norway to conclude successfully a bilateral agreement on a number of jointly managed stocks, in particular arrangements for the mackerel fishery in 2010, overshadowed the December 2009 meeting. The impasse made it impossible to agree final arrangements for the various fish stocks involved in the so-called northern fisheries agreements, which also include bilateral agreements with the Faroe Islands and a number of multilateral agreements, including with Iceland and Russia, on the management of certain fish stocks in which Ireland has an interest. These stocks, which are highly migratory, are found at particular times of the year in the waters of Norway, in EU or Faroe Islands waters or, in some cases, in Icelandic or international waters. They must be managed jointly and require international agreements each year in order to have a management framework. Stocks of particular interest to Ireland involved in the northern agreements include mackerel, horse mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandic herring.

Consultations with the other parties in whose waters these fish are found are an integral part of the EU fisheries landscape and although each negotiation is a separate strand, all are linked. The lack of an agreement between the EU and Norway meant that the normal annual agreement between the EU and the Faroe Islands could not be concluded. Because of this situation, temporary measures had to be put in place by Council Regulation (EU) No. 53/2010 to allow fishing commence on those affected stocks for the spring fishery in EU waters. In the case of many of these fisheries fishing commences in late January or early February.

If that had not been possible there was a real danger that our pelagic fishing fleet, in particular, would have been severely limited in terms of the amount of the mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandic herring it could have caught in the early part of the year which is the most economically lucrative time. However, as Minister of State, Deputy Killeen secured a provisional quota for those stocks including mackerel — by far the most important — that allowed our fleet to fish up to 65% of the 2009 quota level in the first months of this year, pending final agreement being reached with Norway on the 2010 fishing opportunities.

On 26 January, after a marathon eight-day session, the EU and Norway were able to agree a package of measures on the jointly held stocks and, most important, a separate long-term management arrangement on mackerel. That is a very important aspect for Ireland. On 15 January the EU and the Faroe Islands also concluded an agreement on all aspects of joint interest except mackerel.

As the EU and Norway collectively have the lion's share of the mackerel stock — approximately 95% of the total allowable catch, TAC, with the balance being available mainly to the Faroe Islands — they agreed an overall TAC figure of 572,000 tonnes for 2010. This was based on scientific advice from the international committee for the exploration of the seas, ICES. That 572,000 tonnes has been allocated on the basis of the previous shares and Ireland now has a final quota for 2010 of 62,641 tonnes. This is Ireland's most important fishery, and, depending on prices achieved, can be worth close to €100 million to the economy annually.

Ultimately, agreement with Norway enabled the adoption of Council Regulation (EU) 219/2010 of 15 March, which amended the December Council Regulation (EU) 53/2010 and set the final arrangements for fishing opportunities for 2010 for all the stocks subject to the previous temporary arrangements.

It is important to note that an associated and critical issue on the mackerel stock and future sharing arrangements remains. Mackerel is the most lucrative of the pelagic stocks in our waters. It is a highly migratory species and normally migrates from Norway around Christmas and the beginning of the new year, moving across the North Sea via Scotland, down along the west coast of Ireland to the south west and thence to the Bay of Biscay as far as the north coast of Spain which it reaches by April-May. Stocks are fished along the way. It then repeats that migration in reverse, starting in late August or early September. As a migratory species it moves according to its feeding and spawning habits. The evidence suggests the migratory pattern for mackerel is changing again in a north-westerly direction. It is now to be found in Icelandic waters, though its abundance there is unclear. I will return to this point, which is important for Ireland.

Mackerel proved the stumbling block in the negotiations with Norway which, in addition to the nine day session in Brussels in January, spanned three earlier sessions, two of which were held in Bergen and one in Brussels. Negotiations with Norway are normally complex and for 2010 the complexity was exacerbated by the failure to reach agreement on mackerel at the coastal states forum, a forum involving the Faroe Islands, Norway and the EU. The detailed management arrangements for mackerel are normally dealt with at the coastal states forum. At a coastal states meeting convened in Clonakilty in October, it was evident that both the EU and Norway sought to enter into a new long-term arrangement on the management of mackerel that would encompass such issues as reciprocal access, control, inter-annual quota flexibilities and a number of other items. It was not possible to reach agreement between the parties at that meeting or at a subsequent second round in Edinburgh, due mainly to a refusal by the Faroe Islands to negotiate unless it was guaranteed more quota. As the largest shareholders of the stock, Norway and the EU sought to progress the matter bilaterally, especially with a mind to taking a unified stance on talks with Iceland this year. This proved very difficult to achieve due to a number of factors. New control arrangements were introduced in August in the mackerel fishery on foot of evidence of misreporting by Norwegian vessels in the North Sea in respect of where mackerel was caught.

