The EU and Irish fishing waters

Kid Curry

Can anyone outline what the debate is here exactly. Ireland participation in the EU involves allowing our waters to be fished by other members??? I've heard that our fishing waters our worth billions, can anyone confirm this and explain what exactly the argument is and why the Irish fishing industry is so upset?

oscarBravo

Search this forum for "fishing" and "billion", you should find some good information.

Long story short, Ireland traded fishing rights for the various benefits of EU membership, including agriculture subsidies and structural funds. On balance, that has been a hugely positive tradeoff for us. The fishing industry don't necessarily see it that way, but the numbers that have been bandied about have no basis in reality.

BlitzKrieg

To put simply if you were to remove all the costs and fore knowledge to establish a large irish fishing fleet and irish navy, then the amount of fish in irish waters would be worth quite a bit.

Problem is of course the costs associated. Considering prior to entering the EU the amount of fishing in irish waters by irish fishermen was miniscule and dwarfed by fleets from other nations (including a very large Russian fleet)

When we joined the EU some of these costs were taken on by the EU, our navy was more firmly established with ships bought with EU money and despite other EU members getting access to fish in irish waters, non EU nations (such as those pesky Russians) were given a firm boot out.

As such due to EU support
the amount of value pulled in by irish fishing industry today > then irish fishing industry prior to joining EU.

It would be higher if it was exclusively Irish. But the costs to secure and properly fish to high enough standards would be also much higher and solely Irish responsibility.

the argument on the actual value usually hits a vicous circle here.

How high are the costs?

How high is the value?

the numbers move up and down constantly. Sometimes to extreme heights that are blatantly lies and irritate people quite a bit.

The simple truth is that this was a value that could have been exploited much earlier in Irish history but the truth is farming was the bigger industry at the time and more culturaly prominant in the Irish identity at the time and as such the government at the time and in following years focused more on farming over fishing. The point of trying to backpeddle and properly exploit irish fishing waters as the chief industry of Ireland is a pointless debate, its impossible to do so now. Could have in 1970's DIDNT

ixtlan

I remember during the Lisbon campaign the dis-information being spread about the total loss in revenue from the Irish concessions of fishing rights. I think it started with 100 billion... then another commentator raised the bar to 250 billion... then a few weeks ago some person was being interviewed about the fishing industry on nationwide and said that "a man in the post office" had told her it was 500 billion, and of course this was not questioned. Next I expect someone to push it up to a trillion...

The reality is that you can get the real numbers with some searching. I think it comes to a few billion over many years, if you assume as the OP mentioned that we were to have funded our fleets to double or triple the amount that the EU put in. This number is dwarfed by the main EU transfers which were in the region of 50 billion. Don't quote me on those numbers, I'm just talking ballpark figures.

If we could have invested in our fishing industry ourselves, fishermen certainly would have been better off if we had not joined the EU. However, there is a big question mark over whether we could have afforded that level of investment, and there's no question over the fact that everyone else in the country would have been worse off. You cannot build an entire economy on fishing.

ix

sligopark

oscarBravo wrote: »

On balance, that has been a hugely positive tradeoff for us.

ding dong WRONG

ixtlan wrote: »

You cannot build an entire economy on fishing.

Agreed but neither can you eat off a three legged table - fishing was a sustainable leg of our economy given away for short term benefit by gombeen political elites feathering their nests rather than part of a longer term strategy for national benefit

:rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

fishing was a sustainable leg of our economy given away for short term benefit by gombeen political elites feathering their nests rather than part of a longer term strategy for national benefit

In the 70's it wasnt though. The Irish fishing industry was dwarfed by quite a stupidly large number by other nations fishing in the eastern atlantic (EU and non EU).

To argue that if it was foreseen to grow to be a sustainable part of the economy and if we had somehow produced the funds to police our waters without EU support is essentially saying you know the future. Which if thats the case why even bother discussing this issue, clearly these powers can be put to much greater use.

sligopark

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

In the 70's it wasnt though. The Irish fishing industry was dwarfed by quite a stupidly large number by other nations fishing in the eastern atlantic (EU and non EU).

To argue that if it was foreseen to grow to be a sustainable part of the economy and if we had somehow produced the funds to police our waters without EU support is essentially saying you know the future. Which if thats the case why even bother discussing this issue, clearly these powers can be put to much greater use.

I ll ignore the personal tinge at the end and state that the vision of the future is always part of leadership rather than what we had then and since which has been thinking of themselves rather than the nation.

