Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 2024

Pre-Agriculture and Fisheries Council: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

All witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have full defence in any defamation action about anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the direction of the Chair. Witnesses should follow the directions of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by you outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses, or an official, either by name, or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to members participating online in the committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in a member having their online access removed.

The purpose of the first session of this evening's meeting is the pre-Agriculture and Fisheries Council engagement with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue. The Minister is accompanied by his officials: Ms Sinéad McSherry, who is an assistant secretary general in the seafood and marine division; Ms Anna O'Sullivan, who is a principal officer in the sea-fisheries policy and management division; Dr. Ciaran Kelly, who is the director of fisheries ecosystem advisory services with the Marine Institute, Ms Michelle Twomey of the seafood policy and development division and Dr. Emmet Jackson of Bord Iascaigh Mhara's economic and strategic services unit.

I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting. The Minister's opening statement has been circulated to the members. I will allow the Minister five minutes to read it or give a synopsis of it and then we will proceed to a question-and-answer session.

In that respect, I welcome the Commission's recent proposal to amend the 2012 regulation on measures to address unsustainable fishing of shared stocks by non-EU countries.

Moving on to the sustainability impact assessment itself, an open consultation process was initiated on 16 September, whereby stakeholders were asked to submit their comments and observations on the ICES scientific advice for fish stocks for 2025 and on the European Commission's communication "Sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2025" and its accompanying staff working document. Five submissions to the public consultation were received and will be published on the fishingnet.ie website.

In addition, I convened a meeting of fisheries stakeholders on 9 October. The purpose of this meeting was to give a further opportunity to stakeholders to outline their positions on the many aspects of the communication and the scientific advice. I thank all stakeholders for their contributions to this impact assessment. The stakeholders set out a range of positions. However, there were also many commonalities. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed through the consultation process, all of which, I consider, have the same objective of sustainable fishing and the protection of our fishing resource and our marine ecosystem for future generations. Stakeholders highlighted their concerns regarding mackerel and other vulnerable stocks, citing the need to take steps to rebuild and protect these stocks. The importance of setting TACs in accordance with fishing at maximum sustainable yield was underlined.

The Marine Institute and BIM have made invaluable contributions to the assessment of the ICES advice, which is contained in the sea-fisheries sustainability impact assessment before the committee today. I would like to briefly set out the findings contained in this assessment. From a purely biological perspective, the Marine Institute's view, which coincides with the ICES view, is that there has been an improvement in the status of some fish stocks. However, others remain a concern. In the impact assessment, the Marine Institute summarises the pressure on the 74 stocks which will be dealt with in the 2025 stock book, and compares this assessment with the same evaluation presented in previous years' stock books. The number of sustainably fished stocks for 2024 is 39. In terms of percentages, this is an increase from 50% of all stocks to 53%. The number of stocks fished above maximum sustainable yield is currently 17. The number of stocks with unknown status remains at 18.

While challenges remain, it is welcome to see the general improvement in stocks over time. As recently as 2013, only 20 of these stocks were sustainably fished. Last year this increased to 39. The specific details for all stocks are available in the sustainability impact assessment before the committee today. Further information on the fish stocks of interest to Ireland are available in the stock book, which is prepared annually by the Marine Institute and is available on its website.

As I indicated earlier, BIM has based the socioeconomic assessment on the ICES advice, where available. In cases where the ICES advice is not yet available, or where ICES had provided zero catch advice, an estimate based on last year's TACs was assumed, so that the assessment of these stocks could be carried out.

ICES advice for nephrops, otherwise known as prawns, is expected to be released on 31 October. In advance of the advice, to assist consideration of the stocks in the Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea, different scenarios of an increase of 10% or decrease of 5% were examined, as this is an important stock for our fishing industry. Therefore, it is important to highlight that BIM's estimates may change, depending on the final TACs agreed between the EU and UK. As this advice is for single stock assessment, we can expect significant changes for stocks in mixed fisheries where a particular stock is depleted. This is the case for cod stocks around the coast. The TACs for demersal stocks where cod is a by-catch will be set to support the protection and rebuilding of such depleted stocks.

Overall, if the TACs were to be agreed on the basis of the assumptions I have mentioned, we would see a net increase in fishing opportunity of 9% by volume in tonnes and an increase of 6% by value. For the demersal whitefish sector, this would mean an increase of 26% in volume of fishing activity and an increase in 16% by value. For the pelagic sector, this would result in an increase of 4% by volume but a 3% reduction by value, with a direct income reduction of €3.6 million. This is due primarily to the reduction in the mackerel TAC, even with the proposed increase in the horse mackerel quota and its associated increased value.

