[Mr. Brennan]
The landing statistics for catches in the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain and Britain show there are significant eel fisheries in these member states. In Ireland, the silver eel is predominantly a Shannon catchment issue. Brown eels are found mainly in the Shannon river and the eastern and north-western regions but are also found in significant numbers — perhaps half as many — in the southern and western regions. I sense a significant amount of special pleading on the part of the ESB and other hydro-generators throughout Europe in trying to get this regulation shaped in their favour. I too have heard that some turbines are allowing eels to pass, or are “mincing” eels. I intend to investigate this further in consultation with the ESB. This is mainly about catching above the dam and releasing below the dam because turbines cannot be turned off for long periods. Eels are bottom swimmers and so are unlikely to swim over the dam because they do not get up that high. I am new to this job and I am learning as I go along but I am aware there are significant issues that warrant further examination in terms of what the electricity industry is doing to eel stocks. Chairman:   Is it agreed that the clerk will prepare a report on COM (2005) 472 indicating that the joint committee has concerns that stakeholder representatives should be included in discussions and that complete closure may be too draconian? Deputy Eamon Ryan: If you leave out the last comment, there will be no problem. Chairman: Have I not captured what the Deputy is saying? Senator Kenneally: Will Mr. Brennan tell the committee whether the Department will have to obtain approval from the Council of Ministers or the Commission in Brussels for the local management plans or can they be prepared domestically? Mr. Brennan: Approval will have to be obtained from the scientific committee of the Commission, not the Council. Chairman: There is the question of whether I have captured the committee’s intention. Deputy Broughan: There is no need to include the last comment. Chairman: In that case, we will confine it to stakeholders. Sitting suspended at 5.20 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m. Chairman: The next presentation concerns COM (2005) 575 and COM (2005) 617. COM (2005) 575 is a proposal for a Council regulation fixing for 2006 the guide prices and Community producer prices for certain fishery products pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 104/2000. COM (2005) 617 is a proposal for a Council regulation fixing for 2006 the opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks applicable in Community waters and Community vessels in waters where catch limitations are required. I welcome Dr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary, Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, and his officials. We will hear a short presentation which will be followed by a brief question and answer session. I draw the attention of those in attendance to the fact that while members of the committee enjoy absolute privilege, the same level of privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before the committee which cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses. Under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Dr. Beamish: I am joined by my colleagues, Dr. Terry McMahon of the Marine Institute’s marine environment and food safety service, MsJosephine Kelly, a principal officer in the seafood policy division in the Department, Ms Rebecca Minch of the aquaculture development division in the Department and Mr. Seamus O’Reilly from the seafood policy division. The Department was given notice of three proposals, including the two mentioned by the Chairman. The third was COM (2006) 154, a Council regulation concerning the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. I have prepared a presentation on all three which I can discuss with the committee. Chairman: We were too late in seeking to include the third regulation in the agenda for members. We have only just received notification from the sub-committee. However, Mr. Beamish may proceed to discuss all three. Dr. Beamish: COM (2006) 154 is a proposal on the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. It has been the subject of consultation with the fishing and aquaculture industries. COM (2005) 575 is a Council regulation fixing for 2006 the guide prices and Community producer prices for certain fishery products. The regulation was adopted in November 2005. COM (2005) 617 is a Council regulation fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of stocks adopted at the Fisheries Council in December 2005. It has since been the subject of two amendments. COM (2006) 154 has been brought forward as part of the Commission’s strategy for the sustainable development of aquaculture. The objective of the proposal is to establish a new framework to govern aquacultural practices and the introduction and production of alien and locally absent species. Currently, we have fish health legislation governing this area which only covers the health status of fish being imported, other than where a species is being placed in a special area of conservation. In the case of placement in a conservation area, there is a requirement to assess the impact on the local ecology. The objective of the proposal is to