BlitzKrieg

sligopark wrote: »

the vision of the future is always part of leadership rather than what we had then and since which has been thinking of themselves rather than the nation.

But a vision usually requires some basis or justification. Which was lacking at the time. Again its impossible to argue the benefits of an Ireland dedicated to its fishing industry without time travel, there are far too many variables. Its a strawman of the highest order..

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

But a vision usually requires some basis or justification. Which was lacking at the time. Again its impossible to argue the benefits of an Ireland dedicated to its fishing industry without time travel, there are far too many variables. Its a strawman of the highest order..

Indeed, because:

The simple truth is that this was a value that could have been exploited much earlier in Irish history but the truth is farming was the bigger industry at the time and more culturaly prominant in the Irish identity at the time and as such the government at the time and in following years focused more on farming over fishing. The point of trying to backpeddle and properly exploit irish fishing waters as the chief industry of Ireland is a pointless debate, its impossible to do so now. Could have in 1970's DIDNT

The difference between the two industries when we joined the EU was enormous. Fishing employed, at that stage, about 10,000 people (many part-time) - almost exactly the same number it does now. Agriculture, at the time, employed 245,000 people excluding fishing - 24% of those in employment. The deal on the table favoured agriculture, which was to the benefit of far more people than fishing - and of far greater benefit to the country in the long run, too, because agriculture was both far more expandable and far more easily expandable, as well as being spread broadly across the country rather than concentrated in a few ports. Agricultural output in Ireland is currently around €5.5bn annually, which is a lot more than could ever be produced from sustainable fishing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dreenman

Maybe very slightly off topic but if anyone wants to see the absolute absurdity of the European fish quota system and the criminal dumping of fish in British and Irish waters that it enforces watch Part 2 of Fish Fight on Channel 4 tonight.

Last nights showed the obscenity and stupidity of the quotas which far from preserving fish stocks actually ends up with millions of tonnes of perfectly good sized fish such as cod being dumped back dead into the sea.

The cod dumped from a single netting on the trawler shown last night could have provided meals for 2000 people. Not only is that done dozens of times on every sailing it is repeated for every boat currenly fishing.

This madness has to stop watch the program and join the campaign!

oscarBravo

I watched the program. It's all very well complaining about the current system, but I'm still waiting for a concrete, practical alternative that enforces sustainable fishing practices.

The most sustainable approach was probably that described by the Hastings-based skipper who used to use the large-mesh net and land large cod individually. Which is all very well, but I don't see the Scottish skipper with his 400-ton trawler being too impressed with that approach.

I'll watch again tonight, in the hope of seeing an actual workable proposal to replace the CFP rather than the somewhat predictable "the EU is making us throw away fish!" rant.

dreenman

oscarBravo wrote: »

I watched the program. It's all very well complaining about the current system, but I'm still waiting for a concrete, practical alternative that enforces sustainable fishing practices.

The most sustainable approach was probably that described by the Hastings-based skipper who used to use the large-mesh net and land large cod individually. Which is all very well, but I don't see the Scottish skipper with his 400-ton trawler being too impressed with that approach.

I'll watch again tonight, in the hope of seeing an actual workable proposal to replace the CFP rather than the somewhat predictable "the EU is making us throw away fish!" rant.

Maybe you were watching a different program - alternatives were suggested and I understand some of these are to be developed in the coming program.

The approach suggested by the Scottish trawler men was for less fishing time but land what they catch. An approach also favoured by the Hastings men as they didnt need to go out very far. By the way 400 ton is not a big trawler!

If a boat was given a time limit on how long it could be at sea it would also encourage local fishing - The continuous fishing methods where boats are at sea for months with catches transferred to factory ships as practiced by the Spanish and others should end.

They were also looking at encouraging the public to look, try and buy fish from substainable stocks.

And actually they are being made to throw the fish away - under the European Law it is illegal for them to land non quota'd stock. Even if it was not to be sold - that is valuable and healthy food being wasted.

I think raising the public's awareness and yes complaining about a problem and a practice is as good a way as any to start the process of finding an alternative rather than just waiting for one to come along!

oscarBravo

dreenman wrote: »

Maybe you were watching a different program - alternatives were suggested and I understand some of these are to be developed in the coming program.

I'd like to see them fully developed, including a detailed cost-benefit analysis and a sign-off from the scientific community - you know, the scientists who were dismissed as not knowing what they're talking about, because they don't work on trawlers full-time.

