Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Value of Irish Fisheries

Options
  • 15-06-2008 2:54pm
    #1
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭


    Since this seems to come up a lot as "well, they got more out of us than we got out of them", and the value put on Irish fisheries "lost to the EU" seems to have inflated to €120 billion, I thought this might be worth a thread on its own.

    The first estimate of the value of Irish fisheries I saw in this referendum was €16bn.

    That figure, at least, actually has some kind of facts behind it - see here.

    Note that the €16 billion figure is derived by simply multiplying the 2005 annual value of catches in the Irish EEZ (€460m) by 35 years.

    It ignores the fact that 30% of that figure went to the Irish fleet anyway. It doesn't take into account the small size of the Irish fishing industry in 1973, the cost of fishing, or the investment required to expand the industry to a size equivalent to the fishing fleets of all the other EU nations in order to catch all the catch they caught.

    Nor does it take into account that the EU subsidies, being effectively free money, allowed us to run a low-tax regime that successfully encouraged business while allowing us to build the supporting infrastructure. Money from fishing would not have had the same effect - the state would have had available only the tax take on it - call it 25%, or €4bn over 35 years (€114 million/year).

    Again, the tax-take figures assume that the whole value of the catch landed is taxable profit, which is a ridiculous assumption. Most countries actually subsidise their fishing industries.

    A realistic tax-take from the Irish fishing industry, then, might be €1bn over 35 years.

    I appreciate that there is also the value of the industry itself, in terms of wages in pockets, but against that is the increased value of business exported to the EU, the business encouraged by our ability to have a low tax regime while still building up our infrastructure, the business encouraged by, or derived from, being inside the EU...etc.

    Nor does it really answer the question - would you like to be a fisherman? Would you like a fishing-dominated economy?

    People are welcome to challenge the figures I've given, or refine them, but I reserve the right to dismiss out of hand arguments based on no facts.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭Crash


    Thank you scofflaw, that absolute red herring (pun intended) has been thrown around here so much over the last few weeks. I tried looking up some of it but couldnt find any information relating to it really.


  • Options
    #3
    FrankGrimes
    Registered Users Posts: 4,028 ✭✭✭FrankGrimes


    Thanks for posting this information, which should hopefully put an end to the dramatic exaggeration on this subject that has been aired here so frequently without challenge.

    I hope this thread puts an end to it and that people at least acknowledge the undeniable fact that we have been net benefiters (in purely financial terms) of our EU involvement and the move to us being net contributors is only very recent.

    I fully appreciate that anyone involved in the fishing industry may have the opinion that they would rather we kept exclusive access to our fishing waters instead of getting other benefits we received as a result of this tradeoff (e.g. CAP), but hopefully this thread gives the objective reader the facts that make it clear that such an opinion is only likely to be held by someone with a vested interest.


  • Options
    #4
    eoin2nc
    Registered Users Posts: 688 ✭✭✭eoin2nc


    I know its a joke what some people are saying. 'Lets leave the EU , sure the fisheries will cover any loses'


    Yes lets start exporting fish instead of medicines, computer parts ect:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #5
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    eoin2nc wrote: »
    I know its a joke what some people are saying. 'Lets leave the EU , sure the fisheries will cover any loses'


    Yes lets start exporting fish instead of medicines, computer parts ect:rolleyes:
    It works for Iceland. :cool:


  • Options
    #6
    FrankGrimes
    Registered Users Posts: 4,028 ✭✭✭FrankGrimes


    murphaph wrote: »
    It works for Iceland. :cool:

    but not very well for Portugal.

    Are you really of the opinion that a strong dependency on fishing is conducive to developing the highly trained and skilled workforce needed to attract all the multi-nationals that were such a key factor in progressing our economy? Don't get me wrong, I fully respect the work of the fisherman and appreciate they may feel hard done by, but it is what it is and I don't think it's realistic to suggest that fishing is the the key to our economy, just in the same way that some of the claims on the value of the fishing in our waters by other EU countries has been shown to be unrealistic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    FrankGrimes wrote: »
    Are you really of the opinion that a strong dependency on fishing is conducive to developing the highly trained and skilled workforce needed to attract all the multi-nationals that were such a key factor in progressing our economy?
    no


  • Options
    #8
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    One must also factor in the fact that the 'Irish box' was a protected zone untill late 2002, so the percentage that we were taking out would also have been much higher as well.