With regard to the processing and ancillary sectors, in addition to the direct losses to the fleet through quota reductions, income would also be lost to the processing sector as a direct result of reduced catches, and to a number of ancillary industries, such as net making, chandlery, engineering and refrigeration. Quota reductions obviously have a knock-on effect for employment, and BIM further estimates that these reductions could impact 38 full-time equivalent jobs. This could occur either through reduced incomes, partial lay-offs or redundancies in the seafood sector. The upstream impact of this, considering indirect and induced effects of the broader seafood sector, is potentially 99 employees.

The Hague preferences, which are additional amounts of quota that Ireland claims for important whitefish stocks when the TACs fall below set levels, are negotiated annually at the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council. Following the UK's withdrawal from the EU, Ireland is now the only party that benefits from the Hague preferences, which further complicates matters. We cannot take the Hague preferences for granted. Many member states object strenuously to their application as the additional quota for Ireland comes off their allocations. These objections are intensifying in the face of quota reductions in other member states arising from both the trade and co-operation agreement and reductions due to scientific advice. Ensuring that the preferences are applied will be a key political objective of mine in these negotiations.

The sea-fisheries sustainability impact assessment before us today provides an important overview of the state of stocks and possible implications for 2025. I thank and acknowledge all those who contributed to the production of this impact assessment. While the impact assessment is based on the ICES advice rather than the TACs proposed by the Commission, it does highlight the potential for significant impacts on the fishing industry. There are some stocks where ICES has issued advice for catches. However, with the implementation of the landing obligation and the requirement to land all catches, including by-catches, from such stocks this would lead to choke situations in mixed fisheries. The EU and UK previously established specific TACs for by-catches of these stocks. They highlight the difficultly of fishing all stocks in a mixed fishery at maximum sustainable yield at the same time. We need to strike a balance between the potential for severe socioeconomic impacts and the need to achieve good environmental status for these stocks. I will be supportive of a similar situation as was taken in previous years for these vulnerable stocks.

I thank Dr. Emmet Jackson from BIM, Dr. Ciaran Kelly from the Marine Institute and my team for putting this together. I thank committee members for taking the time to come in and engage today. This is an important engagement on how we step forward to get the best outcome possible for our fisheries sector for the remainder of this year and for next year's catches.

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Charlie McConalogue) I welcome this opportunity to present the sustainability impact assessment, SIA, of fishing opportunities for 2025 to the committee. I am joined by Dr. Emmet Jackson, Dr. Ciaran Kelly, Ms Sinéad McSherry, Ms Anna O'Sullivan and Ms Michelle Twomey.

As in previous years, a thorough assessment has been undertaken to examine the implications for Ireland of the potential fishing opportunities for the coming year. The SIA is an essential step in Ireland’s preparation for the negotiations on setting total allowable catches, TAC.

As has been the case for the last number of years, scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, has been used as the basis for the SIA. This allows for input from stakeholders, analysis by Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, and the Marine Institute and the views of the Oireachtas in time for the start of the TAC-setting process. Approximately 40 of Ireland’s fish stocks, which were previously exclusively EU resources, are now shared resources, most shared with the UK. The Commission has the sole competence to negotiate with third countries, including the UK, on behalf of the EU on the setting of fishing opportunities for shared stocks. The bilateral negotiations between the Commission, on behalf of the EU, and the UK will begin on 5 November, and I will go into more detail on these consultations in a moment.

The waters surrounding Ireland contain some of the most productive fishing grounds in the EU and they must be managed responsibly and sustainably. It is important to recognise the continued efforts and commitment of our fishers in this regard. While we are seeing progress in terms of the overall trend of improvements in the sustainability of fish stocks, a number of important stocks are still in a vulnerable state.

Regarding the EU-UK consultation, which I mentioned earlier, the bilateral consultations with the UK for 2025 for shared stocks will begin on 5 November. The SIA process and the committee's input will help to develop Ireland’s position during these upcoming negotiations. My team and I will be fully engaged at EU level to ensure that Ireland’s interests are recognised and pursued with the Commission negotiating team. We are hopeful that agreement can be reached in time to allow the outcome to be discussed at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 9 and 10 December and feed into the TAC and quota regulation for 2025. If an EU-UK agreement is not secured, there is provision under the trade and co-operation agreement to set provisional TACs applying from 1 January. While this situation is not ideal, if needed it provides certainty and continuity for our fishing industry in the new year.

