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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Value of Irish Fisheries

  • 15-06-2008 1:54pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,198 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,032 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 692 ✭✭✭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:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,049 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,032 ✭✭✭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
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,049 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    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


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 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.


  • 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:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    Thanks for posting that Scofflaw. Very informative.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,984 ✭✭✭✭kippy


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


  • 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.


  • 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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,198 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    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.
    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


  • 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]


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    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
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,032 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    I have heard the such figures as 200 bn banidied mainly from this article below alot, so I decided to have a closer look at the accuracy of some of the assertions made. I posted this in the thread in AH yesterday but perhaps it it better here. People seemed more interest in the 'Describe your c*ck thread' :)

    I am neither a fishing or economic expert so I may not be 100% correct but I think raises a
    Reposted from another thread, originally printed in Magill...

    STATISTICS BLOW MYTH OF IRELAND AS EU BENEFICIARY

    - Because of fish supply, nation is second biggest indirect contributor to EU coffers
    by Tom Prendiville, Daily Ireland, Wednesday 28 March 2006


    Official European Union statistics reveal that Ireland's past image as one of Europe's largest financial beneficiaries is largely a myth.

    Statistics indicate that, year on year off, Ireland has consistently been one of the biggest net financial contributors to Europe as a result of fish supply.

    Official figures from the EU's statistical gathering agency, Eurostat, reveal that Ireland is second only to Germany as an indirect contributor to EU coffers.

    First of all Eurostate fisheries reports are in regard to fish catches and the fishing sector in general.

    The analysis of the overall contributions of member states to the EU is not within the scope of these reports and no mention of this is made, so that is the authors own assertion, not eurostats, based on his rather faulty calculations might I add.
    Although Ireland did well in extracting almost E40 billion (£27.8 billion sterling) in transfer funds from the EU, the fish extracted from Irish territorial waters has been worth almost E200 billion (£139 billion sterling) in comparison.

    As I have said this figure has been grossly inflated and is based on incorrect assumptions so I'll get back to this one in a while.
    The EU fish wars have raged in Irish waters for decades, and have now left Ireland facing a massive crisis with the prospect of the extinction of many fish species.

    The EU has a poor record over the past few decades with regard to fish stock protection so this is a valid point.
    Statistics covering the period from 1974 to 2004 throw some light on the true cost of Ireland's EU membership to date, and the enormous financial contribution Ireland has made to the European Community.

    Since 1974, the accumulated value of fish taken from Irish territorial waters,"the second most important in the EU", amounts to a E200 billion (£139 billion).

    The EU fishing industry is worth almost E20 billion (£13.9 billion) per annum.

    On average, more than five million tonnes of edible fish varieties, valued at E7 billion (£4.8 billion), are fished from EU waters every year, 40 per cent of which originates from Irish waters.

    So that is an estimated value of 7,000,000,000 bn / 5,000,000 t = 1300 euros per tonne. Which is interesting because if you look at the CSO statistics for 2004 for the volume and value of all landings at all Irish ports you get the following figures.

    http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/agriculture/current/fishery.pdf

    Demersal Species (Cod whiting etc) - Total Catch 27,645 tonnes - Total Value 48,941,000 - Average Price per tonne = 1,773 euros.

    Pelagic (Herring macrel tuna etc) - Total Catch 243,935 tonnes - Total Value 66,125,000 - Price per tonne = 271 euro

    Shellfish - Total Catch 34,803 tonnes - Total Value 62,195,000 - Price per tonne 1787 euro

    Deepwater - Total Catch 2,949 tonnes - Total Value 3,646,000 - Price per tonne 1236 euro

    All Species - Total Catch - 309,332 - Total Value 180,907,000 - Average Price per tonne = 584 euros

    I shall assume that this is typical of the catch in the North Atlantic by all nations fleets (and I see no reason why this would not be the case).

    For now I will leave the claim that 40% of all fish comes from Irish waters uncontested.

    So taking 40% of 5,000,000 tonnes this leaves 2,000,000 tonnes or so as coming from Irish waters.