The approach suggested by the Scottish trawler men was for less fishing time but land what they catch. An approach also favoured by the Hastings men as they didnt need to go out very far.

Again, it's all very well for the fishermen to suggest the approaches that they think make sense - but they're only representing one perspective. A common fisheries policy for twenty-seven countries is a difficult problem to solve.

And actually they are being made to throw the fish away - under the European Law it is illegal for them to land non quota'd stock. Even if it was not to be sold - that is valuable and healthy food being wasted.

One thing that was sorely missing from the program was an understanding of why there are quotas in place. Yes, they are a blunt instrument, and yes, it's a disgrace that fish are being thrown away. But quotas were introduced to prevent the very real problem of overfishing, and - to that end - they are working.

And it's all very well to suggest that the answer is to implement suggestions by UK fishermen that would work to the detriment of Spanish fishermen, but Spain aren't entirely likely to vote for that suggestion.

I think raising the public's awareness and yes complaining about a problem and a practice is as good a way as any to start the process of finding an alternative rather than just waiting for one to come along!

Raising awareness is all very well, but a more complete understanding of the existing situation would be nice too. There will be a new CFP next year, that hopefully won't involved discarding fish - but I doubt it will keep everybody happy.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd like to see them fully developed, including a detailed cost-benefit analysis and a sign-off from the scientific community - you know, the scientists who were dismissed as not knowing what they're talking about, because they don't work on trawlers full-time. Again, it's all very well for the fishermen to suggest the approaches that they think make sense - but they're only representing one perspective. A common fisheries policy for twenty-seven countries is a difficult problem to solve. One thing that was sorely missing from the program was an understanding of why there are quotas in place. Yes, they are a blunt instrument, and yes, it's a disgrace that fish are being thrown away. But quotas were introduced to prevent the very real problem of overfishing, and - to that end - they are working.

To some extent - we're still overfishing, but we're overfishing slightly less than before.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And it's all very well to suggest that the answer is to implement suggestions by UK fishermen that would work to the detriment of Spanish fishermen, but Spain aren't entirely likely to vote for that suggestion. Raising awareness is all very well, but a more complete understanding of the existing situation would be nice too. There will be a new CFP next year, that hopefully won't involved discarding fish - but I doubt it will keep everybody happy.

There is not going to be a solution to the fisheries problem that makes everybody happy - perhaps least of all fishermen. That's because we're still overfishing - that's the one point made very heavily in the results of the CFP consultation:

Contributions broadly confirm that the EU fishing capacity is larger than the resources would justify. But many contributors also contest generalizations and submit that the great variety of situations requires fleet or fishery-based detailed assessment. Many including some Member States (MS) and the EP call for such measurement, technically and environmentally, with the fishing industry emphasizing also the economic and social dimension. The EP points to (notably small-scale) fleet sections that need renewal or replacement (for safety or reduction of environmental impact) without increasing capacity.

A limited number of MS and stakeholders advocate continuation of the current capacity management approach. Some non-governmental organisations (NGO) propose mandatory fleet-based capacity reduction. Some link capacity reductions to fisheries management plans. Regional authorities of outermost regions (with their MS support) ask for continued separate capacity management for their fleets.

A publicly funded one-off scrapping scheme to replace the current decommissioning is not strongly supported, although the majority of contributors such as the EP consider it useful under certain conditions. Some MS question the effectiveness of permanent subsidized scrapping.

A majority of MS and stakeholders see rights-based management as useful in tackling overcapacity, with more hesitation to individual transferable rights (ITR) and a small number strongly opposing them. Most MS argue that MS should decide on rights-based management.

Speaking of complaining rather than doing - many more people appear to complain to each other, or in the media, than are prepared to write a submission to a public consultation on the subject of their complaints. The whole general public of the EU managed a total of 115 citizen submissions to the CFP consultation - somewhat less, I suspect, than the number of outraged posts/letters/call-ins etc that the Irish public alone generates in a year.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

The whole general public of the EU managed a total of 115 citizen submissions to the CFP consultation - somewhat less, I suspect, than the number of outraged posts/letters/call-ins etc that the Irish public alone generates in a year.

I think I remember you running a thread telling people to write in a while back. Or was that for another EU citizen submission?

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I think I remember you running a thread telling people to write in a while back. Or was that for another EU citizen submission?