With regard to coastal states, the management arrangements for three migratory species in the north-east Atlantic in which Ireland has an interest - blue whiting, atlanto-scandian herring and mackerel - are negotiated by means of a coastal states' framework between the parties in whose waters significant concentrations of these stocks are to be found and who have normally had a track record in the fishery. There are currently no international sharing arrangements in place for these three coastal state stocks. Discussions among the coastal state parties on new sharing arrangements have been continuing throughout 2024, with the most recent round in September. I have been clear on the need to agree on sharing arrangements that respect the proper share of the EU, and in turn Ireland, of the global TAC for these stocks. The coastal states' consultations on setting the 2025 TACs began yesterday; starting with blue whiting and continuing until October 22, covering atlanto-scandian herring and mackerel. In a worrying development, ICES has advised a 22% reduction in the mackerel TAC for 2025.

I have consistently articulated my serious concerns regarding the actions of coastal states such as Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland in setting unsustainable, unilateral quotas for mackerel. We are now seeing the inevitable outcome of those actions. At the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council I have repeatedly highlighted the need for the EU to adopt a strong position to protect our shared stocks and to use all available tools so that there are real and effective consequences for such unacceptable behaviour.

Deputy Michael Collins

I welcome the Minister and the officials who are here today. The main bulk of my questions come from the fishing sector. Last week, when I met some officials I said I had been at a meeting a few days previously. It was the AGM of the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation. The best people to educate me are the fishermen on the ground. If we were speaking about farming, it would be the farmers. Several weeks ago, the worst fears of the pelagic fishermen were yet again realised when the ICES advice on mackerel was once again to cut the TAC by 22%. Why should countries such as Ireland have to suffer further cuts when they have been fishing based on the scientific advice?

Irish fishermen were dealt a blow when Brexit brought about a 25% slash in mackerel TACs. Last Christmas they were given a payment, which was the equivalent of one year's loss for the lifetime loss of the quota. With ever-increasing costs, something needs to be done to help these businesses. Some of these vessel owners made massive investments in renewing their vessels. They have been dealt this hammer blow.

There is huge frustration. Their argument to me is that Ireland is not standing up and not allowing Norway access to the rich fishing ground off the west coast of Ireland. In the spring of 2025, Norway will want to harvest 200,000 or maybe 300,000 tonnes of blue whiting. It looks to me sometimes a bit like agriculture and the Mercosur deal. Will we be sold down the Swanee eventually? That is my worry about the Mercusor deal when it comes to beef. It looks like the fishermen have been sold down the river to Norway and others. Why, I cannot understand.

When will there be a proper fight by this Government for our fishermen? Ireland is slightly over 3% of the TAC for blue whiting, 68,000 tonnes, and the vast majority of that stock is born and bred in our waters. Where is the backbone for Ireland to stand up in Europe and seek zonal attachment for fish in our waters? Why can Ireland not make a claim for 30% of the blue whiting and still be fishing within the TAC? It is no different from what the Norwegians have done in mackerel fishing. This is how the Brexit deal was done. Zonal attachment was used. Why can it not be the same when trying to protect our fishermen in rural communities? What is the Minister doing about this? Are he and our Government just going to sit back and allow this reckless overfishing by Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland? Why is the EU not putting sanctions in place to stop this? Will the Minister help out these fishermen with an aid package? That is not the ask of Michael Collins but the ask from the fishermen out there.

I would like to talk about BIM too, but maybe we will finish there first and talk about BIM after, if that is okay.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

This is the biggest challenge by far in the context of the scientific advice for this year, which is the 22% in terms of the amount of quota reduction that should be there in terms of the overall stock for all mackerel fish caught next year. As the Deputy says, it is our most important fishery. We have 50% of the EU quota for mackerel, but it is a shared stock and it does travel. It is one of the three stocks, along with horse mackerel and blue whiting, that travel between waters. Mackerel, in particular, I think, spawn off the south-west coast of Ireland. They then, over the course of the year, make their way up to north of Norway and make their way back down then to the south coast of Ireland. They are, therefore, in different countries' waters at different times over the course of the year.

As regards their being fished sustainably at maximum sustainable yield, the maximum sustainable yield is basically the scientific threshold for how much you can catch of any one fish stock in a year that will ensure the fish stock stays healthy and its breeding is not undermined nor does it lead to its replacement and that its stays strong into the future. The advice the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, has given for every stock is what that level should be for next year, and that is based on its assessment of the current numbers of the stock.