    Doing a crude calculation using these figures we have the following:

    2,000,000 tonnes * 584 euros per tonne = 1.16 Bn per year.

    By the authors calculations:

    2,000,000 tonnes * 1300 euros per tonne = 2.6 Billion per year.
    The true commercial value of the haul, according to David Cross, who compiled earlier Eurostat reports into the fishing industry, is double that again after processing has been considered.

    He said: "The value of the output of the processing industry is nearly twice the value of the catching sector. In other words, for every euro generated in fish sales another two are generated in processing."

    The most important fishery in Europe are the seas west of Ireland, the so-called Irish Box, which produce over 40 per cent of all the edible fish consumed in Europe. In monetary terms, the seas off Ireland are worth E8 billion (£5.5 billion) a year to the EU.

    His 8 billion figure I assume he gets as follows:

    Value of catch + Value of processing which by his figures would be approximately 2.6 + 2.6*2 = 7.8 Billion.

    I am also assuming that it is the accumulation of this 7.8 Billion per year over thirty years is where he gets his figure of 200Bn or so from (actually 234 billion by my calculation, nice of him to round it down :)).

    By using the CSO figures for the price of fish per tonne caught by Irish fisherman in the North Atlantic and including his double processing value we get the following, .

    1.15 + 1.15 * 2 = 3.45 billion per year.

    Putting this crude figure into his even cruder calculation we get the following:
    3.45 * 30 years we have halved the figure already to just 103 billion or so.

    He also suggests that the value of outfish processing is double the value of the catching sector so I will assume that is in fact true. Now I am no economist but I would assume that the the processing industry must first actually buy the fish off those the catching sector, so surely the overall net economic output of the processing sector is roughly the same as the catching sector minus this overhead.

    Revising my figure to take this into account we get a total value of about (1.15 + 1.15) = 2.3 bn taken out each year from what the author claims are Irish waters.

    Taking another third off the total figure on this basis we are left with 66 billion taken out of Irish waters over thirty years.

    But we have only gained 40m out of europe in funds, so I guess we are still net contributers. :mad:.

    But this is based on my crude calculation of the average price of a tonne of fish caught in the North Atlantic as well as being based on the author assertion that 40% of all EU finsh are caught in Irish waters so lets see what the official Irish position is on the matter.

    Here the author asserts these figure again just for emphasis.
    Every year, roughly two million tonnes are fished in Irish coastal waters. However, Ireland's share of the catch is miniscule and therein lie the current difficulties. While Ireland produces 40 per cent of the edible fish, the country's fishermen are only entitled to catch less than ten percent of
    that. The rest is fished by foreign trawlers.

    http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0553/D.0553.200206260023.html

    In this dail debate Trevor Sargent asks a question based on similar logic to that in this article. The answers are most illuminating.

    The first thing that we learn is that that 40% of all EU catch comes from ICES zones VI and VII, a large proportion of which are international waters and not the Irish Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) - the 200 mile limit.

    "Around 40% of all catches in EU Atlantic waters come from ICES areas VI and VII and the proportion of these made in the Irish 200 mile limit can only be estimated."

    "Based on available data sources at our disposal and within the significant limitations of the assumptions made and the factors to which I have referred, we can estimate that the Irish and other fleets catch approximately one million metric tonnes of fish annually within the Irish 200 mile limit."


    So esentially only half the number of fish that the author suggest are in fact fished from waters under direct Irish control. My crude estimate is now down to about 33 billion or so over the past thirty years.

    As we have dipped under the 40 billion mark suggested by the author for direct EU funding it looks like we are getting back towards being a net benificary of the EU again.

    Also the total amount of fish caught by Irish fishermen is estimated at 309,332 by the CAO figures I linked to earlier which means it looks like Irish fisherman get a cut of roughly 15% of all catches in zones VI and VII which includes both Irish and International waters not well under the 10% suggested by the author.

    Subtracting this 15% from our running total we are now looking at a figure of 28 Billion for the net gain of other EU state from fishing in both international waters and irish owned waters surrounding the Island.

