Review of Replacement Capacity Requirements under Sea-fishing Boat Licensing Policy
Download 142.21 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Section A Summary of EU policy on the Fleet
- History of the development of the fishing fleet
- Fleet provisions in new CFP
- 4.1 Segmentation and the Licensing process
- 4.3 Scallop Sub-segments
- 4.5 Mackerel – Polyvalent
- 4.6 Herring – Polyvalent
- 5. Safety Tonnage At the outset it is important to note that there is no provision for safety tonnage
- 6. On and Off Register Capacity – Current Position Table 1 (below) lists the amount of capacity both on and off the Register as at Quarter 2 of 2016 by segment/sub-segment. Herring
- Segment/Sub-Segment GT On Register kW On Register
- Polyvalent (excl. Potters)
- 7. Evaluation Issues Arising
- 8. Options A – Benefits of the Status Quo
- B – 80%/20% ISWFPO Proposal
- Segment Current On-Register Capacity +20%
- C – 90%/10% at ratio of 4:1, Segmentation respected
- 9. Situation in respect of Quota Allocations
- Section B 10. Effort regime for RSW Pelagic Segment vessels
- 10.2 Evaluation Issues Arising
- 10.3 Options A – Benefits of the Status Quo
- B – Establish a new effort regime
- C – Remove the RSW Pelagic effort regime requirement
- Annex I – Fleet Segmentation
| Consultation Paper on a Review of Replacement Capacity Requirements under Sea-fishing Boat Licensing Policy
Introduction & Background The Irish South & West Fish Producers’ Organisation (ISWFPO) wrote to the Minister in October 2015 advising that it was seeking a change in licensing policy to amend the 100% replacement capacity rule to 80%. It subsequently advised that this request covered all aspects of fleet policy and replacement capacity policy including flexibility between segments, flexibility between sub-segments and flexibility in relation to fishing effort (cod recovery for Area VIa and Area VIIa) and scallop effort. The Department is also in receipt of a separate request from the Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation (KFO) to review the effort regime for the RSW Pelagic Segment vessels. Section A of this document sets out the background to, and development of, the current licensing policy. It also contains an evaluation of the current fleet situation and an assessment of the ISWFPO proposals and alternative options. Section B of the document addresses the KFO request. Section A Summary of EU policy on the Fleet Under the EU Common Fisheries Policy, management of fishing capacity serves the aim of achieving a stable and enduring balance between the fishing capacity of the fleets and the fishing opportunities over time. EU Member States are obliged to report annually on this balance, using the guidelines prepared by the European Commission. For fleet segments with overcapacity, the Member State has to take measures under an action plan to achieve the balance, for instance through publicly funded decommissioning of vessels. When a Member State fails to report or does not implement the action plan, this may lead to proportionate suspension or interruption of the relevant EU funding. For each EU Member State, a fishing fleet capacity ceiling is established in kilowatts (kW) and gross tonnage (GT). New fishing vessels may enter the fleet only after the same fleet capacity (in kW and GT) is removed from the fleet. Through this ‘entry-exit’ system, the capacity of the EU fleet does not increase in overall terms. History of the development of the fishing fleet The number of vessels in the Irish fleet in 1985 was 1,596 with a total gross registered tonnage (GRT) of 41,039. Most vessels in the fleet were small, with 81 vessels greater than 100 GRT. The first EU programmes to manage the EU fishing fleets were put in place in the period 1985 to 1991 and involved a requirement to reduce the size of the Irish fleet. At that time there was disagreement between the EU Commission and Ireland about the size of the fleet and the basis for the required reduction. In 1992, a new EU fleet management programme was introduced, Multi Annual Guidance Programme (MGP) III, which set limits in terms of kW and GT/GRT for the Irish fleet. The management of the fleet under MGP III involved the segmentation of the fishing fleet to reflect the fishing operations. These involved: Demersal in Areas VI/VII (excluding Area VIIa), Demersal in Area VIIa, Beamers in Areas VI/VII and Pelagic in Areas VI/VII. At the end of 1996, a mid-term revision combined the demersal segments into a single polyvalent segment. Ireland met overall MGP III objectives. A new MGP programme (MGP IV) was introduced to cover the period 1997 to 2001. It provided for reductions of 5.3% in the capacity of the polyvalent segment and reductions of 10.6% in the effort of the beamer segment and 5.3% in the effort of the pelagic (RSW) segment. During the MGP IV programme, a special scheme for unregistered inshore vessels was put in place and these vessels were licensed and registered in the potting sub-segment of the polyvalent segment. Under MGP IV, new objectives were also introduced to take account of additional fishing opportunities in West African waters. Ireland met its obligations under MGP IV. In December 2002, the EU Council adopted a framework regulation (Council Regulation 2371/2002) on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). In respect of the fishing fleet, this involved a significant change in the policy that had been in place since 1992. The policy involved a requirement to bring fishing capacity into line with available resources. The new approach involved delegating more responsibility to Member States for the management of the fleet. Under that policy, overall fleet capacity limits were established for each Member State in terms of kW and GT and there was an overall requirement that the level of capacity would not increase. This was given effect by