In October the EU waters in the North Sea, which are of interest to Norway, were closed to Norwegian vessels because they had reached their access limit as set out in the 2009 agreement. Norway disputed this fact and sought to have the agreement revised. Added to the mix was the question of dealing with Iceland's Olympic fishery. Mackerel has appeared in Icelandic waters and Iceland is setting its own tax and quota for what it wishes to take. Independent total allowable mackerel catches were set subsequently by Norway and the Faroe Islands and there was a further demand by the Faroe Islands for additional quota.

Since mackerel is now to be found in the waters of Iceland, it has taken a very aggressive stance and its decision to prosecute a mackerel fishery since 2008 with claimed, though not verified, landings exceeding 100,000 tonnes per year has added much concern about the long-term viability of the stock following many years of prudent management. Iceland has set a unilateral total allowable catch of 130,000 tonnes for 2010, most of which it must fish in its own waters. The development of the Icelandic fishery and the setting of its distinct total allowable catches were the main reasons the Faroe Islands would not agree to any long-term deal. The Faroe Islands feared Iceland would ultimately agree a deal with a greater share of the stock to its share.

Initial talks with Iceland on management of mackerel were held in London in May 2009 without agreement. A fresh initiative was entered into after the successful conclusion of the EU Norway talks in January. A four day meeting was held in Ålesund, Norway from 15 March to 18 March. The participants included the EU, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and, as observers, Russia. This was seen as a starting point in a process to agree comprehensive management and sharing arrangements for the mackerel stock. No agreement was reached, although agreement was not expected, and a further session is to commence in Iceland on Monday next, 19 April.

The Faroe Islands have now complicated the matter further with a statement by its Minister that if agreement is not reached next week, it will declare its total allowable catch of not more than 130,000 tonnes. It believes its historical track record in the fishery entitles it to a higher share than Iceland. If allowed to continue, Iceland's so-called Olympic or free fishery, along with the Faroese threat, if acted upon, could only harm the health and sustainability of the mackerel stock. It is essential in all our interests, especially those of Irish fishermen and our pelagic processing factories, that an accommodation can be reached. However, there does not appear to be a move towards compromise. Either way, if and when Iceland is persuaded to follow agreed management practices and agrees to a multilateral arrangement for mackerel stock, it will result in a reduction of the share of the European Union. As a consequence, there will be a reduction of Ireland's mackerel quota. However, a mitigating factor is the long-term arrangement entered into with Norway. The agreement foresees future discussions with Iceland, encompasses all management issues and enables the Norwegian and European Union pelagic fleets to have a more efficient, stable and secure fishery into the future. It also cements the relative sharing quota arrangement between the European Union and Norway which will remain constant after the Faroe Islands and Iceland agree to a new coastal arrangement. In effect, it has been agreed that Norway will not seek to take advantage of what has to be conceded to the Faroe Islands and Iceland and that there will be a proportionate payment. It will also allow both parties to commence talks with the Faroe Islands and Iceland from a position of unified strength.

That is the background to the regulation. It is an adjustment of the December TAC quota regulation from the Council of Ministers because of the subsequent agreements with Norway and the Faroe Islands. The agreements also enable discussions with Iceland to commence.

I welcome Mr. Beamish and Ms Kelly. Just when one thinks one is getting a handle on this issue it becomes more complicated. The presentation confirms the absolute requirement for vigilance, in terms of the national interest, in the negotiations. I have no doubt Mr. Beamish and his colleagues are doing their utmost to ensure Ireland secures the best possible deal. It appears that there is a lot of shadow boxing in the context of the negotiations on Iceland's accession, something on which Mr. Beamish might comment. He might advise us on the current status of the talks in the context of the allocation of quotas.