  • Options
    #9
    force eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭force eleven


    murphaph wrote: »
    It works for Iceland. :cool:

    Meh, I'm confident we'll strike oil in the Porcupine Basin very soon :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #10
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    force eleven wrote: »
    Meh, I'm confident we'll strike oil in the Porcupine Basin very soon :rolleyes:

    Speaking as a geologist, I can safely say that we have already - but so far, small fields, fragmented, difficult, and in deeper, rougher, water than is currently in production anywhere else.

    Also, of course, Iceland as an EEA member actually adopts all EU legislation except fishery and agriculture, without having a vote on it. Same for Norway.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #11
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    Thanks for posting that Scofflaw. Very informative.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,472 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    As with the majority of your posts recently, very informative.
    Kippu


  • Options
    #13
    ircoha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭ircoha


    Interesting piece.
    An additional cost would have been the cost of increasing our navy etc to properly 'secure the perim' from all the other boats.

    I have no quibble with the numbers.

    My recollection was that Irelands fisheries bit was 'sacrificed' on the agri alter so perhaps the business/infrastructure grants would have come anyway and the comparable 'what we got from them' piece is the massive grants the farmers got, first for producing mountains and lakes of butter/beef/wine/olive oil etc and now are getting for NOT producing:).

    When looking at the fiscal management of the agri sector, the difference bewteen the fiscal management of the GAA versus the FAI often springs to mind.


  • Options
    #14
    utick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 562 ✭✭✭utick


    eoin2nc wrote: »
    I know its a joke what some people are saying. 'Lets leave the EU , sure the fisheries will cover any loses'


    Yes lets start exporting fish instead of medicines, computer parts ect:rolleyes:

    umm where in the lisbon treaty did it say if you vote no you wont be able to export medicines, computer parts etc...

    maybe you will better educate yourself and vote the right way (no) the next time the government puts lisbon to the people


  • Options
    #15
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    ircoha wrote: »
    Interesting piece.
    An additional cost would have been the cost of increasing our navy etc to properly 'secure the perim' from all the other boats.

    True. People discussing this issue tend to lump together all possible unlicensed fishing in with the licensed EU fishing to get bigger numbers. Funnily enough, to draw attention to the amount of unlicensed fishing, the example of Russian factory trawlers is often brought up, despite this bearing no real relation.

    Funnily enough, five out of our eight current naval vessels were built with EU funding (as were two others, since decommissioned).
    ircoha wrote: »
    I have no quibble with the numbers.

    My recollection was that Irelands fisheries bit was 'sacrificed' on the agri alter so perhaps the business/infrastructure grants would have come anyway and the comparable 'what we got from them' piece is the massive grants the farmers got, first for producing mountains and lakes of butter/beef/wine/olive oil etc and now are getting for NOT producing:).

    When looking at the fiscal management of the agri sector, the difference bewteen the fiscal management of the GAA versus the FAI often springs to mind.

    Unfortunately, opening up fishing grounds to the EU is one of the non-negotiable terms of entry. It's essentially why Iceland and Norway stayed out (there really aren't any other grounds, since they have to implement all other EU legislation anyway). It looked like potentially stalling Croatian accession discussions for a while.

    So we wouldn't have had either the structural funds or the CAP (or, ironically, most of our navy) without sacrificing our fish.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #16
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,209 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    murphaph wrote: »
    It works for Iceland. :cool:

    Bear in mind that Iceland has a tiny population of a few hundred thousand. Also they are trying very hard to diversify their economy.

    It's a nice place, and I would like to go back for another visit. However no place is perfect. Iceland has bad inflation problems, and is internally involved in a serious environmental debate/crisis/project to use hydroelectric power in the sparsely populated East(?) to power aluminimum smelters.

    Probably they would be better off in the EU, but they are too independent to consider that.

    Ix.


