A tangled web of deceptive bureaucracy, the 40-year-old Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is seen by the Irish fishing industry as a grossly unfair system of division of quotas and TACs, often earning it the nickname of the ‘Corrupt Fisheries Policy’ as it infamously benefits many EU Member States (and some non EU nations) but not Ireland, the one Member who actually owns the richest waters in Europe from which the rest are harvesting from.
Cormac Burke, IFSA
Life before the CFP and how the Hague Preferences were introduced
As reported by European Movement Ireland, the 1957 Treaty of Rome made no reference to a Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). However, Article 38(1) stated that fishery products were defined as agriculture products to cover their movement around the development of the Common Market.
This absence of a CFP at the time was due to the original Member States catching most of their fish in non-EEC waters, such as off the coast of Ireland - - but by March 1964 the London Fisheries Convention gave coastal states responsibility for a narrow belt of their own territorial waters. Ireland adopted this in September 1965 on the basis that a coastal State had exclusive fishing rights up to 6 nautical miles (nm) from around its coast.
From 6 to 12nm, fishing rights were given to states who had “habitually fished”, and the area beyond this limit was considered the high seas.
In advance of the first round of accession to EEC membership of countries who possessed rich fishing grounds, the EU adopted Regulation (EEC) No. 2141/70 in which Article 2(1) granted EEC-flagged vessels ‘equal conditions of access’ to Member State waters and it was claimed this principle was “designed to eliminate national discriminations, and equalise conditions of competition”.
However, Article 100 of the 1972 Treaty of Accession provided for a derogation of this until 31 December 1982. Until then, Member States could restrict fishing activities within 6nm.
At the same time, the United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which aimed to establish a legal framework for global marine and maritime activities, had been taking place in various rounds since 1956.
During the third round of UNCLOS talks, in 1973, the concept of a 200nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) emerged.
When Norway unilaterally announced that it would introduce its own 200nm EEZ from January 1977, the EEC was forced to respond and, in February 1976, the European Commission stated that any such extension by Member States “should be made on a Community basis” and that this would create “a Community zone, within which the Community would implement measures for the management of fish stocks”.
By late-1976, Member States had not objected to this principle and it was decided on 30 October 1976 at the Foreign Affairs Council of the EEC that “Member States, acting together, will extend their fishing limits to 200 miles as of January 1, 1977, including on the North Sea and Atlantic coast lines”.
Overnight, fisheries in the EEC moved from being a marginal policy to one that commanded a vast geographical area, requiring a highly technical policy framework ahead of its 31 December 1982 deadline.
After difficult negotiations, the Common Fisheries Policy was agreed on 25 January 1983 with Council Regulations (EEC) No 170/83 setting out a framework which is, to this day, based around four pillars:
The management of stocks in EU waters through Total Allowable Catches (TACs), based on ‘relative stability’, a fixed allocation key based on habitual fishing;
Ensuring market competition and standards are met to protect consumers;
Funding to assist EU fishing fleet and fishing communities;
International co-operation with non-EU countries on shared fisheries management.
(NOTE: No 4. ‘Shared Fisheries Management with non-EU countries’ is a particularly relevant point at this moment in time with Norway, Iceland & Faroe Islands repeatedly ignoring ICES advice on mackerel and continuing to overfish their quota by 40% every year) while the EU Commission takes no penalty action against them.)
.
Ireland’s position
The ‘Hague Preference’ is a mechanism under the CFP that was designed to adjust fish quota allocations to take account of the needs of certain fisheries dependent areas in northern parts of the UK and in the Republic of Ireland.
According to ‘Fishing for a Future - The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy’ - a paper produced in 2009 by the Institute of International and European Affairs - when the agreed allocation key was applied to the 1982 TACs for the seven main commercial fish species, Ireland’s quota share (expressed as a percentage of Cod Equivalent in Community waters) amounted to 4.4% compared to 36.6% for the UK, 23% for Denmark, 13.4% for West Germany, 13.4% for France and 7.3% for the Netherlands.
Of the Member States bordering on the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea only Belgium at 2.1% had a smaller share than Ireland.
Were it not for the Hague Agreement the Irish share would have been a mere 2.2% which would have been more or less the same as Belgium.