a requirement that the entry of new capacity into the fleet must be compensated by the previous withdrawal of at least the same amount of capacity. The new policy delegated responsibility for the segmentation of the fleet to Member States. Fleet provisions in new CFP In 2013, a revised EU framework Regulation was introduced (Regulation (EU) 1380/13) on the CFP. The Regulation maintains the legal requirement on Member States to balance fishing opportunities and fishing capacity. It requires Member States to put in place measures to make adjustments to the fishing capacity of its fleet to achieve a stable and enduring balance. Under Article 22(2) of Regulation (EU) 1380/13, each year, Member States must report to the Commission on the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. This report gives a description of the fishing fleet in relation to fisheries developments during the previous year, the impact on fishing capacity of fishing effort reduction schemes, information on the compliance with the entry/exit scheme, a summary report on the weaknesses and strengths of the fleet management system together with a plan for improvements and information on the general level of compliance with fleet policy instruments as well as any information on changes of the administrative procedures relevant to the management of the fleet. The assessment must cover the national fleet and all fleet segments and identify structural over capacity. Where a fleet segment is out of balance a Member State must prepare an action plan that will achieve a balance over a clear time-frame. Until 2018, decommissioning of vessels may be used to address any identified imbalance. The Commission shall report on Member States’ situations to the Council and the European Parliament. Failure to report or to implement an action plan may result in a proportionate suspension or interruption of financial assistance for the fleet segment concerned. Regulation (EU) 1380/13 also maintains the 100% replacement capacity rules for new entrants to the fleet. Article 23(3) provides that the Commission will review the entry/exit policy by the end of 2018 in the light of the evolving relationship between fleet capacity and prospected fishing opportunities and may propose amendments to the scheme. 4. The Irish Fleet The Irish fishing fleet is currently divided into five segments in accordance with Ministerial Policy Directive 2 of 2003, as amended by Policy Directive 1 of 2006, Policy Directive 1 of 2011 and Policy Directive 2 of 2011 (see Fig. 1). The segments are: Aquaculture, Refrigerated Seawater (RSW) Pelagic, Beam Trawl, Specific and Polyvalent. The Specific segment is divided into two sub-segments – General and Scallop. The Polyvalent segment is divided into four sub-segments – Potting, Scallop, Vessels less than 18m in Length Overall (LOA) and Vessels greater than or equal to 18m LOA. A general description of the fleet segments and their composition is set out in Annex I. 
Fig. 1 4.1 Segmentation and the Licensing process The Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003 transferred the functions of sea-fishing boat licensing from the Minister to the Licensing Authority for Sea-fishing Boats, which operates on an independent basis subject to criteria set out in that Act and Ministerial Policy Directives. The Licensing Authority is the Registrar General of Fishing Boats, an official of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine or, under the superintendence of the Registrar General, the Deputy Registrar General of Fishing Boats. All applications for sea-fishing boat licences are considered by the Licensing Authority. The Minister is precluded from exercising any power or control in relation to individual cases, or a group of cases, with which the Licensing Authority is or may be concerned under Section 3(5) of the 2003 Act. As set out above, under EU Regulation 1380/13, the entry of new capacity into the fleet must be compensated by the previous withdrawal of at least the same amount of capacity. This is known as the “Entry/Exit” regime. Under national rules, provided for in Ministerial Policy Directives, capacity being used to introduce (i.e. license and register) a vessel must be taken out of the same segment or sub-segment into which the vessel is being introduced. The transfer of capacity between segments and sub-segments is not permitted. The “Entry/Exit” regime does not apply to vessels in the Aquaculture segment and, consequently, there is no capacity associated with this segment. Capacity (sometimes referred to as “replacement capacity”) in the form of gross tonnage and engine power is a privately owned tradable asset that, with certain exceptions, may be sold, traded or realised as a financial asset on the tonnage market. Only off-register capacity (i.e. capacity from a vessel which has been removed from the Fishing Boat Register) may be sold or traded etc. All transfers of capacity must be approved by the Licensing Authority. Capacity which has been removed from the Fishing Boat Register must be re-introduced on to the Register within two years of its removal, otherwise the entitlement will be lost to its owner and the capacity can no longer be used to license and register a vessel. This requirement, known as the “Two Year Rule”, was introduced by Ministerial Policy Directive 1 of 2003. In addition to sub-segmentation, capacity is also ring-fenced for the purposes of determining access to the allocation of herring and mackerel quota (see section on Herring and Mackerel, below). In order to qualify for access to these fisheries, Polyvalent vessels of 18m Length Overall (LOA) or more (in the case of mackerel) and Polyvalent and Pelagic vessels of 20m LOA or more (in the case of herring) must provide 100% capacity with appropriate track record. 