Fishing controversy: A Case History of Imperialism

Betty Purcell analyses the development of the fishing industry and the current EEC fishing controversy

THE PROBLEMS of the Irish fishing industry run a lot deeper than the legal obstacles at present being encounntered by Irish fisheries representatives in Brussels. The problem of under-capitalisation and non-management of fish resources are historical ones Which pre-date our entry into the EEC. These issues must be dealt with - whatever the outcome of the present discussions on Ireland's claim for a national 50 mile fishing limit.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

While Ireland remained under Briitish rule, any development of the Irish fishing industry was viewed as a potential threat to Britain's industry. Petitions to Parliament from England ~nd Scotland resulted in a law being enacted during the 17th century which prevented Irish fishermen leaving port while the English fleet was fishing. In the 18th century, the curing of fish was brought to a standstill by the imposition of a penal duty on imported salt.

In this period, many Irish fishermen were forced to emigrate to Newfounddland. Irish crews were brought to the Orkneys and Shetlands because of their dexterity and expertise in fishing.

By 1800, fisheries, as an organised ind ustry, had ceased to exist in Ireland although the number of fishermen remained high. In 1830 there were 56,000 fishermen in Ireland and this figure soared as high as 113,000 in 1845, at the beginning of the famine. If the fishing industry had been developped rather than suppressed, there is little doubt that thousands of lives could have been saved during the famine by substituting sea protein for the blighted protein of the land. From 1850 onwards there was a sharp decline in the numbers involved in the industry sinking .to 23,000 in 1880. This figure remained constant up to the outbreak of World War I.

The aim of British policy was to weaken the competitive base of Irish fishing through decentralisation. 900 small harbours and jetties were built at dispersed points around the country. Some of these were only two to six yards long. Grants were given to small fishermen, although no grant was available to buy a boat more than 46 feet long. This had the effect of sub sid ising the poor so that they could fish on a small scale, yet curtailed the potential growth of a Sizable inndustry. Despite all this, the export of Irish fish continued to threaten the big powers. Irish fish exports were mentioned in the American House of Representatives as late as 1910.

The British fishing industry, on the other hand, flourished from the inflow of capital from the City of London. Six large ports were built up (including Hull, Grirnsby and Aberrdeen), and these provided a good infraastructure for the building of a strong, centralised British fishing industry. Along with the usual private channels of capital, the British industry beneefitted from capital grants made by' the railway companies to fish retailers. In Ireland, the industry relied almost totally on the weak local capital of the fishermen themselves.

This situation continued after inndependence and 'Ireland depends mainly on meat as a source of protein, largely because of its agricultural tradition. In i 922, the amount of fish consumed annually per head of population, was 10 lbs. In 1977 this figure had only risen to 12 lbs. per year. Thereefore, fish were not presented as a sound investment.

The attitude of successive Irish governments was to view the developpment of fishing as a social service in line with the industry's history in impoverished areas. This was the conntext in which BIM was established, and the provision of grants and loans to fishermen wishing to buy boats remains one of their central activities to this day. There was, however; a change in 1964 when a more commerrcial policy was inaugurated.

In the 'thirties, an attempt has been made to capitalise the industry, but this failed largely because of a slump in fish prices 'during that decade.

FISHING INDUSTRY TODAY

The 1962 White Paper restructured BIM as a development body, rather than as an industrial one. In the last seven years, cumulative investment in the fishing fleet has grown to £17 m, and £45m has been targeted for fleet exxpansion in the next four years. Shore investment has also risen from a mere £250,000 in 1967 to £4.5mn 1976. Inthis period, on-shore employment has risen from 450 to 1,600.

Since BIM took on its new role, fish catches have increased significantly as have fish exports (which makes up 83 per cent of the total fish caught). In 1963, fish exports were valued at £1.7m; in 1969 at £3.6m; and in 1976 they were worth £20m. Between 1967 and 1976, the contribution of fishing to the .Irish economy increased from £4Vzm to £16Y2m, and the total number of jobs in the industry rose from 6,300 to 11,500.

Despite all this, the fishing industry remains hopelessly underdeveloped. Only two Irish ships are 'over' 110ft long and 'the average size remains 75-80 ft. Out of a total of 2,462 fishing vessels operating in 1976, only 189 were in excess of 50 tons. The latest year for which comparable figures are available for other countries is 1973. Ireland had no boats over 50 tons in that year, while England and Wales had 348; Spain 1,310; France 494 and the Netherlands 184.