  • Options
    #17
    Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭Crash


    utick wrote: »
    umm where in the lisbon treaty did it say if you vote no you wont be able to export medicines, computer parts etc...

    maybe you will better educate yourself and vote the right way (no) the next time the government puts lisbon to the people

    Utick I think what was meant in that post was the fact that given the choice between spending all our time and money expanding and recruiting for our fishing industry versus the current situation as a computer and medical exporter, it would have been a silly decision. Might be worth your while educating yourself as to how to read posts, to be honest.


  • Options
    #18
    thehighground
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭thehighground


    I presume you all realise that all the fish have now been fished from Irish territorial waters by mainly Spanish trawlers, so a fishing industry isn't worth pursuing now. The Spaniards did very well out of Ireland's territorial waters as did the Spanish Gov. because the Spanish trawlers would have landed their catch in Spain. The only thing we know about it is when we see what the fishing market is worth to the Spaniards.

    By the way, when calculating the value of our fishing industry, its the stock that exists, not what we didn't fish is how its works. For example, the Kinsale Gas field was worth a hell of a lot more 10/15 years ago than it does now.


  • Options
    #19
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    thehighground wrote: »
    I presume you all realise that all the fish have now been fished from Irish territorial waters by mainly Spanish trawlers, so a fishing industry isn't worth pursuing now. The Spaniards did very well out of Ireland's territorial waters as did the Spanish Gov. because the Spanish trawlers would have landed their catch in Spain. The only thing we know about it is when we see what the fishing market is worth to the Spaniards.

    Which is what my calculations are based on - the total value of fish from Irish waters landed in the EU, and the Irish proportion of that. That includes what the Spaniards fished - and the British - and the French - and the rest. While we're at it we might note that the British and French gave up much more extensive territorial waters than we did (4 million sq km and 11 million sq km respectively, compared to our 0.7 million sq km), while also being net contributors.
    thehighground wrote: »
    By the way, when calculating the value of our fishing industry, its the stock that exists, not what we didn't fish is how its works. For example, the Kinsale Gas field was worth a hell of a lot more 10/15 years ago than it does now.

    No, the value of the fishing industry to Ireland over the period of EU membership is based on how much money we could have made out of it over that time if we had fished all the fish that other EU nations fished.

    catchily,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #20
    thehighground
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭thehighground


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Which is what my calculations are based on - the total value of fish from Irish waters landed in the EU, and the Irish proportion of that. That includes what the Spaniards fished - and the British - and the French - and the rest. While we're at it we might note that the British and French gave up much more extensive territorial waters than we did (4 million sq km and 11 million sq km respectively, compared to our 0.7 million sq km), while also being net contributors.

    I'm going to have get the EU landing figures that I have seen which contract what you are saying here.

    No, the value of the fishing industry to Ireland over the period of EU membership is based on how much money we could have made out of it over that time if we had fished all the fish that other EU nations fished.

    As I say, I have seen different EU figures to what you have produced here!


    catchily,
    Scofflaw[/QUOTE]


  • Options
    #21
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    thehighground wrote: »
    I'm going to have get the EU landing figures that I have seen which contract what you are saying here.

    As I say, I have seen different EU figures to what you have produced here!

    You can use Prendiville's, from an article in Magill. He gave a figure of €200bn, based on unknown sources (he says Eurostat, but gives no reference). As a reality check, that figure suggests Irish North Atlantic waters are roughly either four times as fertile as Icelandic North Atlantic waters, or produce fish that is four times as valuable.

    Prendiville apparently doesn't subtract Irish catches from the estimate. Further, Prendiville adds to the catch values the values of fish processing - which he puts as twice the value of the catch, so that the €200bn figure is actually €65bn in catch and €135 bn in fish processing.

    If we do the same for the CAP figures - i.e., add the value of processing to the farm produce produced with CAP subsidy, we're going to wind up with a figure much larger than €135 bn, so if we compare like for like there, that €200 bn is very much smaller than what we've had out of the EU.