    The dail answer also mentions a figures for 2001 of 315,000 tonnes with an estimated catch value of more than €250 million. Which seems to stack up pretty well with my rough estimates :pac:.

    But sure all politicians are liars I hear you say. Is this evidence backed up any where else? Yes as a matter of fact. Here is a document that Scofflaw dug up a few weeks ago that mostly validates the assertions I have just made.

    http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B274034C-8DCA-4CEA-ADD7-F0FC5652DA0B/0/Valueoflandings.pdf

    This document suggests that the total tonnes caught is in fact only 1,500,000 tonnes per year around the coast of Ireland. Again the figure of a 15% total share from these waters are in pretty precise agreement with the figures above.

    Looking more closly we discover that in the Irish Exclusive Economic Zone Irish (the area of water we would in control if we were not in the EU) the volume of the catch is roughly 680,000 tonnes and Irish fisherman have a 30% share of all the fish caught by volume in this area of the ocean. So a total of some 490,000 tonnes per year are fished from Irish waters by foriegn owned vessels.

    As a matter of interest the value per tonne suggested by this report is 680,000,000 / 460,000 tonnes = 676 euro per ton. Higher than the figure I had earlier but way lower than the 1300 proposed in the article.

    Lets putting these revised figures into the basic formulas and see what happens.

    From Irish territorial waters:
    490,000 tonnes * 676 euro per tonne = 332,710,000m per year.

    Multiplying by thirty years that leaves gives not much more than 10 billion caught by foreign trawlers in Irish controlled waters over a thirty year period.

    Also this is not money the government would have got directly, the actual net tax gain to the government would be no more than in the region of 1-2 billion depending on profit margins of the fishermen and applicable tax rates. How many roads and bridges would that have built compared to the 17 billion or so in Structural funds. Not much left over to replace the CAP payments either.

    Of course these figures neglect a number of important aspects, one is that the price of fish was lower in the past as fish stocks were more plentiful, and also does not take inflation into account going back thirty years. Also the Irish fleet numbers were much higher when we first joined to the best of my knowledge.

    Finally the Spanish, the largest fishing nation did not join the EU until 1986 so that was at least 13 years without their presence. When they joined it all but doubled the size of the existing EU fleet.
    In recent weeks, the government has been involved in a showdown with Irish fishermen, some of whom have been flaunting the conservation quotas. Meanwhile, in the midst of the acrimonious dispute, ten Dutch factory ships, each one the size of Croke Park, have been hoovering up fish with apparent impunity in international waters 12 miles off the coast near Cork.

    "The situation with foreign boats is even worse, as our naval service does not even know what the quota is," said Eamonn Ryan, Green Party spokesperson for maritime and natural resources.

    "This flawed system has allowed what is in effect the open fishing of our waters. They are hunting to extinction most of the fish stocks in Irish waters."

    In terms of importance, the once teeming Mediterranean produces less than 500,000 tonnes of fish yearly.

    Some critism of our illegal fishing which is both valid and true. The fact that there is illegal fishing taking place in international waters is no reason for us not to enforce the legislation within our waters though. It is true that the Mediterranean is nearly exhausted from years of over fishing as well.
    The Irish zone which extends out 200 miles into the West Atlantic is also the second most important in terms of Europe's edible fish stocks.
    Adjusted Eurostat estimates for all fishing activity in Irish territorial waters since the mid-1970s indicate that over forty million tonnes of fish have been extracted.

    Not too sure about this paragraph, as I don't know if he is talking about Irish territorial waters or what he thinks are Irish territorial waters. Taking 680,00 * 30 years = 20,400,000 tonnes or so I presume he is counting the international waters as well.

    In short the entire article is a highly questionable


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    marco_polo wrote: »
    People seemed more interest in the 'Describe your c*ck thread' :)

    Do you have a link? :D


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    sink wrote: »
    Do you have a link? :D

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055319169

    I haven't posted anything I swear :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭thehighground


    marco_polo wrote: »
    In short the entire article is a highly questionable

    You better get onto RTE and question them - "The Week in Politics" did a piece on Irish fisheries last Sunday. Their reporters seemed to be of the opinion that Ireland did rather badly out of this exchange with the EU. Politicians on panel didn't refute it either.