4.2 <18m & ≥18m Polyvalent Sub-segments In 2005, a review was conducted on the decommissioning requirements for the demersal and shellfish fleets (known as the White Report1). The White Report examined the imbalance between fleet size and fishing opportunities leading to pressure on a number of fish stocks. As there was no foreseeable prospect of increasing the stocks or fishing activity, the report recommended a programme of decommissioning focussed on the vessels targeting the key pressure stocks such as monk, hake and cod etc. in order to address the imbalance. It was envisaged that this approach would reduce the pressure on the key stocks and improve the economic returns for the remaining vessels. The report identified vessels of, inter alia, 18m or more in overall length (LOA) in the whitefish fleet (Polyvalent and Beam Trawl segments) as being those which had the greatest impact on the key pressure stocks. The White Report also noted that, following the completion of a programme of decommissioning, there was a possibility that the capacity of smaller boats could be bought up and used to purchase new larger boats which could be used to target the key pressure stocks. Such a development would negate both the rationale for and benefits of a decommissioning programme. In order to prevent such an occurrence, the report recommended that the remaining capacity within the Polyvalent segment be ring-fenced into two size categories – vessels less than 18m LOA and vessels greater than or equal to 18m LOA. Prohibiting the transfer of capacity between the two sub-segments would prevent the capacity of smaller vessels being used to increase the capacity of the larger vessels targeting the key pressure stocks. Accordingly, policy Directive 1 of 2006, signed by the Minister on 31st January 2006, established the under 18m LOA and greater than or equal to 18m LOA sub-segments of the Polyvalent segment and prohibited the transfer of capacity between the sub-segments. 4.3 Scallop Sub-segments The White Report also examined the need for decommissioning within the Shellfish Fleet and identified an imbalance in the Scallop Fleet. At the time, scallop fishing was subject to effort limitations. However, the report concluded that seeking an increase in fishing effort was not scientifically feasible given that poor state of the stock. Consequently, the report recommended a programme of decommissioning for vessels greater than 15m LOA which target scallops “to generate a viable and stable financial return for those vessels remaining in the fishery”. As in the case of the Polyvalent vessels, the report also recommended ring-fencing the remaining scallop fleet so as not to undermine the benefits of the decommissioning programme. Accordingly, Policy Directive 1 of 2006 also introduced the Scallop sub-segments in the Polyvalent and Specific segments and prohibited the transfer of capacity between the sub-segments. 4.4 Potting Sub-segment As indicated above, during the MGP IV programme, a special scheme for unregistered inshore vessels was put in place with the approval of the European Commission. The “Scheme for the Licensing of Traditional Pot Fishing Boats in the Irish Inshore Fleet” was introduced in order to regularise the position of a substantial number of under 12 metre vessels engaged in commercial fishing by means of pots. These vessels had been in the fleet but, for various reasons, had not been formally licensed and registered. Owners whose vessels qualified under the Scheme did not have to provide replacement capacity in order to license and register the vessels. However, the capacity of the vessels is not eligible as replacement capacity in any other segment or sub-segment of the fleet and cannot be sold, traded or otherwise transferred, except to an immediate family member. Vessels licensed and registered under this Scheme are ring-fenced in the Potting sub-segment of the Polyvalent segment. These vessels may fish by means of pots only and may only target non-quota species. 4.5 Mackerel – Polyvalent Vessels in the Polyvalent segment are multi-purpose vessels which target both whitefish and pelagic species. Traditionally, these were small, dry-hold vessels which were not capable of catching large quantities of pelagic fish such as mackerel. However, this situation began to change in the late 1990’s when four polyvalent tank boats (vessels with RSW pelagic wet storage capacity) were introduced. The introduction of these vessels led to an increase in the demand for pelagic opportunities by the Polyvalent segment. In order to maintain a balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities, a moratorium on the licensing of Polyvalent vessels with RSW tanks was introduced in February 2001. The restriction on Polyvalent vessels having RSW tanks was removed in 2010 following a review of licensing policy. In 2010, the Minister decided to undertake a review of the quota management arrangements in place for the Polyvalent segment. Following an intensive examination of the fishery, and taking into account consultations with industry, the Minister announced the new policy for the distribution of mackerel within the Polyvalent segment in October 2010, an issue which falls outside the scope of this licensing-related review. Ministerial Policy Directive 1 of 2011, signed on 26 January 2011, gave effect to the new licensing provisions under the new policy. The main points of the new policy which have a bearing on segmentation and licensing are:- The requirement for Polyvalent vessels to maintain “active pelagic” history in order to be licensed to fish for mackerel is removed. Polyvalent vessels, or off-register Polyvalent capacity, with a qualifying track record in mackerel fishing are classified as either Tier 1 or Tier 2. All Polyvalent vessels under 18m LOA (excluding the Potting sub-segment) may be licensed without a mackerel preclusion. Polyvalent vessels greater than or equal to 18m LOA, that are not licensed in Tier 1 or Tier 2, are precluded from fishing for mackerel. The Tier 1 or Tier 2 entitlement is associated with the vessels’ capacity. In order to retain access to the allocation of mackerel in their allocated Tier, a vessel must be licensed with 100% replacement capacity from that Tier or a higher Tier. A vessel licensed with a combination of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capacity will be licensed in Tier 2. Consequently, a vessel greater than or equal to 18m LOA which is licensed with a combination of Tiered and non-Tiered capacity will be precluded from fishing for mackerel. The restriction on Polyvalent vessels having refrigerated seawater tanks is removed. 