What we have seen with mackerel over recent years is absolutely unacceptable fishing and exploitation of the stock by Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. They have been setting their own TACs, their own catches, which are higher than what the track record and advised maximum sustainable yield should be. What we now see as regards ICES is an advised reduction in that stock for next year, which is the inevitable consequences of fishing it unsustainably. I have raised this repeatedly at EU level. I will take a very strong line on it again at this December's Fisheries Council and insist that, at EU level we must, in terms of our political engagements with Norway and other coastal states, emphasise and double down on this unacceptable behaviour and look at how we ensure there are consequences for irresponsible fishing and TAC setting of the mackerel quota. In particular, we must seek to have penalties in place for countries that are not fishing it appropriately. This 22% reduction as regards the scientific advice this year comes on the back of Brexit, where mackerel was the stock that was most impacted, with a 26% reduction in our mackerel as a result of Brexit. That is the approach I will take at the negotiations. I will also take on board the comments made by Deputy Collins and other Members here today as regards their perspective on this.

Deputy Collins mentioned zonal attachment and questioned our approach. He mentioned that the UK took that approach in respect of Brexit. One of the UK's key arguments for leaving the EU was that it wanted zonal attachment, which basically means that its quota would equal all fish that are caught in its waters. It sought that. It pressed the nuclear button and left the EU and had that as one of its key negotiating outcomes but, despite that, still did not get zonal attachment. The outcome of Brexit was that the UK got about a quarter, 25%, of what it was seeking. That was still far too much, in my view, because our objective was to try to ensure there was no fish as part of the deal but, unfortunately, there was. Even though the UK pressed the nuclear button and left the EU, it still did not get the zonal attachment it had presented as one of its objectives in encouraging the public to vote for Brexit in the first place. The challenge with the likes of mackerel and horse mackerel and blue whiting is that they do not stay in the same waters over the course of the year. At any one time, they are in different countries' waters. Therefore, these other countries are saying that when they are in their waters, they are taking a catch level, which is not representative of their previous track records and which is not in line with the scientific advice. That is an approach that will only lead to one outcome, which is the depletion of the stocks. We must work in every way we can to make sure that is stopped.

Deputy Michael Collins

As I said, this is how the Brexit deal was done. Zonal attachment was used. Why can it not be the same when trying to protect our fishermen now? That is the argument they are making. It is reckless overfishing by Norway, the Faroes and Iceland. The Minister can put forward the argument that we are part of the EU, but why is the rest of the EU not putting sanctions in place to stop this?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

That is something I will be taking to the EU Council table again, that at overall EU level there must be repercussions where an irresponsible approach is being taken to fisheries, including access to the Single Market and putting that consideration on the table too.

Deputy Michael Collins

If Irish fishermen do not come out well from this, it will lead to disaster. It is a disaster at present, as well the Minister knows. We have had many a debate on it.

I mentioned this last week and there are loads of other issues on which the Minister is to come back to me - I accept that - but there is great frustration that there is a lack of communication. Apparently, there was a great communication link between BIM and the local fishermen. Many of the vessel owners especially are in limbo with the new grant aid package. They are very happy with the grant aid when they get it but they do not know if they will get it. They are doing up their vessels. It is costing a lot of money. We could be talking about €50,000, €60,000 or €80,000 here, and the grant is about 50%, I think. Is that what they are told? While they will get an acknowledgement, they are not sure whether they are going to get the money. Before, they had communication with someone who could clarify all that. That is gone, and there is great frustration among the fishermen. As I said, they are not complaining about the amount of grant aid - they are quite happy about that - but about the lack of communication. It is the same as anybody else. Do you invest in doing up your vessel, or can you do so? Are you going to get the grant or not? They would really appreciate a bit of open dialogue. As I said, it was there before, apparently. It is not there as it used to be. Will fishermen get that grant or what is the story?

Dr. Emmet Jackson

Those details are not included in the sustainable impact assessment we are discussing today, but I am very happy to get a response for the Deputy from the sector within BIM that looks after grants and bring it back to the committee, if that is okay.

Deputy Michael Collins

I greatly appreciate that. There are other issues but I will not bring them up. I am to be contacted about them.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

The Minister will probably be aware of the press statement that was issued by the Irish Fish Producers Organisation, IFPO, yesterday.

