Vol. 502 No. 5
5 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the steps, if any, taken or envisaged by his Department to fulfil the commitment made in An Action Programme for the Millennium to maximise the amount of fish processed to a second or higher level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8555/99]
I am firmly committed to supporting the development of the fish processing sector to deliver maximum returns from our fisheries resources and ensure that the economic benefits of our seafood exports accrue to Ireland in terms of value added. Continued strong growth in the fish processing sector is critical for jobs, growth, value added and exports in the Irish seafood industry overall. Fish processing output is on a steady upward growth curve and amounted to 145,000 tonnes in 1997, valued at £213 million. There are significant opportunities for further growth. A buoyant market exists for seafood in the EU and worldwide. Consumption will continue to follow an upward trend creating the opportunity to develop new products to satisfy market need and allowing the industry to move along the value chain.
Under the present Fisheries Operational Programme £25 million of investment involving more than £11 million in grant aid has been undertaken in the fish processing sector to maintain and enhance competitiveness. Grant aid support has been targeted, in particular in the past two years, at development projects delivering increased added value and new jobs. I recently announced grant aid for two major processing projects in counties Cork and Donegal supporting investment of £4.1 million.
There is still a great deal to be done to realise the full potential of the fish processing sector particularly in terms of quality, value added and scale. We add some 50 per cent to the value of our fish through processing. Other countries achieve up to 200 per cent in added value. Capacity expansion, product technology and product development in the processing sector will require significant levels of funding support, post 2000 and this is a key priority for me. The sound economics of supporting investment in this indigenous, natural resource-based sector are self evident. I welcome BIM's solid endorsement and analysis of the potential in its Seafood Industry Agenda 2000-2006 which underpins my assessment and which will be an invaluable input into the task of securing the necessary funding support for the sector, post 2000.
I compliment the Minister and his Department on the steady progress made in fish processing. Does the Minister agree that most of the major development investment has gone to the bigger ports at the expense of development in small ports? Does he have any plans to make a detailed examination of small fishery ports whose local communities depend on the fishing industry for their livelihood?
There is considerable potential in small ports, particularly in the area of aquaculture and the processing of aquaculture products. This is part of the proposal made by BIM on overall development, taking each sector separately to see what it can contribute. I see considerable scope for development in the hinterlands of some of the smaller ports. I do not envisage concentrating on the major ports. While large ports have a major part to play, the extra £3 million which was granted in this year's budget will help the development of small ports. This will be done on two fronts, on the one hand tourism and leisure and on the other, aquaculture. This investment will stimulate development and all sides will agree that it is worthwhile. There will be considerable development in small ports around the country. I foresee much opportunity in Donegal, for example. A one day seminar was held in that county recently and was attended by more than 200 people representing many fishing interests and highlighting the many opportunities for development in smaller ports and among small coastal communities as well as in major ports such as Killybegs and Greencastle. The opportunity exists for exciting development and we must make sure we take that opportunity.
Excluding industrial type fish such as blue whiting and horse mackerel, what percentage of fish caught off our coasts by Irish boats is processed and what percentage is exported unprocessed?
I do not have the percentages. The standard answer to questions such as this is that if Deputy Deasy puts down a Parliamentary Question the information will be given to him. The bulk of white fish is exported without further processing. A great opportunity exists in that area. The same is true of aquaculture produce, especially shellfish. People are engaged in processing at the moment and we know what needs to be done. It is expected that more people will come forward with proposals to develop processing in those sectors than there will be money available and so extra funds will be required. We must show what can be done and the employment which can be provided locally. Deputy Deasy will know of recent developments in Dunmore East which are of a high standard. The situation is best illustrated by the fact that we add, on average, 50 per cent to the value of fish through processing while many countries add up to 200 per cent. There is a huge difference between the value of processed and unprocessed fish.
Would the Minister agree that there are increasing difficulties in landing pelagic species in home ports, due first to the locations where they are caught and second, to the price structure within the country? Does he agree that it is very important to give every available assistance to fishermen to land as much as possible in home ports to increase the number of jobs in processing in home ports?
There is a difficulty in this area. The beginning of the catches tends to be near Norway and there is an area there in which Irish fishermen are not permitted to fish. The fish move gradually down nearer to the Donegal coast. The problem for the fisherman is that it is more economical for him to fish out near the coast of Norway and to land his catch in a Norwegian port. As the fish move down, it becomes more economical to land the catches in Killybegs.
We have a constant battle to maintain balance and to support the processing industry. We have shared out quotas over a period so that there is a continuous supply of fish. Some skippers of big vessels would rather catch fish at the early stage and land in a foreign port. We try to maintain a balance. I have responsibility for the management of the fishing industry and I try to do so in as fair a way as possible. That is the subject of some disagreement at the moment. I try to maintain a reasonable balance.
There is an essential conflict between the catchers and processors for the reasons I have given. Nevertheless, the catchers need the processors and the processors need the catchers so there has to be negotiation and agreement reached around the table. My Department does that to the point where the level of disagreement becomes too great. We listen to both sides and try to find a balance. It is then up to me, as Minister, to manage the fishery.
Would I be correct in saying all the funds available for processing have been used up? What is the average cost per job in the fish processing business? I understand it is more than £20,000 per job. Perhaps the Minister would give the actual figure if it is available. Was much of the processing that took place concerned with bringing the fish processing units up to minimum health and quality standards? To what degree are we moving towards having more successful companies like Green Isle Foods and the recently announced Bantry Mussels? In the next operational programme we should have a better chance of maximising that type of effort. Will the Minister agree many processing plants have been brought up to par at this stage?
I do not have the exact figure on the cost per job but I will get it for the Deputy. I would not disagree with the figure he mentioned. The importance of the jobs is that they are sustainable and they are in a market which has long-term opportunity. The European Union is only 52 per cent self-sufficient in fish and, mainly for health reasons, the market for fish, especially whitefish, is growing at a considerable pace internationally. There is a long-term future in processing fish.
In regard to the moneys being used up, to the best of my knowledge all the moneys have been allocated. We will have to consider how to deal with the other projects in the pipeline and I will do that shortly.
The Deputy is correct in relation to minimum standards. Much of the money in the early stage was absorbed in reaching the minimum standards required for the existing operations. That placed a heavy cost on the processors and absorbed a large proportion of the moneys available. That is one of the reasons we have the opportunity to go further because there is a great deal of ground to make up to reach the standards required. In the case of the aquaculture produce, the standard is critical and must be very high. We are in the strong position of having reached those standards. There is excellent quality control and that can be seen in Killybegs, Cork, Dunmore East and the other units throughout the country. It can also be seen in the market for the produce.
On the question of more successful companies, the BIM programme stated there was scope for that kind of development and for more successful companies if we combined the quality handling and processing of the produce and go for species that are the most beneficial. BIM sees considerable scope for further development on the Irish seafood market in the years ahead.