    I could be wrong, but I think they said that 43% of EU fishing waters are in Irish waters.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    You better get onto RTE and question them - "The Week in Politics" did a piece on Irish fisheries last Sunday. Their reporters seemed to be of the opinion that Ireland did rather badly out of this exchange with the EU. Politicians on panel didn't refute it either.

    I could be wrong, but I think they said that 43% of EU fishing waters are in Irish waters.

    http://www.military.ie/navy/roles/index.htm

    Our Exclusive Economic Zone contains 16 % of all EU fishing water according to our naval service and various other sources. I am not sure if this 40% figure comes from. It is either an honest misconception or something more deliberate twisting of the truth by those with an agenda (I am not referring to you here just to clarify).

    Why I believe this figure comes from is that ICES zones VI and VII make aproximately 40% of the EUs total fishing area and our EEZ is fully contained within those two zones. However well half of these zones are in fact international waters not Irish waters.

    I didn't see the program so I cannot comment on that. If the discussion was that we have not done as quite well for our fishermen as we should have then they probably have a fair point. If they were suggesting that 200 billion worth of fish have been plundered from our 200 mile zone, then probably not.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    You better get onto RTE and question them - "The Week in Politics" did a piece on Irish fisheries last Sunday. Their reporters seemed to be of the opinion that Ireland did rather badly out of this exchange with the EU. Politicians on panel didn't refute it either.

    I could be wrong, but I think they said that 43% of EU fishing waters are in Irish waters.

    That would be a rather amazing claim. Ireland has an EEZ of 650,000 sq km, the EU has a combined EEZ of 25,000,000 sq km. So we have 2.6% of the fishing waters of the EU.

    Frankly, what seems to be happening is that people are simply repeating claims, and no-one is bothering to check them - or even reality-check them.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭thehighground


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That would be a rather amazing claim. Ireland has an EEZ of 650,000 sq km, the EU has a combined EEZ of 25,000,000 sq km. So we have 2.6% of the fishing waters of the EU.

    Frankly, what seems to be happening is that people are simply repeating claims, and no-one is bothering to check them - or even reality-check them.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Well, they did say that the EU did very well out of Ireland. Do you think RTE would make up something like that :eek:

    Is it possible that the politicians don't know this to say that is not true :eek::eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Well, they did say that the EU did very well out of Ireland. Do you think RTE would make up something like that :eek:

    Is it possible that the politicians don't know this to say that is not true :eek::eek:

    Well some politicians didn't know how many commissioners there were so yes I would say it's more than possible that they were not familiar with the size of the Irish and EU box.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Well, they did say that the EU did very well out of Ireland. Do you think RTE would make up something like that :eek:

    Is it possible that the politicians don't know this to say that is not true :eek::eek:

    I don't know on both counts, do you have any actual opinions on the matter yourself? :eek::eek:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭thehighground


    marco_polo wrote: »
    I don't know on both counts, do you have any actual opinions on the matter yourself? :eek::eek:

    I think it was a two way street - EU was good for Ireland and Ireland was good for EU. I find it embarrasing that Irish people feel compelled to demean the value of Ireland's contribution to the EU (particularly with regard to fishing - whole coastal communities have been wiped out because they weren't protected and helped to compete).

    And it annoys me to read some of the comments from people on this message board who seems to think that we should be down on our hands and knees kissing the feet of Sarkozy & Merkel, despite the very negative effect on some people's lives.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    I think it was a two way street - EU was good for Ireland and Ireland was good for EU. I find it embarrasing that Irish people feel compelled to demean the value of Ireland's contribution to the EU (particularly with regard to fishing - whole coastal communities have been wiped out because they weren't protected and helped to compete).

    And it annoys me to read some of the comments from people on this message board who seems to think that we should be down on our hands and knees kissing the feet of Sarkozy & Merkel, despite the very negative effect on some people's lives.