Mr. Beamish might also clarify an issue regarding TACs and quotas. I understand the total allowable catch is a cumulative sum. There is a lot of jargon which needs to be deciphered to try to get a handle on the issue. What are the consequences in terms of stocks sustainability of the decision by Iceland to engage in what I understand is called "Olympic fishing" and unilaterally allocate itself a quota of 130,000 tonnes of mackerel? What would happen if the Faroe Islands was to follow suit? How realistic is that threat? Cumulatively, a total of 260,000 tonnes of mackerel is involved. The delegation might put the consequences of that decision in context, given the Irish allocation.

On a related matter, the delegation might give us an overview of the current status of the Common Fisheries Policy review talks.

I welcome Mr. Beamish and Ms Kelly and thank them for their presentation which does not seem to suggest there is much light at the end of the tunnel. It seems that we are regarded in the European Union as a small pawn, as far as the mackerel fishing industry is concerned. We all know that from Killybegs to Castletownbere the mackerel fishing industry is of vital importance to our fishing fleet.

I am not happy with the capitulation of the European Union in the matter involving Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. It is clearly evident that Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands which are not members of the European Union are dictating matters to the Union. It is unfair that Iceland can fix its own Olympic fishing quota of 130,000 tonnes. Immediately following this decision the Faroe Islands made the same provision for its mackerel fishing industry, giving a total of 260,000 tonnes, whereas Ireland has been relegated to a quota of 62,641 tonnes. Where is the equity? This is the only fully fledged European member state surrounded by water, apart from Great Britain which is now connected to mainland Europe by the Channel tunnel, yet we are being treated as if we were small fry. We will have to be more aggressive in our approach in that respect. I am not happy with our negotiating team from the Department and the Minister who will have to put his foot down and state emphatically that, as a fully fledged member nation of the European Union, we have our legal rights as far as these fisheries are concerned. The Spanish, the Portuguese and the French are coming into our waters and taking our fish. As late as this week the crew of a Spanish trawler were arrested and taken to Castletownbere for using illegal nets while fishing, etc. We should not be playing the goody-goody role in the fishery talks. The time has come for common sense to prevail. Our fishermen cannot continue with a quota as low as 62,641 tonnes when Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Norway can set their own quotas without any concessions to other European states. That is not practical and I am not happy with it. A reappraisal is needed.

Mr. Beamish stated, "No agreement was reached, although agreement was not expected, and a further session is to commence in Iceland on Monday next, 19 April." Which countries are expected to participate in that meeting? It is evident that under no circumstances can we agree to the proposal before us. If we capitulate following such coercion by Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Norway, it will amount to a complete sell-out of the Irish fishing industry.

I, too, have concerns about the size of our quota. We have done well in agriculture since joining the European Union in 1973, but we all believe we got a raw deal as far as fisheries are concerned. I am constantly told that, as an island in the Atlantic Ocean, we should have a higher quota. That was probably our own fault when we joined the Union in 1973. Migration of mackerel was mentioned, in particular, towards Iceland but has Iceland had a quota up until now? It is talking about having a total catch of 130,000 tonnes. We must have bilateral agreements for the preservation of mackerel to ensure the survival of the species. That is the only way forward to ensure the species survives for future generations. As Mr. Beamish said, Norway and the Faroe Islands seem to be willing to negotiate. Is Iceland, which is trying to get a big share of this stock which it did not have previously, trying to grasp this stock at the expense of Europe and Ireland in particular? It is an issue on which we need to stand firm. Co-operation is better than conflict and while we have to get co-operation on this issue, we have to fight our corner and ensure we get a reasonable quota, which we have not got to date from our membership of the EU.

I will have to tread a line here because I am not supposed to engage in policy debates. I will deal first with a technical point that was raised. Deputy Creed asked about the total TACs. I accept a good deal of jargon and acronyms are used in the fishing industry and it is all about the detail. TACs are total allowable catches. Scientists assess fish stock and they say that their view is that the stock could take a total catch of X or a catch within a range; they do not specify a precise number. Decisions are taken on what is the total catch that can be taken out of that stock. If it is exclusively European stock, the total allowable catch will be decided in the Council of Ministers. Normally in almost all cases the shares are pre-agreed. They are set from a time in the past. If one gets a share of 25% of a stock, one gets 25% of the total allowable catch that is set and that is how it works. That is called relative stability — one has the same share year after year.

