1. 1
The Goings On: November – December 2012
More than ever, more is going on with fisheries between Dublin and Brussels from debates
on legislation to meeting industry representatives. What I will attempt with this article every
month will be a summary of some of the political goings on, by using titles, within the
Oireachtas and the EU institutions through media releases and other public online sources.
Just a brief note on the EU institutions: DM MARE refers to the European
Commission for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries; AGRIFISH is the committee which fishery
ministers at the Council of the EU, also called the Council of Ministers, meet once a month;
the Irish Presidency refers to the six month rotating presidency of the Council of the EU
which Ireland takes over from Cyprus in January 2013; the European Parliament’s
Committee on Fisheries is also known as Committee PECH
AGRIFISH: The November 28th – 29th dealt with reviewing the long-term
management plans for TACs between Norway and the EU on a number of stocks such as cod,
haddock, herring and saithe. ‘Most of the delegates recognised the interest’ of the agreement
‘but would favour a cautious approach’ on the joint-management of stocks in the North Sea.
During the meeting ‘several delegations noted the importance of trying to resolve the
mackerel management issue with Iceland and Faroe Islands.’
Coveney described the actions by Iceland and the Faroe Islands as ‘irresponsible and
unsustainable’ but despite this, he does not ‘consider that it is reasonable to reduce further
the EU share of the stock’.
He has received support from Britain, France, Spain, Portugal as well as Poland and
believes that the EU and Norway should ‘without delay’ implement ‘trade sanctions to bring
pressure to bear on Iceland and the Faroe Islands to the table’ to agree on a solution.
The fishery ministers met next on 18th – 20th December in Brussels to agree on quotas
for 2013, which concluded at 05.49 GMT. I’ll leave greater coverage of that important
outcome to others.
AGRIFISH will meet next on Monday 28th January and Monday 25th – Tuesday 26th
February 2013
Committee PECH: Although the European Parliament’s fisheries committee meet five
times over the course of November and December, it was the key meeting on 18th December

2. 2
which deserves attention.
Initially some 2,549 amendments were tabled for the original DG MARE proposed
legislation for the Reform of the CFP, but were boiled down to 103 and debated at the 18th
December meeting over four hours. In the end, they voted to approve the amendments by 13
voted in favour, 10 against with 2 abstentions.
Some of he proposed amendments include ensuring that fishing limits would be set
according to scientific advice instead through political deals.
The introduction of MSY by 2015 would ensure that by 2020 sustainability of fish
stocks will be achieved leading to a situation of ‘more fish, better catches and, as a
consequence, more jobs in the fishing industry’.
Access to the EU’s future Maritime and Fisheries Fund will be made conditional to
compliance by Member States with CFP rules to ensure fewer infringements in the future.
A gradual timetabled introduction of a discard ban, with some potential exemptions,
was proposed to come into effect from 2014, as well for a more regional approach to fisheries
management.
A well-established practice by the European Parliament is to appoint a member of the
committee to oversee and take responsibility of a proposal from the European Commission,
called a rapporteur.
The rapporteur for negotiating and compiling this package of reforms within
Committee PECH was MEP Ulrike Rodust (Germany), who said after the vote that:
‘I am very relieved that we have now cleared this difficult hurdle. I expect that the
plenary will confirm our vote in February. After that we will have a strong backing to start
negotiations with the Council in order to get the reform signed and sealed’.
Coveney said at the side-lines of AGRIFISH that he would not support all of the
proposed amendments, but with the voting having taken place before 2013 ‘allows us to
engage with the Parliament now at a very early stage of our presidency’. ‘But we have some
real issues to overcome here,’ between the European Parliament and Council of the EU, he
added.
The next step in the process for the Reform of the CFP will see Committee PECH’s