“Under the new dispensation, Irish fish landings grew to between 165,000-217,000 tonnes by the early 1980s, which was more than twice the 1975 level of 75,000 tonnes and this in turn compared with total Irish landings of a mere 25,000 tonnes in 1963,” said the report, adding that despite Ireland’s laudable negotiating achievement at The Hague, any allocation key that was largely reliant on recent historic performance was bound to eventually mitigate against a country with such a low base in the first place.
The stark reality
As stated above, Irish fish landings had grown to over 200,000 tonnes by the early 1980s, but the latest BIM Irish seafood report (for 2023) records that Ireland’s landings were, in total, some 186,200 tonnes last year but notably this includes approximately 65,000 tonnes of blue whiting and other species such as boarfish which were not a commercially fished species by Ireland back in 1980 - - and so, when deducting blue whiting and boarfish from last year’s landings, this leaves the glaring fact that, far from the EU Commission’s claim that the Irish fishing industry has “evolved and developed” since the introduction of the CFP, Ireland, despite still in possession of the richest waters in Europe has in reality lost more than 60% of its valuable demersal and pelagic quotas whilst other EU Member States appear to have strengthened their share over the same period.
As for The Hague Preferences, it would appear that Ireland is still being denied its full entitlement as the terms of the original agreement states that Ireland’s heavy dependence on the stocks fished in Irish waters means that there would be protection and additional ‘ring-fenced’ quota made available when overall EU TACs fall below a certain level - - and it should be remembered that The Hague Preference ‘deal’ was a cornerstone of Ireland’s agreement to grant other EU Member States access to Ireland’s EEZ.
As Brexit was happening there were muted calls for the UK’s Hague Preferences to be transferred to Ireland (considering Ireland had to surrender over 25% of its fish quotas as part of the EU/UK Brexit deal) - - but this suggestion seems to have not even been given consideration by the EU Commission.
Despite being a cornerstone of the deal of Ireland giving access to other EU Member States to Irish waters, the principles that prompted the introduction of the Hague Preferences seem to have diluted into nothing over the years
Meanwhile, since Brexit, the benefit that Ireland receives from it Hague Preference has been reduced, or lost and, according to the BIM CFP Review Group Report 2022, this ongoing situation is in contradiction with the CFP objective which states that “the relative stability of fishing activities, given the temporary biological situation of the stocks, should safeguard and take full account of the particular needs of regions where local regions are dependent on fisheries, as defined by the Council, Annex VII, 3 November 1976”.
In June of this year the EU Commission launched a consultation to “assess the effectiveness of the CFP” - - and no doubt it will look at the same agenda as in the 2013 CFP ‘reform’: environmentally sustainable fisheries; protection of marine ecosystems; the fight against IUU (illegal fishing); and seafood marketing regulations…
… it would appear that nowhere in their consultation plans is there a proposal to recognise the elephant in the room and to closely examine the corrupt system that sees Ireland having less and less available catch each year while all other Member States (and certain non EU nations) are being given increased shares of fish in Irish waters.
As part of any considered ‘reform’ of the CFP the exact status of Ireland’s Hague Preferences must be looked at closely, given that the most important point is that this was a mechanism to protect our special status in terms of the huge fishing opportunity we were providing to the rest of the EU.
The principles that prompted the introduction of the Hague Preferences seem to have diluted into nothing over the years and it is now time to demand that the EU Commission examines some serious issues:
Exactly what species are covered by the Hague Preferences?
What is the trigger levels for those species?
Should species such as Blue Whiting, Boar Fish and Horse Mackerel not now be included for the same reasons? They were not important in the 1970's and 80's but are extremely important to Ireland now and the majority of both are caught in Irish waters;
How does the mechanics of The Hague Preference work? Is it a clear numeric 'floor' that we cannot drop below (which is what it seems the intention was) - or is there 'horse trading' before the actual benefit is implemented? It would seem that it is the latter that is the case;
Has Ireland always demanded its Hague Preferences when triggers are reached? If not then why not? Surely the triggers are constantly reached otherwise the floors were not set at the appropriate levels;
Have The Hague Preferences for all/any EU Member State adjusted in the aftermath of BREXIT? - - again, if not then why not?
These and many more such questions must be asked of the EU Commission by Ireland’s Marine Minister and his DAFM officials - - these questions, and, the EU’s response, must be made available to the public.
Comments