Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we begin, I remind members and witnesses to ensure their mobile phones are switched off completely as they cause interference with the broadcasting equipment. I thank Ms Siobhán Egan, head of policy, communications and people engagement for BirdWatch Ireland, for attending to discuss the sea-fisheries sustainability impact assessment.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Ms Egan to make her opening statement.

Ms Siobhán Egan:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to make a presentation, which is much appreciated. I have a number of slides I would like to present to the committee in advance of the presentation to it by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the fishing opportunities for 2016 and the sustainability impact assessment he will conduct on them.

BirdWatch Ireland is the country's largest environmental charity. We have been involved in fisheries for a number of years on the basis that when we have healthy seas, we can provide for the wide range of uses that our marine environment is put to by people and fisheries is a major part of that. Getting our fisheries management right is one part of getting the management of our seas right in order that we can deliver for nature and all the benefits that healthy, natural resources can bring to people. That is why we are involved in marine policy.

We are engaged in the fishing opportunities process. It starts much earlier in the year when the European Commission launches its consultation on fishing opportunities and the scientific advice comes out over the course of the year from ICES, which underpins the decisions made about fishing limits. When it comes to the setting of fishing opportunities or total allowable catches, TACs, it is an opportunity to bring about an end to overfishing, which has done a great deal of damage. When it comes to the December Council, our Ministers need to kick this habit. It is the ambition of the new Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, to end the practice of overfishing. It is documented that overfishing has a profound impact not just on our natural resources but also economically and socially. The process involves national consultation as well as consultation at European level. The Minister closed our consultation at the end of last week and the joint committee is part of the process as well, as it will hear from the Minister. It will culminate in a decision of 28 Ministers at a Council meeting later this month. It is important from our perspective to influence that process to get the best outcome for our natural resources.

I will outline the current position regarding our fish stocks and discuss the implications of not following the scientific advice. There are serious economic, social and environmental implications. I will refer to how to bring about change and make a number of recommendations in advance of hearing from the Minister on 8 December. The situation now is different from 100 years. The table on screen describes the biomass of our fish stocks 100 years ago. This exercise was done by the Seas Around Us Project and it examines the biomass of predatory fish. Members can see the unique position Ireland was in with its rich waters 100 years ago. The picture now shows a dramatic change with eight to ten times fewer fish.

With regard to the current status of our stocks, there have been dramatic levels of overfishing. Between 2001 and 2015, Ministers set TACs above the scientific advice by an average of 20% a year. We not only have concerns about the past 100 years but more particularly about recent times. Last year, the December Council of Ministers decided not to follow the scientific advice for 60% of our TACs. That happened in the context of a new CFP, which has a clearly stated ambition to end this practice, yet last year we had this alarming statistic. More dramatic change is needed. It is not happening under the new regime and that is wrong.

We also know from the Commission's agency, the STECF, that there is a persistent overfishing trend and that there are stocks outside of safe biological limits. A total of 60% of stocks are still outside safe biological limits and so are highly vulnerable. The delay in implementing the new regime and framework shows a level of complacency. It is also not at all in keeping with the ambition expressed in the Common Fisheries Policy and expressed elsewhere in Irish policy too.

The question is what will happen for the 2015 stocks, which will be decided in December. It is alarming to note that even in October last, the same Ministers made decisions for the Baltic Sea in which the total allowable catches, TACs, decided on exceeded the scientific advice for six out of ten stocks, which included cod, sprat and herring.

The consequences of ignoring the scientific advice include economic and social consequences, not just consequences for natural resources and the health of the seas. Those consequences are well documented. I refer to a couple of reports. The following information is from the New Economics Foundation. It identified that overfishing led to a reduction in the profitability of the sector with a rate of employment loss of 4% to 5% at European level. The report also identified that were we to restore 43 stocks, then we would deliver more fish - in this case 3.5 million tonnes more fish would be landed - and there would be more revenue and more jobs. We are in a lose-lose scenario now. We have been losing. We see the decline in employment and we are losing out on what the potential gains would be. It is a tragic situation to be in.

A second report, the Sunken Billions, referring to this country, identified that the economic losses from poor management are very significant. Again, there is a tragedy here because the report also identifies that there is a missed opportunity. It identifies that it is not too late, which is a positive thing. There is an additional report to which I do not make reference in the presentation but I have provided copies of it to all members. It is called Turning the Tide and it gives a really nice summary of the situation, not just the economic, job and social losses that have occurred over the years but also the link to heritage in Ireland and the link to fisheries through our heritage as well.