I am sure the group thought long and hard before issuing it but I do not see how it had any choice. The key demand is to ban Norway and other non-EU states from fishing in Irish waters unless there is a reciprocal exchange in fish quotas for us. When he was here last year, the Minister criticised the behaviour of Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland, for blatant overfishing. These concerns have been raised repeatedly. I am looking at correspondence from the Pelagic Advisory Council. This correspondence was sent to Ms Charlina Vitcheva, the director general of the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG MARE. I have correspondence from August 2022, April 2023 and July 2024. The council has repeatedly expressed its serious concerns about inflated quotas and the practice of overfishing with no regard to ICES. This is a migratory species. It is a precious resource that spawns off the coast of Ireland and then works its way up the Atlantic. It is shocking there have been no repercussions, despite this utterly reckless behaviour, which, in fairness to him, the Minister has spoken out about, and that, indeed, they are only rewarded.

The IFPO talks in its statement about a deal the EU signed that permits Norway to fish almost 200,000 metric tonnes of blue whiting in Ireland's EU fishing waters, waters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Common Fisheries Policy. In comparison, Ireland is permitted to catch less than 60,000 metric tonnes. In terms of value, Norway's deal is worth about €50 million while Ireland's quota in our own waters is worth €15 million. The Irish fisherman must play by the rules because they fall under the Common Fisheries Policy while reckless rule-breakers get rewarded with multiples of our quota of blue whiting.

I do not believe the Minister will dispute anything I have said. It is really sickening for an industry that lost so much as a result of Brexit to now face another 22% cut. The Minister estimates this could amount to approximately 100 jobs lost. He will know where those jobs are lost, which is mostly, but not solely, in our own constituency of Donegal.

I want talk about what we need to do about this. There have been repeated warnings and those warnings have come true, which will have devastating consequences for our industry. As to the approach, the decisions on allocations and so on are made by qualified majority voting. Is there any form of veto? Is there any action we can take to convey our concern - in fairness, the Minister has spoken out about this - and ask how in the name of God you can recklessly ignore the science and recklessly overfish, with devastating consequences for a member state of the European Union, and yet that very Union and Commission rewards those involved with an allocation of blue whiting? This cannot stand. What actions can the Minister take to raise the ante about all of this at European level?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The arrangement in respect of Norway's access to European waters has been in place since the eighties, that is, for about 40 years, and it comes up for negotiation every year. Over the past four years, each time it has come up for negotiation, I have taken a very hard line on the fact it is primarily Irish waters that are accessed and those members states benefiting from the access should be the ones to pay for it. We have seen a reduction in the blue whiting transfer to the benefit of Ireland. I have also succeeded in excluding Norway from the Irish box and further restricting its access to Irish waters. I have also consistently raised the issue of unsustainable fishing and I will very ardently do so again. I have to work with other member states to get a final position on it, and I will seek to do that. Different member states have different views. The swap arrangements that are in place have formed an important part of other member states' fisheries for many years so they will obviously have a view on the matter. My view of what is happening is very clear, however. It is not just Norway. It is also the Faroe Islands and Iceland. They have no access to Irish waters. I have ardently resisted that and taken a very hard line on any potential access for Iceland, something that has been mooted over recent years. I have led out at European level in taking a very strong line on that. As a result, there has been no deal with Iceland. I have also sought to restrict and reduce the arrangements in place with Norway to the benefit of Ireland. This is the most significant manifestation of the impact of unsustainable fishing of the mackerel stock we have seen. People need to sit up and take note. We need to respond very strongly in the approach we take.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

The Minister would agree that any reasonable member state would recognise that Ireland took the biggest hit from Brexit. The burden sharing never happened. We heard that burden sharing might happen but it did not. It is not good enough to say we received Brexit adjustment reserve funding. We have to sustain our industry. We are telling people that they must respect the science. We all agree that we need to sustain our fishing stocks and so we do need to respect the science. We can challenge the methodology but we need some rules. Can we utilise the Hague preferences to mitigate these losses in respect of mackerel? Can they be deployed in that way?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I have always sought to ensure we apply the Hague preferences and that will be my objective again going into this EU Council meeting. We are obviously the only state they now apply to but they are really important to us and I will be seeking to apply them again.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

It is the Minister's assessment that about 100 jobs will be lost due to this loss of quota. The industry would say the impact will be a loss of approximately €10 million. The Minister knows about the crisis in fish production across the State. Would he be willing to make a case for the Hague preferences to be deployed to reduce the impact Ireland will face as a result of the changes in respect of mackerel?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I will certainly be looking at following that up. What I want to achieve here is an outcome that delivers the maximum return in terms of fish for next year. That is something I will pursue at European level. The mackerel issue is a real hit as regards the scientific advice on it. On the plus side, we will have a quota for horse mackerel again this year. That has been an important pelagic fishery for Killybegs and pelagic boats over recent years. We did not have a horse mackerel fishery last year or the year before, and that was a real loss. We will, thankfully, have one this year, and that will be important in mitigating that 22% reduction in the mackerel quota, although that reduction is a real hit. Overall, the sustainability impact assessment shows that the pelagic sector will see an increase of 4% by volume but a 3% reduction by value, which will result in a direct income reduction of €3.6 million. There is an improvement in the situation with horse mackerel and with boarfish, where we will also see a quota this year. That certainly does not fully mitigate the impact on income arising from the change to the mackerel quota.