4.6 Herring – Polyvalent The Herring stock is historically of importance to the Irish Fishing Fleet and there is a long tradition of herring fishing by small inshore boats. The Herring fishery consists of the Atlanto-Scandian Herring (ASH) Fishery, the Celtic Sea Herring (CSH) Fishery, the North West Herring (NWH) Fishery and the Irish Sea Herring Fishery. As the latter is not extensively fished, much of the quota is often swapped with other Member States for other valuable stock such as monkfish. The management arrangements varied across the fisheries, however, and were administratively cumbersome to implement in general. In light of the above, and following on from the revised Polyvalent mackerel management and fleet policy arrangements, it was considered appropriate to also review the management arrangements for the herring fisheries. As with the distribution of mackerel referenced above, the distribution of herring quota is an issue which falls outside the scope of this licensing-related review. However, it is relevant that revised policy in this regard was announced in June 2012 following intensive consultation with industry and other key stakeholders. The policy provides for an open fishery for vessels under 20m LOA in the Celtic Sea and North West Herring Fisheries. The main CSH and NWH fisheries are ring-fenced for vessels greater than or equal to 10m LOA with qualifying track record. Under this policy, the total number of polyvalent and RSW pelagic vessels qualifying for an authorisation in the CSH and NWH fisheries are fixed and may not increase. As regards the ASH fishery, seven vessels (five from the RSW Pelagic segment and two from the Polyvalent segment) are to be nominated by industry each year. If industry cannot agree on nominations, the Department will invite applications and hold a draw for that segment. Ministerial Policy Directives 1 of 2012 and 2 of 2012 gave effect to the new licensing provisions under this policy. The main points of the policy which have a bearing on segmentation and licensing are:- The requirement for Polyvalent vessels to maintain “active pelagic” history in order to be licensed to fish for herring is removed. Polyvalent vessels, or off-register Polyvalent gross tonnage, with a qualifying track record in herring fishing are included in the Celtic Sea Herring Polyvalent or North West Herring Polyvalent ring-fenced portions of the Polyvalent segment. RSW Pelagic vessels, or off-register RSW Pelagic gross tonnage, with a qualifying track record in herring fishing are included in the Celtic Sea Herring RSW Pelagic or North West Herring RSW Pelagic ring-fenced portions of the RSW Pelagic segment. Polyvalent or RSW Pelagic vessels greater than or equal to 20m LOA, that are not licensed in either the Celtic Sea Herring or North West Herring ring-fenced portions of their respective segments, are precluded from fishing for herring in the Celtic Sea and North West Herring Fisheries. Eligibility for herring quota attaches to the gross tonnage of the ring-fenced vessels. A vessel must be licensed with 100% ring-fenced gross tonnage (from the relevant segment or sub-segment) with eligibility for herring quota (in addition to 100% kW from the relevant segment or sub-segment) in order to retain access to the allocation of herring quota. 5. Safety Tonnage At the outset it is important to note that there is no provision for safety tonnage in the current Regulation (1380/2013) on the CFP, which came into effect on 1 January 2014. Therefore, any increases in vessel capacity (for whatever purpose) must be balanced with the provision of the equivalent amount of replacement capacity. Safety Tonnage was a provision of the previous Regulation (EC) 2371/2002 on the CFP, which allowed for an increase in the gross tonnage of a fishing vessel which was not subject to the “Entry/Exit Regime” referred to above. Safety Tonnage was only permitted where the increase in gross tonnage resulted exclusively from modifications to improve safety on board, working conditions, hygiene or product quality but did not increase the fishing effort of the vessel. Such increases did not have to be balanced with the previous withdrawal of gross tonnage from the fleet. Instead, the Fleet Ceiling figure was adjusted to take account of the increase. Figures provided by the Licensing Authority indicate that a total of 249 GT Safety Tonnage was granted to 10 vessels between 2009 and 2013 in Ireland. This represents an average increase in gross tonnage of 14% per vessel. 6. On and Off Register Capacity – Current Position Table 1 (below) lists the amount of capacity both on and off the Register as at Quarter 2 of 2016 by segment/sub-segment. Herring There is currently under 250 GT of off-register Celtic Sea (CS) Herring Polyvalent capacity, approximately half of this is also in the ring-fenced North West (NW) Herring Polyvalent portion. All of this off-register capacity is in the Polyvalent ≥18m sub-segment. Mackerel There is currently over 100 GT and approximately 200 kW of off-register Tier 1 capacity and no off-register Tier 2 capacity. All of this capacity is in the Polyvalent ≥18m sub-segment.