    If, on the other hand, we just deal with the catch figure of €65 bn, subtract the 30% of Irish catch (pretty stable, since the catches are based on quotas), and then consider the tax take, we wind up with something like this:

    €65 bn x 70% = €45.5 billion
    Net earnings taxable by the Irish government @ 25% = €11.38 bn
    Tax to the Irish government @ 25% = €2.84 bn over 35 years
    "Lost" tax value of exclusively Irish use of Irish fisheries annually = €81.25 m

    In other words, the Irish fishing industry, based on exclusively Irish use of Irish waters, and with us building our fishing fleet up to the point where it fished as much out of Irish waters as everyone currently does, would have been worth an extra €81.25 million a year on Prendiville's very high figures. That's not a lot. EU direct subventions to the Irish state over that time have been worth €1.57 billion per year.

    There are things we haven't factored into that calculation, but nearly all of them reduce the figure - the cost of building up the Irish fleet, the cost of fishing itself (the taxable margin on fishing is probably not as high as 25% on a long-term basis), the fact that the main EU fishing nation, Spain, didn't even join for 13 years of the period, and had even more limited access than now before 1996, and so on.


    Face facts - it was a good deal. Not for the fishermen, admittedly, but for everyone else.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    limklad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    ixtlan wrote: »
    Bear in mind that Iceland has a tiny population of a few hundred thousand. Also they are trying very hard to diversify their economy.

    It's a nice place, and I would like to go back for another visit. However no place is perfect. Iceland has bad inflation problems, and is internally involved in a serious environmental debate/crisis/project to use hydroelectric power in the sparsely populated East(?) to power aluminimum smelters.

    Probably they would be better off in the EU, but they are too independent to consider that.

    Ix.
    They are part of the EEA along with EU, Norway, and Liechtenstain. They adopt many of EU rules and regulations on trade and have very little influence on decision-making processes in Brussels.
    see

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_European_Union


  • Options
    #23
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    limklad wrote: »
    They are part of the EEA along with EU, Norway, and Liechtenstain. They adopt many of EU rules and regulations on trade and have very little influence on decision-making processes in Brussels.
    see

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_European_Union

    http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16568&ew_0_a_id=301546

    It seems they are warming slightly to the possibility of joining the EU.


  • Options
    #24
    limklad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    marco_polo wrote: »
    http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16568&ew_0_a_id=301546

    It seems they are warming slightly to the possibility of joining the EU.



    I have been reading up on Switzerland relations with the EU and they seem to have better deal than we do with the EU.


    especially this bit.

    The bilateral approach officially safeguards the right to refuse application of new EU law to Switzerland, in practice this right is severely restricted by the so-called Guillotine Clause, giving both parties a right to cancellation of the entire body of treaties when one new treaty or stipulation cannot be made applicable in Switzerland.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_and_the_European_Union


  • Options
    #25
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    limklad wrote: »
    I have been reading up on Switzerland relations with the EU and they seem to have better deal than we do with the EU.


    especially this bit.
    The bilateral approach officially safeguards the right to refuse application of new EU law to Switzerland, in practice this right is severely restricted by the so-called Guillotine Clause, giving both parties a right to cancellation of the entire body of treaties when one new treaty or stipulation cannot be made applicable in Switzerland.

    Hmm. What that actually says is that while in theory the Swiss can refuse the application of new EU law, in practice it means that the Swiss cannot realistically refuse to implement an EU law unless they feel it's worth losing all other arrangements with the EU over it.

    Does that seem like a good thing to you? If so, why?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #26
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    limklad wrote: »
    I have been reading up on Switzerland relations with the EU and they seem to have better deal than we do with the EU.


    especially this bit.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_and_the_European_Union

    I read that as meaning that if they reject a portion of applicable EU law / treaties that the EU has the right to terminate all existing agreement. Seems like a weaker footing to me.

    Not being critical of the Swiss per say as they seem more than happy with their current arrangments.


  • Options
    #27
    limklad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Hmm. What that actually says is that while in theory the Swiss can refuse the application of new EU law, in practice it means that the Swiss cannot realistically refuse to implement an EU law unless they feel it's worth losing all other arrangements with the EU over it.