An Cathaoirleach

We will suspend the meeting for a vote in the Chamber. Deputy Mac Lochlainn will have a further five minutes when we come back.

Sitting suspended at 6.20 p.m. and resumed at 6.46 p.m.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

The next thing I want to talk about is pollock. The Minister will know about Muireann Kavanagh, a teenage girl from Arranmore Island, County Donegal who fishes pollock from a hook and line, which would be the most low intensity form of fishing there is other than using a rod in the river. She would fish for pollock, and it is not just in Arranmore but in different parts of the coast. The inshore sector relied on pollock. I have raised the issue through parliamentary questions. There are some complexities, as I understand it, in that the Minister has to co-operate with other countries, namely, Britain and France, to review this. There is, however, a view in the inshore sector that the methodology was questionable. There is also the issue of the bycatch. To prevent a choke situation, vessels that are fishing for whitefish are being allowed to have pollock as a bycatch. Therefore a degree of pollock is allowed to be caught. Why can some arrangement not be made for people who are using hook and line to have some degree of allowance, some amount of tonnage, given that pollock is allowed to be caught through the bycatch? I want to get some sense of that.

The Minister will have met with inshore fishermen on the issue of north west herring. I would be criticised heavily if I did not raise this today because it is a topical issue at the moment. The issue is that the inshore sector has an agreement for an allocation. It has been an open fishery and the total allowed is 350 tonnes, out of a total of 7,000 tonnes. I want to get a sense of the methodology behind how this is arrived at. Apparently there is about 150,000 or 160,000 tonnes of herring but we are only allowed to catch 7,000. I want to get a sense as to why the exploitation of that fishery is so low.

Most pertinent to the inshore sector is why they are being asked to book in. The Minister met with them, as did I. They called a meeting and I and Deputy Thomas Pringle as well as three local county councillors attended the meeting. There is real concern that what they understood was clearly there in the directive and the regulations means they now have to book in and there is a reduction of something like 100 tonnes in the fishery. They feel that breaks the agreement and the conditions they were operating in. Obviously, they were not happy with 350 tonnes but they were working within those parameters in an open fishery. I want to get a sense of what can be done. Can a solution be found on that issue?

To summarise, why are we only allocated 7,000 tonnes of herring? Can it be an open fishery? Can it be 350 tonnes for the inshore sector? What do we do about pollock for the people who want to fish with a hook and line? Is there some way of finding a solution for a sustainable fishery, a small allocation that will allow them to fish pollock, given we are allowing pollock as a bycatch?

I want to get a sense about how much pollock is being caught. What is the registered catch for pollock under that bycatch arrangement?

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn. On the questions previous to the interlude to facilitate the voting, had we covered those questions reasonably?

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I think so. It was discussed that we try to use the Hague preferences to challenge Norway and, indeed, its access to our blue whiting fishery when the DG requests it. I think the Minister has covered it.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank the Deputy. The two key questions here are on pollock and north-west herring. I will bring in Dr. Kelly from the Marine Institute in a moment on the pollock question because it is a good opportunity to get an insight into the scientific advice around it and its different aspects. I will also bring in Ms O’Sullivan on the north-west herring aspect.

First, on the pollock piece, there was no target in fishery last year and there is no target in fishery advised in the ICES advice this year. This is a stock which goes right around. It is not that it is just around the west coast of Donegal; it goes right around the Irish coast and the Celtic Sea. It is a also shared stock with the UK.

Hook and line would be a targeted fishery. There is the challenge then in catching other quotas of fish similar to, say, cod where there is no quota for it. If one did not give one small bycatch there, those stocks would also be choked. That is the challenge there. I know it is a challenge for the inshore sector and I would very much like to see it reopened. It would be great to see it reopened but we must take the scientific advice on it on board.