Table 1. On and Off Register capacity by segment/sub-segment. Source: Licensing Authority for Sea Fishing Boats 7. Evaluation & Issues Arising While the Table above indicates that there is a substantial amount of off-Register Polyvalent ≥18m capacity, only a small amount of this is in the Tiered (mackerel) or Ring-fenced (herring) portions of the Polyvalent segment. A number of the vessels in the Polyvalent ≥18m Tiered (mackerel) and/or Ring-fenced (herring) portions were granted safety tonnage. If the remainder wished to increase the gross tonnage of each of their vessels by, for example 10%, there is insufficient off-Register capacity with the necessary track record to allow them to do this and retain their eligibility to fish for herring and/or mackerel. It would require the removal of one or more vessels from the Tiered (mackerel) or Ring-fenced (herring) portions. The problem is more acute for Polyvalent <18m vessels. One such vessel is in Tier 2 (mackerel) and nine are in the NW Herring ring-fenced portion (two of which are also in the CS Herring ring-fenced portion). As none of the off-register Tiered (mackerel) or Ring-fenced (herring) capacity is in the Polyvalent <18m sub-segment, the only way these vessels can increase their capacity, and retain their eligibility to fish for herring and/or mackerel, is for one or more <18m LOA vessels to leave the Tiered (mackerel) or Ring-fenced (herring) portions. 8. Options A – Benefits of the Status Quo It is considered that segmentation, as currently provided for, represents a logical division of the fleet which has evolved over the past two decades in line with the various EU Fleet Management Programmes and which reflects fishing activity within the Irish fleet generally. Ireland is required under Article 22 of Regulation 1380/2013 on the CFP to achieve “...a stable and enduring balance...” between the fishing capacity of the fleet and fishing opportunities. Segmentation is one of the fleet management tools utilised to maintain this balance and is intended to plays a key role in facilitating the achievement of a sustainable and viable livelihood for fishermen operating in the various types of fisheries taking account of available fishing opportunities and fishing resources. The tiered (mackerel)/ring-fenced (herring) portions within the polyvalent and pelagic segments were established following extensive consultation and facilitate the effective operation of the quota management system. Ring-fencing is designed to match insofar as possible the number of fishing vessels with available fishing opportunities, thereby providing for a more reasonable and predictable return on investment for the ring-fenced vessels and encouraging those vessels to act in a sustainable manner. B – 80%/20% ISWFPO Proposal The ISWFPO wrote to the Minister in October 2015 advising that it was seeking a change in licensing policy to amend the 100% replacement capacity rule to 80%. It subsequently advised that this request covered all aspects of fleet policy and replacement capacity policy including flexibility between segments, flexibility between sub-segments and flexibility in relation to fishing effort (cod recovery for Area VIa and Area VIIa) and scallop effort. In the Department’s view, this proposal, if implemented, has the potential to undermine segmentation which would have serious implications for fleet management generally. Table 2 (below) shows how much capacity would be required if each segment sought to increase by 20%, for example. As can be seen, such an increase in the Polyvalent ≥18m sub-segment, sourced entirely from the Polyvalent <18m sub-segment would have a serious impact on the latter. For example, an increase of 4732 GT (as indicated in Table 2, below) represents 66% of the current on Register GT capacity of the Polyvalent <18m sub-segment. This highlights the potential for the creation of imbalances between segments and sub-segments. The establishment of the <18m and ≥18m sub-segments was a carefully considered policy, introduced on foot of the recommendations of the White Report. As stated above, the Report recommended sub-segmentation to prevent the capacity of smaller boats being bought up and used to purchase larger boats. These larger boats could be used to target pressure stocks which would have undermined and effectively negated the benefits of the decommissioning programme. It is considered that these reasons for the introduction of the sub-segments remain fully valid today.