As well as the loss to natural resources and the link to our heritage, having healthy seas more generally contributes to our ability to regulate the climate, engage in nutrient recycling and in the production of food. The decisions Ministers are making by not following the science is contrary to a lot of ambition. That ambition is stated in national policy such as Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth and in the ambition that we see reflected from industry as well, such as in Food Wise 2025. The ambition is there to have sustainable food sources but what we are lacking is action in terms of looking at the detail and making decisions about that. There is a policy conflict there that needs to be addressed.

The decisions that are made result in short-term gains. Those short-term gains come at a price to our natural systems which are put under pressure and our stocks are put under pressure. That is in direct conflict with the Common Fisheries Policy, which was negotiated by the Minister during the EU Presidency. We see a clear reluctance to delay implementing it, despite it being the same Minister who declared the ambition and then negotiated the specifics. Those short-term wins are in fact a loss.

Short-term gains put the sector under pressure. We have seen recent allegations of illegal fishing activities and abuse of migrants, which is a result of the sector being under pressure. There is a real cost in terms of our natural systems.

The diagram I show is representative of a phenomenon known as fishing down the food web. First, in a given bit of the ocean, one starts off with a lot of big fish that are of diverse and very mixed species. When the big fish are fished out, one starts to take in smaller and less diverse fish over time, and eventually one is fishing invertebrates. We have some classic examples of that. In the Irish Sea that has resulted in the loss of whitefish, particularly sole, and there are other examples too. What might be announced as a good result if we have a prawn fishery or a nephrops fishery that would bring in tens of millions is a big loss when it comes to our whitefish in the Irish Sea. That really does raise the question of what it is we want for our seas. If we are making a policy decision that we only want to fish prawns in a certain sea area and we are sacrificing our whitefish, let us weigh up the cost of that to the diversity of fisheries on the east coast, for example. That is a cost that has not been weighed up in the decision-making process.

By way of example, I show a table which is one of a number produced by the Marine Institute showing the stock book. I do not intend to look at the data, as the print is far too small. It gives an idea about the science that is compiled to inform the decision making process. I mentioned the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, but we also have our national agency, the Marine Institute, which collates all the information available. This is the type of information that informs the decision making process. Although one can barely make it out, the first block of lines show the Irish Sea, and some red dots are visible, which in that example are for cod. It is signalling that its population is not in a healthy state, and the recommendation from ICES is not to have a quota for cod in the Irish Sea. The advice is to have a catch of zero. That is the scientific advice, yet for every year since 2004 we have had a quota for cod in the Irish Sea.

Some other red dots are shown in the Celtic Sea, which again refer to cod and also sole and plaice. Many of the species are either data-limited, so there is not a lot of information on the stock, or, where red blobs are shown, the science is showing that the stocks are not in a healthy state. I want to emphasise that because it is very real and it is reflected in the science, and it has social and economic implications for decisions.

This is what is prepared in advance of the December Council. The table now on view comes from the New Economics Foundation, which did an analysis of the numbers to see which member states were overfishing and to what extent. Ireland is identified in the table as overfishing. The graphic now on view was also produced more recently and it shows that in the Celtic Sea, for example, the excess TAC which was given between 2001 and 2015 is in the region of 22%. That means we have been excessively fishing in the Celtic Sea over that period by 22%. There are many reports coming out now analysing the data over a number of years.

A key question that needs to be considered in assessing the sustainability of the fisheries decisions Ministers are taking is who is winning. Where is the national allocation going? That is not something one hears enough discussion about.

Of the fixed quota allocation for Northern Ireland, 58% is going to one vessel. Cobbling this information together for the Irish national quota and establishing how it is distributed is a little more difficult. We know, for example, that 87% of the mackerel or pelagic fish quota goes to 23 boats, but cobbling together information on the ownership of vessels along with the tax that is distributed is quite a tricky exercise, which we are in the process of doing. Making sure that the information is available and demonstrating where the quota is going nationally should be a really important part of the sustainability impact assessment. That is within the Minister's gift.

The Common Fisheries Policy refers to fair access to fishing resources. I do not want the committee to read all the text here, but I will point out that it is made very clear in the new Common Fisheries Policy that preferential access should be given to small-scale coastal fishermen. There is an ambition to promote responsible fishing and to incentivise those who fish using the least environmentally damaging methods and those who provide most benefit to society. That is made explicit in Article 17. Referenced in this area is an ambition to use selective fishing gear with reduced environmental impacts. It is our view that Ministers are not paying enough attention to this both at EU level, when Ministers discuss things amongst themselves, and at national level. This part of it should be demonstrated in the Minister's sustainability impact assessment.