support the economic growth of the aquaculture industry and assist its diversification into new species, while anticipating and preventing any detrimental impact on indigenous populations. The industry is currently worth €100 million a year and has great potential to develop further. Members will be aware of instances where alien species have been introduced in Ireland. The zebra mussel and others were accidentally introduced, though not through aquaculture activity. They came in on boats or in ballast water. This deals purely with the risks for species being introduced for aquaculture purposes. The basic principles are that operators wishing to introduce these species must apply for permits for movement of alien or locally absent species and a specialist advisory committee must be established to assess whether the movements are to be classified as routine or non-routine. The procedures that would then apply would depend on the assessment. Deputy Broughan: What is the difference? Would non-routine movement be where one is growing the species? Dr. Beamish: The issue raised by the Deputy is dealt with later in the submission. For almost 30 years we have been growing certain alien non-indigenous species such as Pacific oysters and have not experienced any problems in that regard. This also applies to the abalone species, which we now grow in the west. The assessment would be based on whether something is novel, whether there are risks attaching to it or if it is, at this point, routine practice. Where such is deemed to be non-routine movement, an environmental impact assessment is required, followed by a risk assessment by the expert group. The proposal leaves to the discretion of each member state the decision as to who should undertake the environmental impact assessment. However, the risk assessment must be undertaken by the expert group. Following issue of permits and release of species, monitoring arrangements are required to be in place for at least two years. It could also be required, depending on the level of risk, that the species only be released into a closed system in the first instance. All documentation in regard to this process must be made publicly available by the competent authority. Under the proposal, Ireland would be required to designate a competent authority to ensure compliance with the regulation. The competent authority would then appoint an advisory committee of scientific and technical experts to assess applications for permits to introduce alien or locally absent species. As this is a new task, there will be an increase in the resource requirements of the competent authority and increased obligations for the industry. A number of what are defined under this proposal as alien species have been introduced and successfully farmed in Ireland for many years, namely, Pacific oysters and rainbow trout. Overall, these species, which we prefer to call traditional, non-indigenous, are generating approximately €15 million at first sale of aquaculture product. As these species attract a low risk status and are well established, we do not believe that they should be subject to detailed assessment processes, a position which we intend to present in respect of this proposal. Where species are being moved, as regularly happens when shellfish are harvested and relaid, the risks are low and we are seeking clarification that this regulation will not apply in such cases. One of the benefits of the proposal, apart from protecting the environment and other species, relates to our export of species such as Pacific oysters to a receiving country that may argue against taking in the species because it is not indigenous. Under this proposal, such countries would have to undertake a risk assessment and provide justification for not doing so. This proposal could result in a trade benefit for Ireland. Deputy Durkan: May we ask questions on the first proposal? Chairman: Yes. Deputy Durkan: Dr. Beamish stated that species are often accidentally rather than deliberately introduced. To what extent are species accidentally introduced? Have any species been found to be detrimental to other fish stocks? For example, I recall watching a marine programme in which a Pacific snapper ate an Atlantic snapper for breakfast. Obviously, the situation is being monitored. Will the regulation have a detrimental affect in Ireland? Deputy Broughan: Who will be the competent authority? Dr. Beamish mentioned abalone and our success abroad with shrimp. The issue of sea lice has been widely debated. Is there such a concept as routine or non-routine movement? It may be that in the past the system was invigilated better and that some of the problems were not encountered in the development of aquaculture. Dr. Beamish: I will address some of the points made and then ask my colleague, Dr. McMahon, to respond to the questions on the species which have been introduced accidentally. The regulation does not deal with all risks in the context of alien species. It relates to those making proposals for aquaculture installations and who wish to introduce a new species for the purposes of farming. It will also regulate that environment. Species which are accidentally introduced on, say, the hulls of boats, in ballast water or through pet shops are not dealt with in the regulation. Those risks are encountered in other spheres. The main non-indigenous