    Where did I say that the Government have done well for our fishermen in negotiation of the common EU fisheries policy? When this is clearly not the case. But it is not the topic of this tread either.

    I am just dealing with the facts on this thread and there is no evidence to support the allegation that, as a result allowing other EU countries to fish in our territorial waters we have put far more into the EU than we have got out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Well, they did say that the EU did very well out of Ireland. Do you think RTE would make up something like that :eek:

    Is it possible that the politicians don't know this to say that is not true :eek::eek:

    Yes, and yes. An RTE researcher will have "read it somewhere" (probably Prendiville's article), assumed that Prendiville had at least vaguely 'checked out the facts', and reckoned that even if he was exaggerating by 100% it was still usable.

    The politicians are afraid of simply saying "that can't be right" without any information - they've been badly briefed throughout this whole business.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I think it was a two way street - EU was good for Ireland and Ireland was good for EU. I find it embarrasing that Irish people feel compelled to demean the value of Ireland's contribution to the EU (particularly with regard to fishing - whole coastal communities have been wiped out because they weren't protected and helped to compete).

    And it annoys me to read some of the comments from people on this message board who seems to think that we should be down on our hands and knees kissing the feet of Sarkozy & Merkel, despite the very negative effect on some people's lives.

    Well I for one don't deny we have made a decent contribution to the EU but we gained relatively more from membership than other countries. I have no respect for Sarkozy, I think he is a loud mouth and a hot head. I have much respect for Merkel as she is a skilled mediator and negotiator I however will not be bowing down to kiss anyone's feet any time soon. Ireland should remain in the EU to maintain stability and contribute to the development of eastern European countries.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,032 ✭✭✭FrankGrimes


    I think it was a two way street - EU was good for Ireland and Ireland was good for EU. I find it embarrasing that Irish people feel compelled to demean the value of Ireland's contribution to the EU (particularly with regard to fishing - whole coastal communities have been wiped out because they weren't protected and helped to compete).

    And it annoys me to read some of the comments from people on this message board who seems to think that we should be down on our hands and knees kissing the feet of Sarkozy & Merkel, despite the very negative effect on some people's lives.

    I find it embarassing that there are Irish people out there that are prepared to spout gross misinformation on topics such as this in order to give the impression that Ireland has not been a significant beneficiary of the EU. It is also highly disappointing that our national broadcaster would publicise inacurrate information, particularly when it is of political interest to some parties and I would not be at all surprised if little to know research was done by RTE beyond referencing other media articles. Likewise, the fact that no politician has come out to definitively clarify the facts on this is highly disappointing.

    Any opposition TDs out there reading this? If so, please use a Dail question to request a definitive official response on this.

    This doesn't mean that we owe the EU anything but let's not go revising history just because we don't want to feel obliged to Europe for the benefits we have enjoyed from our EU membership.

    The problem is, the more people hear this misinformation, the more they will believe it (just like my friends that voted no 'cos they can't be taking our Commissioner off us, we'd have no veto then'). We have now seen this from several posters on here, Magill, RTE, the Letters page in the Irish Times and there has been no definitive response.

    If I had the background to respond to any queries on this, I would gladly at least write to the Irish Times, but it's clear that Marco Polo and Scofflaw both have a lot more knowledge on this, if either was inclined to summarise their findings in a letter to the IT, it wouldn't change the world, but it would be a start in turning the tide against the constant waves of misinformation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    At the moment, I'm trying to get more info in relation to our fishing, but certainly, the figure of €80m per year (in government revenue) that Scofflaw calculated does not seem quite right - fish is an extremely lucrative business - that includes everything from the fish catch, to the factory, to the shop, to the table!

    Also, if we had a large fishing industry, surely we could establish a boat building industry too - the larger fishing vessels could be built in Belfast - yet another peace dividend which would benefit (directly and indirectly) the economies either side of the border.