In the processing sector too, Ireland is very weak. In Killybegs, only minimal on-shore salting is done. The value added on £12.8m worth of fish (landed value) was only £10m, bringing the total export value up to £22m. This backwardness has a two ofold effect. On the one hand, the job ratio of fishermen to processors (and others employed in the industry) is very low by European standards - 10: 8 fishermen to on-shore workers. In other EEC countries, the ratio is up to 1:3 or 1:4, which affects our employment situation adversely. On the other hand, imports of processed fish continue to increase and now account for 30 per cent of the yalue of our fish exports. This in itself demonnstrates the superiority and 'sophistiication of processing industries such as Birds Eye and Findus, in other countries.

FISH STOCKS

The problem has been exacerbated by a world-wide depletion of fish stocks because of over-exploitation of the sea. The absoiute drop in the world fish catch from 74 million tons per annum to 70 million tons per annum between 1970 and the middle of the decade, does not seem too significant. But when we remember that investment increased considerably in this period, to be met by lower absolute returns, the problem appears more grave. In Ireland the depletion of fish stocks has been most noticeable in the case of herring.

In 1973-74 the Irish herring catch was 11,000 tons, while in 1975 - 76 it dropped to 6,500 tons. Both herring and mackerel are easily over caught because of their sociable nature. They travel in shoals which can be easily located and netted by modern trawlers. (Whitefish tend to survive better as they travel individually). Herring shoals do not plummet the depths as other fish and therefore are relatively easy to net. The overall number of fish caught dropped by 27.5 per cent between 1973 and 1975.

Fish stocks have traditionally connstituted a renewable resource'. But the introduction of increasingly complex fish-finding equipment (some of which can 'pinpoint a single fish at 600 ft.), of smaller meshes (including environnmentally hazardous 'purse seine")',' and of vacuum methods for extraction, give even the smallest fish poor chance of escape. The comfortable spawning beds of the ocean have been invaded, and the cycle of nature broken, by factory ships from the Soviet Union, Poland and East Germany. Where stocks are severely depleted, it will take a five-year ban on fishing in those waters to allow the status quo to be attained.

The legal background to the fisherries controversies dates from the time that coastal rights were defended by cannon. This effectively esta blished a three . mile coastal zone, which later became accepted as the legal terriitonal-waters.

The situation changed with the London Convention of 1964. This took place following a dispute between the. British and the Icelanders on terriitorial rights. The Icelanders were anxious to protect fish stocks in the waters around its country, mainly from British boats. The British wanted to protect its rights of entry to its traditional fishing waters, especially as cheap food policy was a corner stone 'of British politics.

The London Convention established a 12 mile limit, but with certain exxceptions. In the Irish case, these exceptions allowed the French, Dutch, Spanish and British (although it was little availed of by the latter) to fish up to six miles off the Irish coast.

A Common Fisheries Policy was not a central issue within the EEC among the original 'Six', as there were little unexhausted fishing waters at stake. However, when negotiations with the British, Irish, Danes and Norwegians got under way seriously in 1971 and 1972, the 'original 'Six', in anticipation of the inevitable diffiiculties arising from the accession of two island states and of anothertwo states also with valuable fishing waters, passed a special regulation - This states simply that "if a 'Common' Fisheries Policy was not agreed to by 1982, then there would be open access right up' to members' coast lines.

Meanwhile there were developments on a broader scale. Several countries throughout the world were pressing the United Nations to standardise the territorial limits and to this purpose the UN called a La w of the Sea Connference in 1975. Though this failed to reach any overall agreement, it did lead' to several countries, including Canada, the United States and Russia, declaring a 200 mile limit.

In response to these developments, the. 'Nine' agreed in June 1976 to follow suit, and to each declare a 200 mile limit, effective from January 1 st, 19n. From that there followed negootiations with non-EEC countries on reciprocal rights of access to territorial waters. Ireland's right of veto over any 'third party' agreements is one of its primary 'levels' in the current negotiating on a joint fisheries policy.

In early 1976, the EEC Commission began to formulate a Common Fishheries Policy, which was first debated by the Council of Ministers at its meeting in The Hague in October, 1976.

One of the agreements at the Hague meeting was that member countries would have the right to take unilateral action to protect fish stocks, so long as these measures did not discriminate against other member states. But all the Commission proposals to date have involved fishing rights to all member countries in waters up to 6 miles from the coast, coupled with selective conservation measures.