species we are currently farming are the Pacific oyster, rainbow trout, Manila clam and abalone. By and large, they have been successful introductions, with no major impacts. The regulation provides that we will have to take a much more structured approach in decision-making in the introduction of other species. In food production terms the aquaculture industry is very young and likely to grow rapidly during the next ten to 15 years. Many species are being tested and the subject of trials around the world. If Ireland wants a piece of the action, it has to be open to diversification. The future does not lie in salmon or oyster production. While there are risks, there are also benefits. The regulation provides a framework for dealing with those risks. People are interested in introducing barramundi and Pacific white shrimp. If we want to maintain economic activity in our coastal communities, we must be open to diversification and the extension of aquaculture activity. Deputy Broughan asked about the negative aspects of the regulation. Obviously, it provides a regulatory framework which will impose on us some obligations. However, on balance, it will be to our benefit in avoiding ecological or other impacts which may be detected by use of the framework and allow us to export species in a structured way. Deputy Broughan: Will the authority be established under the 1996 Act? Dr. Beamish: We are only dealing with a proposal at this stage. Dr. McMahon is a member of the aquaculture advisory committee. We anticipate that the expert committee established under the regulation will operate within that framework. It may be a sub-committee within that structure. We also envisage that the Marine Institute, BIM and the national parks and wildlife service will be represented on the committee. It may also be necessary to include someone who can offer expert zoological advice. There is already in place a structure dealing with the licensing of aquaculture activity and it is proposed that this committee will fit within that structure. Dr. Terry McMahon: The question was asked as to whether there had been any detrimental effects in the accidental or deliberate introduction of aquaculture species. To date there have been no such effects. So far as we can determine, none of the species introduced has had a significant ecological impact. However, two issues arise. Countries such as New Zealand which have introduced the Pacific oyster have noted that it is out-performing the native oyster. We must also consider the possible introduction of non-target species, namely, species of shellfish dredged in an area outside Ireland. While the target species may not have had any significant impact, an attached seaweed, pest or parasite could be accidentally introduced during its introduction. One of the aims of the regulation is to assess the risks associated with the introduction of non-target species with target aquaculture species. Chairman: We will now proceed to the next proposal. Dr. Beamish: The next item is COM (2005) 575, a proposal for a Council regulation fixing for the 2006 fishing year guide prices and Community producer prices for certain fishery products. This is part of an annual structure under the Common Fisheries Policy regarding a legislative framework for price setting. Prices are based on submissions from member states on data for the previous three years. The proposal covers a range of species, including mackerel, monkfish, cod and whiting, and feeds into the system of intervention operating under the Common Fisheries Policy. The intervention system used in the past to withdraw or destroy fish products for which there was no market is increasingly used for storing, processing and returning them to the market when the price improves. Fish is in short supply and as market prices increase, the intervention system is decreasing in importance. Deputy Broughan: What species are covered? Dr. Beamish: A range of species is covered by the regulation. However, much depends on price and whether there is a glut in the market. Currently, there is a large high pressure zone across western Europe and everybody is fishing simultaneously. The market for fresh products tends to be fixed. Everybody will land following two weeks of very good fishing and supply will be great. The danger is that prices will collapse and everybody will suffer. This situation would have been alleviated in the past by the setting of a minimum price which ensured fishermen were paid and fish withdrawn when prices fell below it. This is of less significance now as the appetite for fish has increased. Ireland spends approximately €2 million per annum on intervention. Approximately €18 million per annum is spent on the scheme across Europe. Approximately 1% to 2% of European production of pelagic fish is placed in intervention. The figure for whitefish is less than 1% and falling. Given the overall situation, it is very much a marginal scheme. While the price for whitefish species such as cod and haddock has increased by between 1% and 1.5%, the price for other whitefish species has decreased by the same amount. While the price for the main pelagic species such as herring, mackerel and anchovies has increased by between 2% and 3%, the price for some of the southern pelagic species has decreased. In general, the price setting mechanism does not impact on the