Not sure - I'm kind of disappointed in the way people are ready to complain on forums like these, and give out about the powers that be never listening to ordinary people, but don't seem to do anything when presented with the ear of the people that actually make the decisions.

I'd consider running a thread on the latest EU consultations - it's hardly rocket science, given they're available online. I'd include the government ones, but I think they're more scattered.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Good Bagehot article in the Economist about the UK blaming the EU for its vanishing fish: http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/01/britain_and_eu

THERE is a lot of talk in the air, just now, about the madness of the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), and how its strict quota system forces British trawlermen to throw vast quantities of fish back into the sea, dead. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, a television chef and food writer, mounted a passionate attack on the CFP this week on Channel 4 (you can watch it here, as long as you can tolerate the maddening, compulsory advertisements about meerkats). As happens on such programmes, Mr F-W went out on a trawler with some gruff but friendly fishermen, who told him how it broke their hearts to throw perfectly edible cod back into the sea.

The programme noted, correctly, that this is appallingly wasteful, and that the CFP is working very badly. It explained how the problem was that the giant, well-equipped boat in question had used up its cod quota for the year and was now fishing for other less desirable species like ling and monkfish in a desperate attempt to earn enough money to keep operating. But alas, when the nets were pulled back in they were full of lots of cod, and only a very few monkfish. Mr F-W looked miserable as he watched 90% of the catch being ditched over the side.

For a huge majority of those watching, I suspect the conclusion was that wicked, stupid EU bureaucrats were to blame.

But here is the thing. It is emotionally satisfying to side with "our" British trawlermen, who risk their lives doing a dangerous yet somehow romantic job in wild seas, and dream of British fish being protected by British coastguard cutters ready to ram and biff foreign invaders.

But alas, the true tragedy of EU fisheries policy is a lot more complicated. This is a blog posting rather than a polished article, so forgive me for offering a few thoughts for readers to chew on:

Trawlermen are very good at telling reporters how it breaks their heart to throw fish over the side because of EU rules. Some are less quick to mention that throwing fish over the side for commercial profit is rife in their industry. It is called "high-grading" and happens when a trawler fills its holds with low or medium value fish near the beginning of a trip, then fills its nets with a more valuable species. Skippers routinely chuck the first catch over the side to make room for the more profitable fish.

The trawlermen also say they are forced to continue fishing in waters full of cod, after their cod quotas are exhausted, just to make ends meet. It is wrong and awful, one skipper tells Mr F-W: he is forced to look for Dover Sole, but catches tonnes of cod instead, which he has to discard. I hate to be harsh, but just maybe what you are hearing there is somebody describing a business that is only marginally viable, and which is only viable if he does stupid and wasteful things like go out fishing in the knowledge he can only land a fraction of his catch.

Trawling is only marginally viable in some northern European waters for all sorts of reasons. One big reason is historic over-fishing by fishing fleets. Another big reason is that there are still too many boats seeking to fish for too many days a year. Yes, the EU has paid national governments to decommission boats, but the boats that are left grow more and more powerful and efficient at finding fish every year. Even with a fleet of constant size, the so-called "technological creep" increases the average fleet's killing capacity by about 4% a year.

Lots of today's trawlers in places like the North Sea are big and fuel-thirsty. They were built at a time of lower fuel prices, when it made economic sense to trade engine power for labour. Now, though trawler fuel is tax-free in the EU (a walloping subsidy, by the way), high oil prices make some trawlers uneconomical every time they leave port.

The EU, meaning Brussels bureaucrats, knows the CFP is crazy. Top European Commission officials say the current quota system is indefensible. The problem is that certain key national governments, eg, France, Italy, Greece, Malta, Poland (it is a long list), are adamantly opposed to any reforms that would lead to wholesale restructuring and consolidation of fishing fleets.

If fish stocks decline at about 1.3% per year, while killing capacity increases at 4% per year, the allowable days at sea should decrease by 5% a year.

cordially,
Scofflaw

clonmahon

The report which Scofflaw refers to in another thread about fishing says the following

“800,000 tonnes is estimated to be taken in the Irish EEZ”
and “In terms of values catches from the waters around Ireland are worth around €800 million annually of which around €460 million worth are taken from the Irish EEZ.”

This appears to value the catch at 575 euros per tonne. In 2008 the average wholesale price of fish landed at irish quaysides was 961 euro per tonne http://www.sfpa.ie/.