The presence of the Margirissuper-trawler off the coast of Donegal demonstrates quite clearly that Ministers need to justify how they allocate resources. In this case, the trawler may be fishing legally but it is important to consider whether its Government has allocated a portion of its quota to a vessel or sector that is fishing in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. That is the type of question our Minister should be asking of other Ministers around the table. Equally, our Minister should justify how the resource is being allocated nationally. It is also important that the criteria used to allocate the resource are made clear and transparent and are available so everyone can see how a decision is made.

I will address the question of how to bring about change. The Common Fisheries Policy is now in place. It is a new, reformed policy which provides the framework to bring about change and it exists now. The ambition of the Common Fisheries Policy is to restore or maintain populations of fish stocks above a biomass capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield. We want the maximum yield from our fish stocks. This should have been done by 2015 where it was possible to do so. There should not be a delay if it is possible to do it sooner. This is a basic need that was agreed between the European Parliament, European Ministers and the Commission. It is not an overreach by any means; it is an agreed, basic requirement.

We see this committee playing a significant role in this process. The Minister's presentation to EU Ministers later in the month is an opportunity for him to shape the Irish position. It is important to identify if Ireland's position is one of over-fishing. What is the justification for that? If we are delaying the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, what is the justification for the delay? The Minister should make those justifications clear.

If we are choosing to overfish, how informed is that policy decision? Have we taken into account that we might lose out in the medium to long term? What will the cost be of deciding to delay the implementation of the CFP? We should be realistic about the cost of delaying it because there is a lot of information that says the sector and the natural resource will suffer in that case.

The socioeconomic analysis that the Minister presents needs to show what are the implications for more than just one year. It is one thing to come along and say that our tax and quota will equate to whatever many millions of euro this year and so are of value but the socioeconomic analysis needs to take into consideration much more than that. What will the implications of the decisions we are making now be for the next five or ten years? What are the economic and social implications of choosing to overfish our white fish in the Celtic or Irish Sea? Have they been taken into account in the socioeconomic analysis? What will the longer-term losses in revenue be and what is at stake if we delay implementing the change? Why are we not using management tools that the sector knows works, such as the use of protected areas and more selective fishing methods? The fishery sector is aware of what works and these tools have traditionally been available to us. We should use more of them. Will the Minister make transparent how he makes the decisions on how to allocate the resource nationally?

We have made a submission to the national consultation on the December Fisheries Council and this is the content of that submission. The tax must follow the scientific advice. We must listen to the science. This will allow stocks to recover and more revenue to be gained in the longer term. If there are delays, there should be evidence to show why. What is the justification for such delays? Most importantly, if there is a fear that it will impact on the sector, we should have socioeconomic information showing the losses or gains in the short and medium term in order to make a decision. So far we have not had that and it is a crucial part of what needs to happen. This year we are looking at landing obligation and uplifts. It is all very new and people do not yet know how it will work out. The bottom line is to make sure that the total outtake does not jeopardise the recovery of stock. That would defeat the whole purpose and ambition of the new Common Fisheries Policy. When we do not know something, we should be more careful. If there are existing tools that work, we should use them more to benefit the resource.

We welcome the opportunity to come in and talk to the committee and we hope that some of the presentation will be useful during the discussion the committee will have with the Minister on 8 December 2015. We will be watching both that and the process later in December 2015 when he presents Ireland's position and negotiates with the other ministers at the December Fisheries Council.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Egan for her presentation. There would be huge potential in the industry if it was properly regulated and if resources were more equitably distributed, not only nationally but within the European Union. The way that some of the quotas have been allocated nationally has not been equitable. It is very difficult for people who are on the edge trying to survive, which is probably 80% of our fishing fleets, struggling to make ends meet while trying to comply with restrictions and regulations.

However, when they look a small distance to the west of them, they see large vessels under Lithuanian or Dutch flags and so on that are able to fish without real restrictions on them or without any insight as to what they might have on board. There are two motions before members this morning regarding the second largest fishing factory ship in the world, theMargiris. I believe she is one of 12 factory ships that are fishing off the coast of County Donegal at present. It is not a question of what they are taking but of what they are discarding. The information I have, which I have received from reliable sources and which is supported by a Dutch television station which conducted an interview on board one of these vessels, is that up to 70% of what they are taking is discarded to maximise the potential for the prime fish for the market. This is taking place in the pelagic sector off the north-west coast. In the case of someone who is trying to survive and eke out a living with a very limited quota and who is being hounded day and night by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, which is supposed to do its job, it is difficult to have the necessary commitment to bring about the conservation that is necessary in the long term for the future. In itself, that creates a problem.