market. Market prices tend to be higher than guide prices. As such, guide prices do not relate to what is happening in the market. Generally, for most fish products demand is stronger than supply. Deputy Broughan: It would never be possible to reform the Common Fisheries Policy in the way the Common Agricultural Policy has been reformed because of the nature of production. Dr. Beamish: I am not sure which part of the CAP the Deputy has in mind. Deputy Broughan: The abandonment of the intervention system. Dr. Beamish: We are moving away from intervention. Events have made the system less necessary and less attractive. The current level of intervention is low. Senator Kenneally: I did not realise the intervention system was still in place, given the strong demand for and supply of fish. However, I accept there are times when it must be used such as when there is a glut of fish in the market. Dr. Beamish has stated very little is spent on intervention and that the system is only in place to provide stability in the market. Where are fish stored? Are they ever destroyed, or are they simply stored and reintroduced to the market when prices improve? Ms Josephine Kelly: Generally, fish are withdrawn from the market, processed and stored in factories. They are then reintroduced and sold at a higher price when prices improve. Senator Kenneally: Are fish processed and stored in Ireland? Ms Kelly: Yes, fish landed in Ireland which do not meet the market price are stored here. The Senator asked how many fish are destroyed. Very little is destroyed nowadays. This would only happen where a low volume is landed and it would not make economic sense to transport the fish caught to a factory for processing and freezing while awaiting reintroduction to the market. These days the intervention system is only used in a small number of cases. Senator Kenneally: In the situation outlined by Ms Kelly could the fish not be given, as happened some years ago in the case of meat placed in intervention, to, say, the Society of the St. Vincent de Paul and others for distribution? Has such a possibility been considered? Ms Kelly: It has been considered more than once. However, as fish products only have a short shelf life, it is not a commodity that can be easily distributed in such an environment. The product which is “destroyed” is transported to a fishmeal factory for use by the industry. As such, we do gain an economic return from it. Dr. Beamish: The third item is a proposal for a Council regulation fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks. This regulation is colloquially known as the TAC and quota regulation for the Common Fisheries Policy. It is a product of the December Fisheries Council with which, I am sure, members are familiar. It was previously used to set total allowable catches and national quotas for fish species. However, it has been growing year on year for the past five to seven years and now deals with implementation of management plans for fisheries, recovery plans for fish stocks, effort limitations on fishermen, the number of days at sea, a variety of control measures, the weighing of fish and closed areas. It is a multi-head instrument which deals with everything flowing from the scientific advice received in the autumn. All of the management measures developed within the Common Fisheries Policy tend to be included in it. The December 2005 proposal provides for reductions of 15% to 20% in total allowable catches and 15% in fishing effort — the number of days fishermen may spend at sea. It also introduces a variety of other technical measures such as a ban on the use of deepwater gill nets and restrictions on deepwater effort. The process involves the formulation of a proposal by the Commission on receipt of scientific advice which tends to be made available in late September, October or early November, depending on the species involved, and works its way through the scientific peer groups. The Commission brings forward its proposal in late November. It has started to produce a paper which will indicate the elements which will be included in the proposal. This year saw, for the first time, the involvement of the new regional advisory councils which provided for the direct involvement of the industry in the decision-making process. Nationally, we engaged in detailed discussions with the industry, as we had done in previous years, in the run-up to the December Fisheries Council on all matters of national interest. The regulation was agreed at the Council on 22 December. Ireland sought a number of changes to the Commission’s proposal which were based on scientific advice, experience of area closures or recommendations from the regional advisory councils. Ireland supported the proposal in respect of a deepwater gill net ban and argued for smaller reductions in the numbers of days at sea in the case of the Irish Sea and north-west areas. It was of the view that the proposal was being driven by what the Commission wanted to do in the North Sea. Irish fishermen have a quota of 200,000 tonnes this year and the situation is relatively stable. The demersal or whitefish quota is approximately 34,000 tonnes, which represents a variation of1%. There are 30 whitefish stock quotas of interest to Ireland, four of which were increased, 22 decreased, while four remained unchanged. The pelagic fish quota is 122,453 tonnes. It