Table 2. Current on register capacity of segments and sub-segments and 20% increase 2 Furthermore, there is a risk that this proposal, if implemented, could potentially lead to a rapid growth in larger vessels at the expense of smaller vessels in circumstances where there is not a basis for assuming increases in fishing opportunities for either or both the Polyvalent and RSW Pelagic segments. Such an approach would potentially create financial risks for certain vessel owners. In addition, there is a likelihood that the implementation of the proposal would impact on the value of capacity which could reduce in some instances. Overall there is a significant risk that such changes could threaten the medium and long-term viability of the fleet as a whole. Moreover, in the event that the adoption of such a proposal resulted in an increase in the overall capacity of the fleet to the point that the fleet ceiling as set down in EU law could or would be exceeded, it would become necessary to introduce measures to manage the introduction of replacement capacity onto the fleet to minimise or obviate that possibility. C – 90%/10% at ratio of 4:1, Segmentation respected (for Polyvalent vessels in the Tiered (mackerel) and Ring-fenced (herring) portions) It is suggested that an option such as this would allow some flexibility in the provision of replacement capacity with the necessary track record for Polyvalent vessels in the Tiered (mackerel) and Ring-fenced (herring) portions, while still ensuring that the rules on segmentation are observed. In other words, replacement capacity is still being sourced from the same segment and sub-segment in which the vessel is to be licensed. The ratio of 4:1 is proposed as a level that accommodates operators that are seeking to increase capacity for technical/safety reasons but will be dissuasive to those that are seeking to increase capacity with a view to increasing the vessel’s fishing effort. Under this option, Polyvalent vessels to be licensed in the Tiered (mackerel) and/or Ring-fenced (herring) portions would be able to source up to 10% of the required replacement capacity from non-Tiered/non-Ring-fenced vessels in the same sub-segment at a ratio of 4:1. In the case of vessels Tiered for mackerel, the 4:1 ratio would apply to both GT and kW. However, as eligibility for herring quota attaches to the gross tonnage only of the ring-fenced vessels, the required kilowatts would continue to be sourced at the ratio of 1:1 in respect of vessels which are not Tiered for mackerel and which are only ring-fenced in the CS and NW Herring Polyvalent portions. There would be some concern that operators could misuse such a system by availing of this flexibility to establish the capacity as having “track record” and subsequently combining such capacity onto a single vessel which could have independently availed of the facility. This would mean that a vessel would have secured up to 20% under this facility which would be contrary to the intent of the any such policy amendment. This may need to be further examined to determine if it is a real possibility and, if so, what steps could be introduced to minimise such a situation. Finally, it should be noted that the surplus non-Tiered/non-Ring-fenced capacity provided in the scenario of the 4:1 ratio referred to above, would be regarded as being decommissioned and would no longer be available for use as replacement capacity under any circumstances. As referred to in previous sections, ring-fencing the larger Polyvalent vessels which target pelagic stocks is vital in maintaining a balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities and providing some measure of stability and predictability for the vessels engaging in these fisheries. Consequently, facilitating an excessively large or unlimited increase in the size (in terms of capacity) of the Tiered (mackerel)/Ring-fenced (herring) portions is considered to be neither desirable nor sustainable. It is submitted that introducing a reasonable, but necessarily limited, flexibility, such as the 10% figure referenced above, would facilitate owners who wish to modify or replace their vessel. Furthermore, the application of a suitable ratio (such as 4:1 above) could help to ensure that any increases in capacity are necessary, sustainable and managed in a manner consistent with the need to ensure that Ireland’s obligations with respect to its fleet capacity ceiling at EU level are met on an ongoing basis going forward. From a financial perspective, applying a ratio also takes account of the fact that Polyvalent capacity with pelagic track record has traditionally commanded a higher price on the tonnage market than non-Tiered or non-Ring-fenced Polyvalent capacity. The following are examples of how this option would work in practice:- Example 1: Vessel X is 200 GT and 350 kW with a LOA of 25m. The vessel owner wishes to license the vessel in Tier 1 (mackerel). However, he only has 180GT and 315kW of Polyvalent ≥18m capacity with the necessary Tier 1 (mackerel) entitlement. He needs 20GT and 35kW so he sources 80GT (20GT x 4) and 140 kW (35kW x 4) of non-Tiered capacity from the Polyvalent ≥18m sub-segment. Example 2: Vessel Y is 100 GT and 200 kW with a LOA of 17m. The vessel owner wishes to license the vessel in the CS Herring Ring-fenced portion. She has 90 GT of Polyvalent <18m capacity in the CS Herring ring-fenced portion and 200 kW of Polyvalent <18m capacity. She needs 10 GT so she sources 40 GT (10GT x 4) of non-Ring-fenced capacity from the Polyvalent <18m capacity sub-segment. 