I will ask Ms O'Sullivan to give an overview of the north-west herring. I know there are different views among fishers on it. We set up a North-West Herring Advisory Committee and I see that it issued comments in the past number of days taking a different view from that of the National Inshore Fishermen Association, NIFA, and the National Inshore Fisheries Forum, NIFF. It was positive that last year was the first year we had a north-west herring fishery in a good few years. It had only been a scientific fishery up to that. That is along with the spurdog fishery being reopened. It was one of the positives in seeing stocks recover. Obviously, there are contested views as to the share and different views among fishers as to how the fishery is managed. We have to take as fair an approach as possible in regard to the approach being taken. I will ask Ms O'Sullivan to speak further on that. Perhaps Dr. Kelly might give an overview of the key considerations with regard to the pollock issue.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

And the herring and why it is only 7,000 tonnes.

Dr. Ciaran Kelly

Addressing pollock first, the assessment for pollock, which I think it came as a surprise to people, was on the basis of a change of the assessment ICES had given. There was some information in the public domain which people did not understand clearly. There was a confusion about the kind of surveys used on the basis of the advice. To clarify, some people had thought that beam trawl surveys were used but one does not catch pollock in beam trawls. That would be true. The surveys used were not beam trawl surveys but bottom trawl surveys. Even though those bottom trawl surveys would not be a primary fishing method for pollock, pollock was caught in those surveys. The information over ten years was looked at by ICES. It is statistically robust in indicating a decline but it is not that information alone. It is the surveys but it is also the catch data. Subsequent to that, we have looked at gill net surveys which one has to modify in a different way. Gill nets do catch pollock quite successfully. We have seen the same decline in the gill net catches of pollock. The signal we have is not just in the surveys. It is in the surveys, in the catches, and as the Minister said, it is over a very wide area. The pollock, which is fished off the north-west of Ireland, is a stock which exists from the west of Scotland right the way down into the Celtic Sea. France and the UK fish that stock as well as Ireland. It is the combination of those data which are put together.

To add to that, the Marine Institute and the Department are working very hard to upgrade the assessment on that. Much work has been done in the current year to move that assessment forward next year and to get a better outcome but that outcome will take several years to do. The assessment, as we would have it from the Marine Institute perspective, is robust at the moment.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

On the herring, why do we just get 7,000 tonnes on that fish?

Dr. Ciaran Kelly

On herring, as I understand it, and I do not have the record here in front of me, herring was again a precautionary TAC instituted in the case where the stock was at a very low rate. That TAC was set such that there could be a limited fishery on herring. That was the basis for the TAC that was set for north-west herring for a number of years. It would not be set on the basis of trying to exploit the stock at maximum sustainable yield because the stock was not in good condition. It was done in order that some information would come through. If one suspends fishing on a stock, in some cases, one can end up with limited information which hampers an assessment in the long term.

Ms Anna O'Sullivan

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the Deputy. I will clarify the point on the 7,000 tonnes and the cut-off point referred to in the Minister's decision. Ireland's quota for 2024 is 2,064 tonnes. That was the initial quota under the TAC and quota regulation. As Dr. Kelly mentioned, from 2016 to 2022, there was only a scientific fishery in place for that north-west herring stock to allow samples to be taken to be able to monitor the stock. For 2023, the advice was that the stock could be operated as a commercial fishery again.

The Minister decided that there were sufficient grounds to justify a review of the 2012 herring policy. The 2012 herring policy had set out that there was 5% of the quota set aside for vessels under 20 m that did not have a qualifying track record for an open fishery. When that was set back in 2012, there was the expectation that Ireland would have a reasonable quota in the years going forward. Obviously, the state of the stock did not support that for a number of years. We are still not back to the same levels. Following the public consultation and the review carried out in 2023, the Minister published his decision last year that where Ireland's quota for the north-west herring is less than 7,000 tonnes, the 2012 herring policy would be modified. Instead of a 5% being set aside, there would be a 350 tonnes level set for non-ring-fenced vessels, which would be vessels less than 20 m in length overall, which do not have that track record built up.

There was an open fishery last year during the autumn fishery and that level was exceeded. The fishery was not open again in the spring of this year but there was much herring caught. The Minister has to manage Ireland's quota within our allocation as best as possible. The Minister's recent decision was to allow for the sustainable management of the stock within the policy framework and to allow the stock to be managed as sustainably as possible for the benefit of all fishers in the long run, so that we can keep within the allocation and not overfish the stock.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I might ask just one final supplementary question. The ring-fenced boats did not apparently catch their allocation. Can some of that then be allocated to inshore fishers, to balance it out?