    In any case, here's an interesting discussion I came across:

    http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=36794&start=24


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    At the moment, I'm trying to get more info in relation to our fishing, but certainly, the figure of €80m per year (in government revenue) that Scofflaw calculated does not seem quite right - fish is an extremely lucrative business - that includes everything from the fish catch, to the factory, to the shop, to the table!

    Also, if we had a large fishing industry, surely we could establish a boat building industry too - the larger fishing vessels could be built in Belfast - yet another peace dividend which would benefit (directly and indirectly) the economies either side of the border.

    In any case, here's an interesting discussion I came across:

    http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=36794&start=24

    Well, bear in mind that very low figure is the benefit to the Irish exchequer, not the total benefit to the economy. The latter figure is difficult to calculate, since you have to follow the fish from the landing point through the various steps - and there are several possibilities at least:

    1. fish caught by Irish vessels, but landed abroad - here the value to the Irish economy is purely the value of the catch (assuming the fishermen don't buy anything abroad).

    2. fish caught by Irish vessels, landed in Ireland, sold direct to Irish retailers.

    3. fish caught by Irish vessels, landed in Ireland, sold to foreign buyers

    4. fish caught by Irish vessels, landed in Ireland, sold to processors, on to Irish retailers

    5. fish caught by Irish vessels, landed in Ireland, sold to processors, on to foreign buyers

    These are not particularly long chains, but working out what proportion of the total Irish catch would have travelled these various routes, and the value of each route, is both complicated and speculative. Further, if one is really going to look at value, one needs to consider that the fishermen, and fish processing employees, will be spending their money in local economies, and that the fishing businesses will be supporting other suppliers (such as IT companies, packing companies, etc).

    Even more complicated would be tracking the total value to the Irish economy of the EU payments. Farm support payments have value chains like the ones above, but often longer. Calculating the value of the structural funds is even harder, since their effects are almost entirely indirect - what value is a motorway, and to whom?

    As usual, the "facts" in public circulation are cartoon factoids with very little relation to the complexity of reality. Prendiville's figures are essentially meaningless.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭thehighground


    It seems some estimates can be put on fishing in EU. How does 1.1bn worth of illegal fish get into the EU?


    EU agrees new fishing measures
    watch Tuesday, 24 June 2008 20:04

    Fisheries ministers have agreed new measures to counter the import of illegal and unregulated fish products into the EU.

    Increased inspections at European ports, a new certificate system for fishing boats from outside the EU and increased fines were adopted at a meeting in Luxembourg this morning.

    Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU) is valued at €10bn worldwide and is regarded as a major contributor to over-fishing.
    Advertisement

    It is estimated that some 500,000 tonnes of IUU fish products, worth about €1.1bn, enter the EU each year resulting in a loss of market share for EU fishermen.

    Under the new measures, there will be increased inspections at EU ports based on a risk analysis with a strong focus on vessels from countries which have offended in the past.

    The majority of fish landed in Europe from outside the EU is thought to be at the Dutch port of Rotterdam.

    Vessels landing fish from outside EU waters will need a certificate verifying that the fish was caught legally.

    Offending boat owners will be fined five times the value of the catch. It will be up to individual member states to apply criminal sanctions.

    European fishermen only provide between 30-40% of the demand for fish across the EU, so the majority of fish bought by European consumers comes from further afield.

    IUU fish tends to be landed by rogue vessels, or those flagged in states like Panama.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0624/fishing.html


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    It seems some estimates can be put on fishing in EU. How does 1.1bn worth of illegal fish get into the EU?

    I though the article was pretty clear on the matter. Mostly unregistered vessels arrive in EU ports with no certificates that the catch is legal and are then caught by the authorities.

    Also as it seems to be related to fish caught outside the EU waters so the relevence to the debate at hand seems rather limited at best.

    **EDIT** Although the fact that only 30-40% of fish consumed in the EU are actually landed by EU fleet is pretty intresting come to think of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    is it ok to bump up an old thread in light of recent claims by


    Coir's of 200 billion fisheries figure

    and

    Communists 180 billion fisheries figure

    ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 113 ✭✭alrightcuz




  • Advertisement
Advertisement