9. Situation in respect of Quota Allocations As referred to previously, matters pertaining to quota allocation, or quota management policy generally, do not come within the scope of this review. In this regard, the ISWFPO has stated that it is requesting a review of licensing policy to “...allow vessel owners to upgrade their vessels without the fear of losing their ability to participate in a particular fishery or fish in a particular area while at the same time ensuring that no additional vessels will be entitled to enter a restricted area or fishery or obtain any additional quota.” It should be noted that, any new licensing policy determined by the Minister arising from this review process would not be accepted as a basis for arguments to amend current quota allocation arrangements. For instance, the allocation of mackerel between the RSW Pelagic segment and Polyvalent segment. An issue arises in relation to the allocation of herring quota, which is based on vessel length. In the event of Option B or C above being adopted, the allocation could be based on the length of the vessel prior to the use of non-ring-fenced capacity or the new length. The views of stakeholders will be sought in this regard. Section B 10. Effort regime for RSW Pelagic Segment vessels The Department is also in receipt of a separate request from the Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation (KFO) to review the effort regime for the RSW Pelagic Segment vessels. 10.1 Background As referenced above, the objectives for the Irish fishing fleet were established under the terms of Multi-Annual Guidance Programme IV for the fleet, or MGP IV, which covered the period 1997-2002 and which was agreed by the Council of Ministers in June, 1997 and December 2001. Commission Decision 98/125/EEC, as last amended by Commission Decision of 29/07/2002, set out the fleet capacity objectives which were to be achieved in respect of the Irish fishing fleet by the end of 2002. The overall fleet capacity objective for 2002 was set at 83,167 GT and 215,939 kW (i.e. Polyvalent 45,648 GT & 161,953; RSW Pelagic 36,353 GT & 47,873 kW and Beam Trawl 1,156 GT & 6,113 kW) In addition to the overall fleet capacity objective, Ireland, in common with other Member States, was subject to fishing effort limitations in respect of individual fleet segments. For these purposes, the Irish fleet was divided into three segments, viz. (i) Polyvalent, (ii) RSW Pelagic and (iii) Beam Trawlers. The RSW Pelagic and Beam Trawl Segments of the Irish fleet were subject to fishing effort limitations (i.e. days at sea) over the life of the MGP. The fishing effort limitations set for 2002 were 9,966,000 GT*T and 11,389,000 kW*T for RSW Pelagic and 287,000 GT*T and 1,557,000 kW*T for Beam Trawl. The Polyvalent Segment of the fleet was not subject to fishing effort limitations. In December 2002 the Council of Ministers adopted Regulation 2371/2002 on the CFP, which amended significantly the policy which had been in place in relation to fishing fleet management, among other issues. In August 2003 the European Commission adopted Commission Regulation 1438/2003 which set down the implementing rules on the Community Fleet Policy and specified the reference levels for Member States fishing fleets on 1 January 2003. As outlined above, in accordance with section 3 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003 (No. 21 of 2003), the function of sea-fishing boat licensing was transferred from the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to the Licensing Authority for Sea-fishing Boats with effect from 1 July 2003. As specified in that Act, the Licensing Authority is the Registrar General of Fishing Boats or, under the superintendence of the Registrar General, the Deputy Registrar General of Fishing Boats. The 2003 Act provides that the Licensing Authority shall be independent in the exercise of his or her functions subject to: (a) the law for the time being in force in relation to sea-fishing boat licensing, including, in particular, the legal obligations of the State arising under any law of an institution of the European Communities or other international agreement which is binding on the State, and (b) such policy directives in relation to sea-fishing boat licensing as the Minister may give in writing from time to time. Therefore a new policy governing the licensing and registration of Irish sea-fishing boats was introduced in 2003 following the enactment of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003 and the adoption of Commission Regulation 1438/2003. The new policy essentially retained the fleet segmentation from the Fourth EU Multi-Annual Guidance Programme and also provided for a separate new Aquaculture segment (aquaculture vessels had previously been licensed and registered as part of the Specific segment). The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources issued Policy Directive 1/2003 to the Licensing Authority on 4 November 2003 to allow licensing of fishing boats in the Specific and Aquaculture segments of the fleet to proceed pending adoption of an overall fishing boat licensing policy. The Specific Segment became subject to the 1:1 replacement capacity requirement (i.e. entry/exit regime). The Aquaculture Segment is exempt from the requirement. On 17 November 2003, the Minister issued Policy Directive 2/2003 to the Licensing Authority setting out an overall sea-fishing boat licensing policy, in the light of the new EU provisions relating to the management of fishing fleets and following a review of the situation of the Irish fishing fleet and related capacity. Policy Directive 2/2003, Part B, specified that the RSW pelagic segment will not be permitted to exceed the MGP IV 31/12/2002 capacity limits and licences will not issue permitting the introduction of additional capacity if these limits have been reached. Therefore, based on a National requirement, the fishing effort regime (i.e. days at sea) was retained for the RSW Pelagic Segment only. Commission Decision 365/2004 adjusted Ireland’s effort objectives under MGP IV to take account of re-measurement of the fleet, introduction of the MFV “Atlantic Dawn” etc. However, the Commission Decision does not constitute an EU requirement to maintain a fishing effort regime for any Fleet Segment from 1 January 2003. 