3. 3
amendments brought before the European Parliament at its voting session, called its plenary
session, in February 2013.
If passed, it will be the binding opinion of the European Parliament and will then be
put to AGRIFISH by DG MARE. A date for this at time of print was not available.
Committee PECH will meet next on Monday 21st – Tuesday 22nd January and 18th – 19th
February 2013.
The Committee: The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the
Marine as of 20th December met a total of 49 times in 2012.
On the 6th and 13th November and December 4th and the Committee scrutinise 15
legislative proposals from DG MARE, 14 in the end were not debated as they were deemed
to ‘not want further scrutiny’, with just one where further correspondence from the
Department was requested.
This is not uncommon within the Committee; in 2012 scrutiny of EU fishery
legislation occurred 12 times, where out of the 40 proposals just five received further debate.
Also at the November 6th meeting was a discussion on the Reform of CFP by the
Committee with members from the Department of the Marine including Cecil Beamish and
Josephine Kelly, along with Tom Moran who has been Secretary General of the Department
of Agriculture, Food and the Marine since 2005.
Tom Moran outlined that one thorny issue which was resolved in June 2012 under the
Danish Presidency was for the elimination of discards.
The proposal would ‘be introduced on a phases basis – it would apply to pelagic fish
from 1st January 2014; from January 2015 and not later than 2018 for fish – cod, haddock,
whiting and saithe – in the north-western waters… Plans will be designed to bring the fish
stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yields, MSY, by 2015.’
He also went on to state that Ireland is ‘vehemently opposed since the outset’ on ‘the
mandatory nature… of transferable fishing concession…. this [has] serious potential to
concentrate quotas on the hand of a few powerful European fishing companies.’
Following his statement there were a number of questions and opinions put by TDs
and Senators to the Department representatives. Here the core answers and questions will be
given one after the other for simplicity.

4. 4
TD Noel Harrington (FG – Cork South West) asked for an indication of how much
money will be available to Ireland under the new Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Fund for
decommissioning.
Although the terms of the agreement reached on decommissioning are to be decided
during Ireland’s Presidency, Cecil Beamish outlined that a fund ‘of €6 million or 15% of the
national allocation’ would be available to a Member State
Harrington mentioned that scientific information ‘is subject to a huge time lag before
decisions are made at Commission and Council levels. That is becoming a huge problem.’
Beamish replied how on this issue ‘Ireland has developed a strong competence in
regard to fisheries’, where the future president of the ICES will be an individual from the
Marine Institute.
Dr. Paul Connelly, Director of Fisheries Ecosystems Advisory Services at the Marine
Institute, was elected later in November to the three year term (November 2012 – October
2015) as President of the ICES.
Beamish went on further to say that national arrangements have been put in place to
‘ensure that the distance between the fishermen and the scientists is narrowed to the greatest
extent possible.’
He described that DG MARE ‘will only be interested in that science if it has gone
through peer review through ICES… unfortunately, it is a long process but... we work hard
to try to get our science through that peer review process and into the Commission.’
Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill (FF – Donegal South West) sough answers to the
‘reasoning behind the... draconian ruling brought in through the [CFP] and, moreover, by
our own Department’ relating to closure of small scale fishing, specifically in Arranmore and
Tory Island, specifically with Area VI.
Beamish replied that ‘the stock position has not been good in Area VI for a long time’
and ‘what is in place in Area VI are EU rules…[which] we simply implemented’.
He went on to explain that amendments to these rules to ‘permit lesser spotted dogfish
fishery with gill nets and also a skate fishery using gigging’ is being sought by Coveney, the
Department and MEP Pat ‘the Cope’ Gallagher.

5. 5
‘These are fisheries which fishermen have asked us to try to open up and to get
available to them. We do not see them as being harmful in relation to the stocks that had to
be protected and we built up the science to make that case at a European level.’
In reply to Senator Comiskey (FG – Sligo-North Leitrim) on the issue of discards,
Beamish outlined how Coveney published the first European descriptive atlas on discards.
‘He put it out there, warts and all, and took the view that unless we know what we are
dealing with, we do not know how to deal with it.’
‘He then pushed hard at European level that this would be done equally in other
countries so that we could see what were the real level of discards in different fisheries for
different fleets, and only then can we properly deal with it.’
Concluding Moran overall welcomed the supportive comments discards, but that
‘nothing has been finalised on that yet’ as there is still the binding opinion to get from the
European Parliament.
He mentioned the significance of the Hague Preferences ‘and how vital is it to protect
them’. However, Moran pointed out that ‘there is no appetite in the Council for a complete
change in the approach to quotas’ which Éamon Ó Cuív (FF – Galway West) has brought up.
The next time fisheries occurred in Committee’s agenda again was on December 6th
where Coveney presented the Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) of DG MARE’s
proposals for Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for 2013.
The SIA accesses the state of stocks that are of high importance to Ireland.
It was put together by the Department of the Marine, Marine Institute and BIM,
together with stakeholders, where fishingnet.ie was launched ‘to enable the transmission of
electronic submissions for consideration’. Just nine submissions were received.
The SIA identifies an improving state of stocks connected to Ireland, where ’59 stocks
in which Ireland has a share of the EU TAC, 42% are now fished sustainably compared to
36% in 2011… [with] the number of depleted stocks [having] declined from 12 to 8.’
The SIA also states that the current TACs proposals for 2013 by DG MARE, could
lead to a loss of up to €53m to the wider fishing industry both off and on-shore. Coveney
goes on to say he ‘will deliver quotas for Ireland that involve reductions only where