also remains relatively static. The mackerel quota increased by 4%, while the horse mackerel quota decreased by 15%. The mixed consumption fisheries which include argentines and blue whiting are largely used for the production of fishmeal and fish oil, although not exclusively owing to an increase in human consumption. The quota is 43,300 tonnes. The Hague preferences are discussed every year at the Council as an element dating from the foundation of the CFP which applies to Ireland and the United Kingdom. We were able to have the preferences applied to six whitefish stocks and obtained an additional quota of 1,463 tonnes. Chairman: What is the tonnage in the context of quota swaps with regard to the Hague preferences? Dr. Beamish: The Hague preferences represent a system whereby when certain stocks fall through agreed floors, the figure is halved and removed from other member states in favour of Ireland and the United Kingdom. The Hague preferences were applied in the case of six whitefish stocks this year and the gain for Ireland was 1,463 tonnes. The deepwater gill net ban resulted from growing concern over a number of years and work done by BIM and other EU agencies on the impact of the use of very long gill nets in deep water, especially in monkfish fisheries. The report on the matter was finalised last year and, with Ireland pushing hard, the Commission imposed the ban. It was imposed because nets were being left in the water for far too long, leading to the waste of a great deal of stock. Nets are sometimes abandoned. The ban applies in all relevant fishing areas around Ireland where there is deep water and the application of nets beyond the 200 metre depth line. Deputy Broughan: In a sense, we are discussing ancient history. The figures are for taxes and quotas for this year, rather like the Estimates debate which takes place halfway through the year. Do we have any way to assess the impact of the gill net ban to determine whether it has been successful? Have many been arrested for gill net fishing? Dr. Beamish: There have been further developments since agreement was reached in December. The picture is evolving. One is unlikely to see an impact over a timescale of four to five months. Given biological life cycles, it will be three or four years before an impact is observable. Deputy Broughan: How can we establish that gill nets are no longer being used? We constantly heard reports on what was happening across hundreds of miles of our territory. Dr. Beamish: Gill nets are not banned. Their use is restricted in certain circumstances or areas but this is only one of a number of initiatives which have been taken. A new Commission regulation has been introduced which Ireland long sought to improve the marking of gill nets to allow the Naval Service to find and check them at sea to ensure compliance in terms of length and ownership. As there will probably be further questions on this issue, I will run through some other matters and revert back to this one. Other measures included in the regulation include a reduction of 10% in the deepwater effort, now down to 80% of the level it was at in 2003. This is the result of concerns about the state of deepwater stocks. The regulation provides for the closure for two months of certain boxes in the Celtic Sea to protect Celtic Sea cod. There are also dated reductions of up to 15% in respect of various species. Adaptations were made in May following a management committee decision. The amendment has become an annual event after the end of the year when minor breaches of quotas or notifications of failure to meet them are dealt with by adjustments to annual quotas. This process is covered by what is termed the “flexibility regulation”. In Ireland 23 quotas were increased and two reduced, which means there has been an adjustment in the figures since December. The statistic with which people will be most familiar is the reduction of 6,500 tonnes in the mackerel quota owing to undeclared landings in Scotland in 2005. Deputy Broughan: My colleague Deputy Perry seems to think there is still no legal basis for the Minister to concede this point. The legal question is far from settled. There may well be political reasons the Minister ceded a significant part of the quota without being required to do so. Dr. Beamish: The CFP states very clearly in Article 23.4 that when the Commission establishes that a member state has exceeded the fishing opportunities allocated to it, it shall apply deductions to the future fishing opportunities of the member state concerned. Deputy Broughan: Was it confirmed that we had exceeded the quota? Dr. Beamish: There are variations in dozens of quotas within the CFP. They are not unusual. In this case landings in Scotland were reported by the United Kingdom to the Commission which made the appropriate reductions in the 2005 allowable catch, as it did in respect of all other reported cases. While this item received a great deal of attention, it is just another in a long list of quotas in respect of which reductions have been made. Deputy Broughan: It is a huge reduction. In terms of the mackerel quota it is a very significant percentage of the total. Dr. Beamish: The relevant reduction for the UK quota is 28,000 tonnes. No member state voted against this regulation. It is a normal regulation which was set up within the Common Fisheries Policy. |