The demand for a 50 mile limit has been consisstently put forward by all of the Irish interests conncerned: the Irish Fishermen's organisation, the I.T.G.W.U., Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. The 50 mile zone corresponds roughly to the continental shelf off Ireland. It is boundded on the north by 46.30 degrees north latitude, on the west by 12 degrees west longitude, on the south by 50.30 degrees north latitude and on the east by a median line which divides Ireland from Britain.

This continental shelf is most immportant for Ireland because it is here that most species of fish live and breed, and because Ireland has no deep sea fishing fleet. The IFO claim that only control by our national government can ensure the conservation and manageement of the industry.

The unilateral declaration by the Coalition government of a 50 - mile limit on all boats over 110ft. or 1,100 horse power last April was judged to 'appear discriminatory' by the European Court. An injunction orderring the suspension of the action was granted to the EEC Commission and this ruling has been backed by the Advocate General of the Court in his recent summing up of the case.

In our bid to derive concessions from the EEC Ministers, the main arguuments Ireland has used have been:

1. The importance of developing the industry in a relatively underveloped country such as ours. The need to harmonise the EEC economies has already been recognised and this is at the base of the Regional policy. Fishing contributes more, in percentage terms, to Irish Gross Domestic Prooduct, than it does in any other EEC state apart from Denmark (when Greenland is included). Even in commparison with Britain, it is twice as immportant relatively as the British fishing industry is.

2. Our special position as one of the main contributors of fishing waters to our partner states, many of whose waters are now closed from access. Charlie Haughey made this point forcefully in the Dail, when he said: 'Why should Irish fisheries, this one natural resource that our under-developed economy has at its disposal to develop, be thrown into a Communnity pool for the benefit of all the memmber states of the Community when German steel, British oil, Dutch gas, none of these are thrown into a community pool?'

These arguments have been reecognised as valid by the EEC Commisssion, but there is a stubborn refusal to concede coastal control. Quotas and licences are the suggested alterrnative. The IFO argue that quotas are 'unenforceable', and they point to the North Sea where quotas failed to work, leading eventually to a total ban on herring fishing in that area. They also argue that the Commission, succum bing to political pressure, has created 'paper fish' bringing quota figures above the scientifically agreed optimum. Although the quotas to Ireeland are generous (we are the only country which is being allowed to catch more fish than previously), the IFO argue that the fish are not there to back them. Licensing would be effective only if fish caught by foreign ships had to be landed in Irish ports. This would make surveillance easier and less costly, they say, since onnshore patrols could be emphasised.

FIANNA FAIL'S RECORD

Fianna Fail, while in opposition, relentlessly urged re-negotiation of the Treaty of Access, to allow the deeclaration of a 50 mile limit. Mr Dennis Gallagher (who was Fianna Fail's fisheries spokesman at the time) put it simply: 'We will continue to fight on this side of the House for a 50 mile coastal band. We cannot move one inch from that position. There is no other way we can expand and develop the industry.'

Michael O'Kennedy committed Fianna Fail to a deefinite line of action: 'When we come into government, we will seek to do as we have a right to do under the Treaty of Accession, under the rights we have as a coastal state to renegootiate the terms of the Treaty, having regard to the proovisions of Articles 103, so that the new regime. for our fishing industry and all the community will take account of the contribution we have made to that community since we signed in 1970, namely the contribution of 200 miles. Fianna Fail will renegotiate on that position.'

Mr Haughey put it more dramatically: 'If we hand over our coastal seas to the Commission, we can forget about the development of an Irish fishing industry. That is the naked brutal truth of the matter.' By introducing the Opposition 'Mariitime Jurisdiction Bill' in December 1976, Fianna Fail made their resolute attitude to the question of the 500mile limit an issue in last year's Geeneral Election.

While the European Court ponntificated on the Coalition's unilateral 500mile declaration, Fianna Fail, on entering government, denounced it as 'blatantly discriminatory'. In October 1977 Brian Lenihan (the new Governnment's Fisheries Minister) began using the term 'special zone' instead of 'exclusive zone', and raised the shackles of the IFO by using the phrase 'a limit of up to 50 miles' repeatedly. The current round of negotiations seems to lead towards a backing-down on Ireland's basic demand in favour of a Commission-proposed compromise.