6. 6
justified.’ However, he is ‘opposed to blanket rules on so called "data poor" stocks requiring
automatic reductions of 20%.’
Imposing EU trade sanctions against Iceland and the Faeroes as a result of the current
‘Mackerel Wars’ between the EU, Norway against Iceland and the Faeroes was brought up
by Ó Domhnaill and others. Coveney remarked that ‘the EU needs to show its teeth’ here.
He also said that although this is an ‘international scandal’ with many fishermen
‘making repayment for large loans…on the back of the mackerel fishery… trade sanction
involve certain dangers.’
‘When small countries are aggressively pursued, their response can sometimes be
aggressive… [trade sanctions] would not necessarily solve the problems that exist and it
would certainly ratchet up the tension. I accept that it may be necessary to do the latter in
order to bring people to the table and agree a compromise.’
In response to Noel Harrington (FF – Cork South West) on the legacy of relative
stability, Coveney said ‘we can get caught up year after year dwelling on the historical
unfairness of relative stability agreements and the allocation of quota, but we will get
nowhere in that debate.
‘This is one thing that has held back Irish fishing instead of looking for new
opportunities with new species and new landing opportunities.’
He highlights the economic benefits of landing blue whiting by ‘foreign trawlers’ at
Killybegs in 2012 and to opening ‘up all ports to landings of Celtic Sea herring’ which has
benefited processing.
He mentions that ‘last year we achieved the highest quota allocation in living
memory’ which has raised the bar for the outcome of this year’s negotiations. ‘This is a big
danger from [Coveney’s] perspective and expectations are high’
Due to its economic importance, fishing communities ‘will be watching the December
negotiations more closely than they would have watched the budget’.
One of Coveney’s last comments acknowledged that he is ‘mindful of this
responsibility in terms of trying to do the best job we can possibly do. I think we did that last
year and certainly we will take the same proactive approach again this year.’

7. 7
Parliamentary Questions: During Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays TDs may ask
questions to members of the government relating to public matters with their departments.
The replies are published daily online. In 2011 37,397 such questions were put to the
government.
Below I selected one question which many are still asking in the industry since the
government entered power in March 2011.
Catherine Murphy (Ind – Kildare-North) asked Coveney ‘if he intends… to replace
the criminal sanction system for minor fisheries offences with an administrative sanction
system’ (Parliamentary Question No. 929 – replied 6th November)
Although the ‘Programme for Government’ is ‘committed’ to replacing criminal
sanctions for minor fisheries offences with administrative sanction system, Coveney state that
legal advice from the Attorney General ‘highlights the difficulties in relation to the
Constitution and in relation to the law of the European Community relevant to the question of
implementing a system of administrative sanction for fisheries.’
‘Furthermore, European Union legislation requires that penalties for fisheries
offences must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. That is, they must act as a
deterrent and they must also ensure that there is no benefit gained by infringing the rules.’
‘Given the nature of the penalties involved, there is a general requirement under the
Constitution that alleged breaches of fisheries control regulations must be tried in a court of
law. I am continuing to actively examine the issue in the context of the Attorney General’s
advice in relation to the Programme for Government commitment.’
I hope the above summaries of some of the goings on in the Oireachtas and the EU do
prove helpful to those reading. Here, just as with the EU Series last winter, I would like to
bring some clarity, while highlighting the smaller news stories from the Oireachtas and the
EU.
Ciarán O’ Driscoll is currently undertaking a PhD in European fisheries policy at
UCD.