Ms Anna O'Sullivan

The policy sets out a particular amount. The Minister established the North-West Herring Advisory Committee to come up with recommendations on how best to manage the fishery within that policy framework. Reallocation would have to be within what is allowed for within the policy.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I thank Ms O'Sullivan.

An Cathaoirleach

I call Deputy Mythen.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

Much has been said here. The crux of the thing is that when fishers see non-EU countries setting unilateral TACs; it is really galling. They see the likes of Norway which increased its mackerel quota by 55% over its quota. The Faroe Islands were much the same. On the back of this, there are dozens of new pelagic vessels coming on board which are 80 m in length and are very serious trawlers. This is a major threat. The EU should stand up to this because ICES has no jurisdiction over Norway, Iceland, Russia and other countries, which are also major fishers.

They are coming into Irish waters and taking our fish. We are making a plea that the Minister invokes the Hague preferences for mackerel. It is a tool for us specifically because we are an island and it is a fair tool to use. It is there for us, so why not use it?

On the sustainability impact assessment, we only got it today and there is a lot in it. There is a regional imbalance in the report, especially regarding my area, area 7, which basically covers the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and south-west coast, including Dunmore East, Castletownbere, Kilmore Quay, Union Hall, Howth and Clogher Head. They seem to be taking a lot of the hit in that area. The figures for stocks are down the whole way. The impact on mackerel is 15.83 million. We need regional balance. Under the sustainability impact assessment, was anything taken into account for the fisherman? Have the wind energy structures that will be in the sea been taken into account, especially in Ireland? Have conservation areas been taken into account? Can fisherman fish in those areas, which will be vast?

New migration species are coming in, like the bluefin. We have the bluefin chart for the past ten years and, according to the science, they are multiplying and very abundant. It is a productive fish and I would like something done in that area. One of the most expensive fish we have in the sea is black sole. That is very limited so we should be looking at that species. It is a lucrative species.

What are not taken into account are the input and output of the fishermen. There was nothing in the sustainability impact assessment on climate change. The fisherman are like the farmers. If there is climate change and something happens, they cannot fish. This month, there were five or eight storms they could not go out in. They are losing their quota and things so something has to be done on that. That is a disadvantage. It should be built into our negotiations. Storms and hurricanes have come across the Atlantic Ocean from America in the past couple of weeks. They are coming regularly and affect our fishermen. There is no climate change element in the assessment whatever.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I take the Deputy's points. They echo points made by others on overfishing. I accept the points he made and on taking a strong line on the behaviour of others that is having an impact, particularly relating to mackerel. He mentioned the potential impact of wind energy and conservation areas. We have a structure in place for wind energy. The key objective is coexistence and good engagement when there is exploration or, going forward, development. That will be really important. It is only emerging as an issue but it is one we have to manage well. There is a committee in place on how we manage that. With conservation areas, we have sought to make sure that while we step out marine protected areas, there is understanding of key fishing grounds.

The Deputy mentioned the quota for bluefin tuna. I have raised this consistently because the evidence suggests there is more presence in our waters than previously. The challenge is that the division of stocks is based on track record going back a long time - the early eighties in most cases. To have the percentage share of stocks changed at European level requires a two thirds majority or qualified majority at EU Council. If we were to gain a percentage of a stock, it would mean the percentage for others would diminish and, therefore, it meets much resistance. It is difficult to get any movement on that but it is something I have to the fore.

I accept black sole is an important stock, particularly in the Deputy's part of the country. It is something I will have on the agenda for this EU Council and I am aware of its importance.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

There is little mention in the report of scallops, which are very unique to Wexford Harbour. The shellfish industry has fallen through the floor in the past two years or more. Lobsters have gone down, as has everything else, and people are under pressure. Regarding BIM's figures on employment impact by county, will that involve skippers? Is there a breakdown of the employment that will be lost? Will it be only fishermen? Who, according to BIM, will lose their jobs? It is said that for every person working at sea, there are four working on land. That is the obvious thing. Then there are restaurants and everything else involved in that. The industry is under severe pressure but it is a lucrative industry. Other countries would not be building bigger boats if it was not profitable. We should be coming from that angle. It is a natural resource for our country.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I know scallops are an important fishery product for the south east. I introduced a Brexit scheme to support them because there have been particular challenges around landing them as a result of Brexit. They are not affected by quota because they are a non-quota species but the market for shellfish generally has been under pressure this year. That has been a challenge for them.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister for coming in and answering all the questions comprehensively. I thank his officials as well. We will suspend the meeting to prepare for the second session.

Sitting suspended at 7.08 p.m. and resumed at 7.13 p.m.