In the case of these stocks, which are migratory and occur outside the Union as well as within it, they have to be jointly managed. That takes place among two or three sovereign entities, as the case may be, and one can only get agreement if those, say, three parties agree. There is no mechanism above that. It is clearly in everybody's interest to get an agreement in order that matters are sustainable, otherwise everybody loses and people understand that. What is involved is a negotiation and it is difficult to tie anybody's hands in such a negotiation. The parties enter the negotiation as sovereign entities.

In terms of the Icelandic situation, Iceland has long treated its fisheries as something it manages on a sovereign basis inside in its own 200-mile zone and it has done this ever since the cod wars. Mackerel has now appeared in its waters. That stock would have been in its waters a long time ago but for the past 20 for 30 years there would not have been any significant amount of mackerel in its waters. The stock has moved and expanded and Iceland considers that it has this resource within its 200-mile zone and up to now it has decided to take its own management measures on that resource. Scientists would say it is the same stock, that everybody is taking from the same stock and that there must be an overall view on how it is to be managed.

The scenario in terms of Iceland is that it has begun accession negotiations in parallel and we all understand the economic situation there. There are a number of drivers in that regard, but currently Iceland is free to manage the resources within its own 200-mile zone. It is clearly very much in the interests of the Union and Norway that a long-term management arrangement is put in place as soon as possible. Iceland is setting these figures — these total allowable catches — unilaterally, but they are coming from the same stock. If the scientific assessment is that the total catch has increased, all things being equal, we will have a reduced quota.

No, the stock was not in Icelandic waters until three years ago and it has become more prevalent in those waters. It would have been in Icelandic waters 30 or 40 years ago. Therefore, Iceland did not have a quota and it was not party to the mackerel management arrangements. The mackerel stock was managed by Norway, the EU and the Faroe Islands. Deputy P. J. Sheehan asked how that works. Legally, in any external negotiations with another sovereign state, the Commission has sole competence to speak. The Commission is the representative of the Union in those negotiations. The Commission does that in consultation with interested member states. Ireland will always attend any of these meetings and will give its views to the Commission, but the Commission has independence in terms of the position it takes. The industry representatives will attend as well, but they have observer status. Our representatives will work with the industry because ultimately that is whom we are serving. For example, the main pelagic interests in Ireland welcomed the EU-Norway agreement in January. There was an element of that whereby the Minister, Deputy Killeen, had to get statements negotiated at the December Council on how the Norway agreement parameters would be negotiated to ensure balance. The Norway agreement is about much more than mackerel. It is about white fish and cod in the Arctic, and a lot of different things. However, the amount of fish that Norway gives and receives has to be balanced. The Minister, Deputy Killeen, negotiated some statements at the December Council for the subsequent January negotiations about how payment would have to be balanced out between the member states involved. They were seen as very useful by the industry. As I said, ultimately, the agreement with Norway was welcomed by the industry.

If negotiations fail and Iceland keeps fishing, ultimately the stock will be lost and those who are parties to it will lose. Therefore, one has to negotiate with a party and try to reach an agreement. There will be a price for not reaching an agreement. It is easy to take a hard-line view with Iceland, but there would be a price to pay for that. The Commission will lead those negotiations. It has the sole competence, but will consult with member states who are interested. Ireland will be represented here. One of the officials in the Department specialises in these northern agreements, deals with this specific area and works closely with the industry regarding each of these negotiations. There will be pre-consultation with the industry and the industry will attend.

At the moment, in this negotiation there is nothing else of major interest to Ireland that has to be managed jointly with Iceland. Clearly, however, in the Icelandic accession negotiations there will be a lot of discussion on who can get access to what — either Icelandic vessels into EU waters or vice versa — and what opportunities will or will not exist for either side. That will be part of the Icelandic accession negotiations, which will be difficult.

A balance will have to be struck and a judgment will have to be made on that.

One of the points about the mackerel in the Icelandic 200 mile zone, which Iceland is fishing, is its relatively low value. The fish has different value depending on whether it is spawned, fed or spent. The fish in the Icelandic waters has relatively low value and most of it goes to fish meal whereas prime mackerel has a very high value and prime markets. Given that it is coming out of the same resource, there is a question as whether this is a good utilisation of the resource.

Iceland must enter into a voluntary arrangement. Norway has agreed this long-term management arrangement with the EU on mackerel. For many years, Norway has had an arrangement with the EU. It has always looked for a bigger share, so it has always been subject to annual negotiation. However, it has now agreed to a longer term arrangement with a fixed sharing. It is on that unified basis that the EU and Norway should be able to enter the negotiations with Iceland.