The report also reads
“It should be pointed out that this estimate is likely to be a biased underestimate of the true landings value since, in general, quay prices in Ireland are lower that other nations”

At average 2008 wholesale Irish fish prices (961 euro per tonne) that 800000 tonnes of fish was worth by my estimate 768 million euros a year at Irish quayside prices. If we factor in the higher value of catch landed at foreign ports, we could be looking at about 1 billion.

The other factor that needs to be measured in the fish equation is the 38 years of mismanagment that is otherwise know as the Common Fisheries Policy. Like all the worlds fishing waters ours are overfished and in decline.

Ask any profesional game keeper how they would respond to a decline in a game species, they would say reserves not quotas. A rational managment policy would close off two thirds of the waters for five years, dropping to half after ten and a one third permenant reserve after fifteen, stocks would rebound and in a few decades the value of the catch from our waters might rise to 1.5 billion at 2008 prices.

To put this in perspective agricultural output for 2008 was 5.7 billion. If we were to leave the EU and live off our fish, it would probably take us two decades to build a fishing industry that was even close to quarter what our argicultural industry is now worth. If we left the EU tommorrow, our fishing industry might be worth 600 million extra to our economy. This is a considerable amount of money, but given the hole the Irish economy is now in, the current value of our fish is small change.

On the question of the cost of policing our waters, the navy was about 1000 strong in 2008. Based on the department of defense 2009 report the wages bill is about 50 million, the specific navy allocation was 16 million and if you factor in some other costs like the cost of maintaining the base, pensions etc, the navy costs around 70 million a year to run. Recent income tax changes will have reduced this bill, somewhat. Out of 1,588 patrols reported in the 2009 annual report, 1,426 were fishery patrols so the bulk of this cost is related to fishing. The Air Corp also operate two maritime patrol aircraft another cost.

This does not include the cost of several fishing quangos and part of the cost of running the government departments that have a role in fishing.
The Marine Institute, The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, Irish Sea Fisheries Board BIM, Dept of Agriculture and Food, and Defense, Harbour Authorities etc. There maybe others.

Throw it all in could cost us 100 million a year. It is important to remember that as most of the fish in our waters are being caught by our EU neighbours, so much of this cost represents an Irish subsidy of the EU.

Another major cost is the capital needed to replace naval vessels. The navy currently have two boats on order at 50 million a pop. They are expected to last 30 years. With seven boats in the fleet this mean it costs about 11.66 million per annum to keep the fleet replenished.

This figure could certainly be reduced because while the navy does 1426 fishery patrols they buy boats to cover the other 126 patrols. They buy little warships not fishery patrol boats. The Royal Navy have some similar boats on order right now as our navy does, theirs are costing 33 million a pop, because they are pure patrol boats designed to patrol in British waters, without the range, performance, armour, weapons, communications and surveilance systems of warships.

If it costs 100 million to police and administer an Irish Fishing Industry that makes about 214 million euros (2008 figures), then the industry is actually worth 114 million to our economy. Our seven vessel navy is not exactly over policing such a large area, if we were going to live off our fish we would need to spend much more than this on our navy.

On the question of 38 years of our fish versus 38 years of EU subsidies. I would estimate we have probably come out a bit ahead, we contributed perhaps 20-25 billion in fish, and maritime policing services to our EU neighbours while we got close to 40 billion in subsidies.

In the longer term the wholesale price of all kinds of food is upward, there are more and more people on earth and if managed rationally our waters will still be employing and feeding our distant decendants. Our fishing waters are certain to increase in value over the coming decades and anyway their real value cannot be measured in euros alone. They are a vital strategic asset, a common inheritance belonging to every Irish citizen. An inheritance we were given by those who came before us and we are not doing a very good job at minding it for our children.

The most bizarre thing about Irish fishing is that most Irish people have no knowlege of it and no interest in learning anything about it.

petronius

Often when measuring our contribution to the EU - is the fact that over 1/3 (maybe as high as 40%) of all fish caught in the EU is caught in Irish waters.
this is a direct transfer of wealth to not only the southern EU economies, spain, portugal, france, greece, but also the northern countries like the UK and Denmark.

meglome

petronius wrote: »

Often when measuring our contribution to the EU - is the fact that over 1/3 (maybe as high as 40%) of all fish caught in the EU is caught in Irish waters.
this is a direct transfer of wealth to not only the southern EU economies, spain, portugal, france, greece, but also the northern countries like the UK and Denmark.

Where are you getting the figures from?