10.2 Evaluation & Issues Arising The RSW Pelagic effort regime was established under MGP IV, a system which was superseded by Council Regulation 2371/2002 on the CFP, which has in turn been replaced with the current CFP (Council Regulation 1380/13). Therefore, it appears that there is no longer an EU requirement for an RSW Pelagic effort. While the effort regime has not been amended or adjusted since it was instituted under MGP IV for the period 1997-2002, the nature of pelagic fisheries has changed significantly in the intervening period. For instance, the pelagic fleet no longer fishes in Mauritania or, in recent years, Morocco. In addition, since 2006, a number of RSW Pelagic vessels are actively pursuing boarfish. Landings of boarfish have increased from less than 3,000 tonnes in 2006, reaching a peak of over 88,000 tonnes in 2010 and levelling off to over 30,000 tonnes in 2015. Also, pelagic quotas have fluctuated during this period. For instance, the Irish mackerel quota for 2001 was 72,000 tonnes. This decreased substantially in subsequent years reaching a low of 49,643 tonnes in 2008 before gradually increasing again. Furthermore, it is significant that the CFP has focussed on output limits since 2014, such as TACs and Quotas, rather than effort regimes, as a means of sustainably managing fish stocks. It is not anticipated that this position is likely to change in the short to medium term at least. 10.3 Options A – Benefits of the Status Quo As discussed above, the effort regime appears to be neither adjusted to, nor reflective of, the current activities of RSW Pelagic vessels or indeed the current profile of that segment of the fleet generally. In light of this, there does not appear to be any obvious benefit to the segment, or the fisheries targeted by these vessels, in continuing to apply the effort regime in its current format. B – Establish a new effort regime A similar effort regime which had been in place for beam trawl vessels was removed in 2002. Given the ongoing and likely future focus of the CFP on output limits and the related requirement of Member States to manage quota generally within this framework, there appears to be no compelling case for the introduction of a new effort regime for the RSW Pelagic segment of the Fleet at this point in time. C – Remove the RSW Pelagic effort regime requirement Given the apparent lack of compatibility of the effort regime with the current activities of the RSW Pelagic segment, and the shift towards output limits as a means of sustainably managing fish stocks, dispensing with the RSW Pelagic effort regime requirement is an option which merits consideration. Disclaimer: This document is for consultation purposes only and is not a legally binding document. The Minister and/or the Department are not bound by any of the contents thereof in the context of any change(s) to current licensing policy that may arise, either from this review or elsewhere nor does it necessarily set out the Minister/ Department’s final or definitive position on particular matters. Annex I – Fleet Segmentation Refrigerated Seawater (RSW) Pelagic Segment: Vessels in this segment are engaged predominantly in fishing for pelagic species. Beam Trawler Segment: The vessels in this segment are dedicated to beam trawling and target demersal species. Polyvalent Segment: This is the largest segment in terms of vessel numbers. Polyvalent vessels are multi-purpose and include small inshore vessels (netters and potters), and medium and large offshore vessels, targeting whitefish, pelagic fish and bivalve molluscs. The segment has four sub-segments:- Vessels under 18m in length overall Vessels greater than or equal to 18m in length overall Potting sub-segment – vessels licensed and registered under the “Potting Scheme” Scallop sub-segment – vessels greater than or equal to 10m in length overall with qualifying track record in the scallop fishery, as defined in Ministerial Policy Directive 1 of 2006, as amended by Ministerial Policy Directive 1 of 2011 and 2 of 2011. Specific Segment: Vessels in this segment are permitted to fish for bivalve molluscs and aquaculture species only. There are two sub-segments:- Scallop sub-segment – vessels greater than or equal to 10m in length overall with qualifying track record in the scallop fishery, as defined in Ministerial Policy Directive 1 of 2006, as amended by Ministerial Policy Directive 1 of 2011 and 2 of 2011 General sub-segment – vessels greater than or equal to 10m in length overall which do not have a track record in the scallop fishery, as set out above, and vessels under 10m in length overall Aquaculture Segment: These vessels, which are not subject to the Entry/Exit regime, must be used exclusively in the management, development and servicing of aquaculture sites and can collect spat from wild mussel stocks as part of a service to aquaculture installations, subject to certain restrictions determined in the context of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. 1 Decommissioning Requirements for Ireland’s Demersal and Shellfish Fleets – A report to Marine Minister, Pat the Code Gallagher T.D. – Padraic White, July 2005 2 The table does not include the Potting sub-segment, i.e. vessels licensed under the Scheme for the Licensing of Traditional Pot Fishing Boats in the Irish Inshore Fleet (Potting Scheme). The capacity of these vessels is not eligible as replacement capacity as the approval of the Scheme by the Commission was on the basis that it would not lead to increased fishing effort in the polyvalent segment at the time of the Scheme or in the future. Directory: media -> migration media -> The milk carton kids media -> Events Date and Location media -> The Gilded Age: The First Generation of Historians by H. Wayne Morgan University of Oklahoma, April 18, 1997 media -> Analysis of Law in the United Kingdom pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief Prepared by: For the 30 June 2010 Foreword media -> Cuba fieldcourse 2010 migration -> Inclusive of amendments of 30 September 2008, of 15 May 2009 migration -> Submissions received from the public consultation on a proposal to increase the allocation to the Celtic Sea Herring Sentinel Fishery for 2016 Proposal migration -> Background Paper Food, Beverages, Nutrition & pcf migration -> Of the burren farming for conservation programme migration -> Of the burren farming for conservation programme Download 142.21 Kb. Share with your friends:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||