    Does that seem like a good thing to you? If so, why?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    If Switzerland reject some part of EU law and the EU retaliates because of it, only leads others suggest that the EU do not respect democracy of Switzerland rights to reject a law due to the agreement the EU sign with them. Therefore the EU will be seen to bully is neighbours democratic rights and will do to others because of the size of the EU economic powerhouse against smaller nations.
    EU must agree to accept Switzerland choice or EU will break its part of the agreement and null the treaty which will have knock on affects with the EU other trading partners who will start questioning the EU good will.

    The EU is very conscious of its image, which is now been tarnish in the EU parliaments and other European leaders and politicians at the moment because of the Irish No vote.

    So Switzerland retains their identity and rights in which the Swiss people want


  • Options
    #28
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    limklad wrote: »
    If Switzerland reject some part of EU law and the EU retaliates because of it, only leads others suggest that the EU do not respect democracy of Switzerland rights to reject a law due to the agreement the EU sign with them. Therefore the EU will be seen to bully is neighbours democratic rights and will do to others because of the size of the EU economic powerhouse against smaller nations.
    EU must agree to accept Switzerland choice or EU will break its part of the agreement and null the treaty which will have knock on affects with the EU other trading partners who will start questioning the EU good will.

    The EU is very conscious of its image, which is now been tarnish in the EU parliaments and other European leaders and politicians at the moment because of the Irish No vote.

    So Switzerland retains their identity and rights in which the Swiss people want

    It has nothing to do with Swiss democracy at all. The very fact that the clause is in there shows they respect the Swiss peoples 'right' to reject the any law. If you don't like the rules of a club then how can you remain a mamber. It is not like this clause is a secret, the Swiss people as well aware of this clause whenever they vote on a law.

    The EU has is not obliged to maintain any existing arrangement with Switzerland no matter what.


  • Options
    #29
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    How did a discussion of Irish fisheries get sidetracked into a debate about a country with no fishing fleet whatsoever?


  • Options
    #30
    limklad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    sink wrote: »
    How did a discussion of Irish fisheries get sidetracked into a debate about a country with no fishing fleet whatsoever?
    It got side tracked since Iceland wanted to join the EU and we were discussing their value of it fishing industry if it want to lose that to the EU as Ireland did and then comparing other countries agreement with EU, trying to give Iceland all their options before surrending it. A long stretch I know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    FrankGrimes
    Registered Users Posts: 4,028 ✭✭✭FrankGrimes


    More grossly misinformed views airing themselves about the perceived value of our fisheries gained by other EU countries in a letter to the Irish Times on Monday. This time it looks like this guy chose to double down on the already outrageous 160 billion figure often thrown around and made it a nice sweet 320 billion. Anytime such tripe pops up here, I'll just keep redirecting people to this thread, but it's not as easy when it's in a national newspaper.

    Scofflaw, don't suppose you'd be inclined to write them a response to this (am sure you're the most informed on here to do so)?
    Madam, - I've been reading all the letters concerning the Lisbon Treaty debate from before and after the recent referendum. I must say the only one that has touched on the reality of our membership of the EU was that from Dermot C. Clarke (June 19th). While I wouldn't totally agree with his pro-American views, it's his very valid point on our fisheries which is of interest to me.

    The greater Irish public is not aware of how vast a resource our fisheries are. They have no idea of how much money has been lost to our Exchequer because of the sell-out of our fisheries to the EEC, as it then was, in 1972. Since our entry into Europe, our maritime industry and culture have been devastated. Our fish stocks have been plundered on an industrial scale by the French and Spanish fishing fleets. Our shipbuilding and boatbuilding industries have gone.

    It amuses me to read a lot of the correspondence on your Letters page saying: "Look at all the money the EU has given us since we joined up." If we say that Ireland has received around 80 billion euro since 1972, then one can easily multiply that figure by four to estimate how much EU membership has cost us by way of foreign exploitation of our fisheries.

    As far as it goes for the ordinary working-class person, all that has happened since entering Europe is that jobs, hard-won pay-rates and working conditions have been steadily eroded by successive EU Treaties. - Yours, etc,

    XXXXXXXXXXXX,

    Skerries,

    Co Dublin.


Advertisement