It varies from species to species. We have just started to survey an area ranging from the west coast of Norway to the north coast of Spain to Iceland. It is an enormous area and to try to get an assessment of that stock and what track it is on, whether it is increasing or decreasing, is a fairly significant job. However, it has always been so and the scientific bodies co-operate right across that area to do a unified survey of mackerel eggs in the water and to try take that plus the sampling data from the catches to assess the state of the stock. That survey process across that area has just commenced and Ireland is participating in it. Later this year, we will begin to get the results from that survey process which will feed into 2011.

If there are catches outside the management arrangements, it is reasonable to expect that could have an impact on the future scientific assessment of the health of the stock and could, therefore, impact on our quotas.

The Faroese figure would be an increase. The Icelanders have been reporting catches of approximately 100,000 tonnes for the past couple of years. It is not an exact figure but it is of that order.

The Icelandic catch has been slightly in excess of 100,000 tonnes. That is what they are reporting as their catch. It is going into fish meal, so one would have to put a margin around that. It would seem that going up to 130,000 tonnes is a further increase they are setting for themselves.

The Faroe Islands has a view that the Faroese quota must be larger than whatever quota is given to Iceland in any final agreement. It depends on what quota is given to Iceland and what can be negotiated. The Faroe Islands holds the view that it has been involved in the management arrangements for a long time and the fish have been in its waters for much longer than they have been in Iceland's and, therefore, it should have a larger quota than whatever is agreed with Iceland.

On what is possible to be agreed with Iceland, one of the likely features of an agreement would be reciprocal access because, biologically, it does not matter where one takes the stock and one might want people to take it where they can get the best reward and may agree a smaller number in that scenario. The attraction for Iceland might be that it might get access to fish the species outside of Icelandic waters. Therefore, it might agree to a lesser number than the number it is setting itself now in return for that. That is speculation. The final figure is quite a big one, if there were 130,000 tonnes for Iceland when the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands are agreeing a 570,000 tonnes on TAC. Therefore, there is work to be done.

I suppose the agricultural equivalent is a dairy cow after it has calved which needs the summer to feed and build back up again.

On the CFP, the Commission published a Green Paper last year. There was an extensive consultation carried out in Ireland by the then Minister of State, Deputy Killeen. He appointed Dr. Noel Cawley to assist in co-ordinating that. The industry also carried out consultation and that was pulled together in a publicly available document, which is the Irish response to the Green Paper.

It pulled together all the responses and set together a coherent national position for the negotiations. Deputy Killeen sent it to the new Commissioner, Ms Damanaki, and asked for a meeting. That meeting was arranged but the Minister of State, Deputy Connick, was in situ at that point. Deputy Connick met Commissioner Damanaki on Monday week last and went through the Irish position on the negotiations and set out some of the concerns. He issued a press release at the time on the position he was taking on it.

The Commission, at next Monday's Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels, will have a further debate on the responses it has received to the Green Paper and where it is going. The Commission will then hold a series of workshops under the Spanish Presidency over the May bank holiday weekend in La Coruña, followed by an informal Agriculture and Fisheries Council of Ministers on the Tuesday and Wednesday after the May bank holiday weekend, in Vigo, on the CFP reform process. The Commission will then make an assessment of all that and early next year bring forward its proposals. These will then be the subject of negotiation down to the end point in 2012.

The presentation and prosecution of this document that was pulled together as the Irish response is intended to ensure the Irish position on CFP reform, following the national consultation exercise with fishermen, is clearly understood as early as possible in the process before the Commission draws up its proposals.

The European Parliament will also have a significant role to play. It has taken its initial position on the Green Paper. Parliamentarians will reflect on national positions in advance of the Commission drawing up proposals. It is quite active at present.

In light of the significance of the fishing industry to Spain, which currently holds the Presidency of the EU, there is a view that much of what is finally agreed will be put in place between now and the end of June. There is a degree of uncertainty abroad, especially in the context of the tripartite position of the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council. I may be straying into a policy area but I must ask whether there a push on the part of the Spanish——

It is a matter that will be debated widely. Reform of the CFP is going to be very difficult because everyone wants two things, namely, access to more fish and a greater share. All the fishing nations will try to position themselves in that context. The national position is set out in the document, copies of which we will arrange to circulate to members.