If one looks at how a national quota is distributed, I note Ms Egan's presentation made reference to one vessel controlling 58.5% of a quota allowance in the Six Counties in the North. I believe 87% of a quota is in the ownership of 23 vessels down here, which is a national quota practically. As for the distribution of other quotas, it is quite evident to all of us who have real concerns for the coastal communities and their survival, as well as the survival of what has been a traditional way of life for many people over many decades and centuries, that when one has political interference to distribute or attribute quota to certain areas, it leaves a terrible taste in one's system.

Ms Egan mentioned how the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, refers to fair access to fishing resources, that is, "the CFP should contribute to increased productivity, to a fair standard of living for the fisheries sector including small-scale fisheries". That is being totally and absolutely disregarded, both internationally and nationally. It is the powerful who have the political influence and the necessary support to accumulate massive quotas, thereby discriminating against the smaller person who is trying to make a living out of it. I come from an area, with which I believe Ms Egan is familiar, and was involved with the establishment of the Tralee Bay protection and Conservation Association in the 1980s, which then evolved into the Tralee Bay Oyster Fishery Co-operative Society . It probably is one of the best managed facilities of which I am aware in Ireland and the reason for this is because the people who manage it also manage its conservation. It includes fishing representatives, buyer representatives and local government representatives and is an accumulation of representatives. It is not science; they do their own science. It is not science but they do it because they are out fishing and are able to determine what can be taken from the bed to maintain a sustainable yield for future years and that is working a treat. In the case of lobster fishing and crayfish fishing, there are pot men all along the west coast of Ireland and in those areas where one has a well-managed notching mechanism in operation, it again has managed to preserve it. In other areas, however, this is not in place and one might have rogue fishermen who take what they can out of it and do not give a goddamn about what will happen in the future for the genuine person. It is a question of how that can be managed and I would argue, Ms Egan, that one of the biggest problems we face in respect of the depletion of stocks is discard, that is, the discarding of juvenile fish and of food to get the prime fish and a prime price.

This is driven by greed and by people who do not give a goddamn about the next generation; it is only about themselves. Members must try to figure out a way of managing discards.

I take exception to some scientific analysis because it is based precisely or specifically on science but for real analysis, one must have people who are at the coalface of the industry, that is, those who are themselves involved in the fishing sector. I understand this now is taking place in many areas, where one has a co-ordinated effort by people on the front line, as well as the scientific analysis. There is an obligation on everyone, as elected representatives, members of society or of fishing communities to ensure the survival of such communities. However, there is a huge political onus on the Government - as there was on successive Governments in the past - to ensure the inclusion of a living for small-scale fisheries as set out in the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP. While this is in the CFP in black and white, it is not being implemented. Members must find some way to ensure that when the Minister goes to meetings, he does everything in his power to ensure this or that he takes a mandate from members of the committee and from the people of Ireland to prosecute that part of the policy, namely, fair distribution and not 23 boats owning 87% of a quota. That was wrong on the day it was set up and still is wrong. Moreover, the position is not getting better but remains the same. I seek the creation of a level playing pitch and equal opportunity for people who are trying to survive. My concern is for the 80% of the small boats in the whitefish fishery and inshore fishing. They must survive because every cent they have goes into their own economy whereas in the case of factory ships, which have taken hundreds of thousands of tonnes out of our waters, not a single cent comes into our economy. Consequently, a way must be found to achieve this objective and if one is obliged to have fewer catches and better conservation methods to increase yields in the future, I have no problem with that. However, one must create the will to do this and that cannot exist when one is competing with an unequal distribution of resources, which I perceive to be the main problem.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Egan for her presentation and will refer to a few points from it. One issue that must be discussed is the activities of the factory ships off the west coast at present. As for what is happening out there, much of it comes down to the difficulty or lack of will in respect of enforcement on the part of Irish authorities. In addition, over the past year or so difficulties have arisen in getting other member states to carry out and to recognise such enforcement activity. An incident occurred last summer in the Irish Sea in which a Danish vessel was boarded by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, and the Naval Service and was judged to be fishing illegally or engaging in illegal activity and was allocated penalty points under the penalty point regime. However, the Danish Government refused to add those penalty points to the licence of the vessel. Moreover, it then secured quota for that vessel a number of days after the penalty points had been allocated and stated there was no problem. I believe the vessel in question now has been re-flagged and is operating under the flag of another state. There is a problem in respect of how enforcement can be carried out. Over the years, it always has been the case that 85% of the vessels boarded at sea by the Irish Naval Service and the SFPA are Irish, because the authorities know at what they can catch them whereas they do not bother with the rest of them. As Ms Egan is aware, the Spanish Government will not tell one what is the quota position in respect of Spanish vessels and the French Government will not divulge such information in respect of French vessels. Consequently, the authorities here simply do not bother looking at them because they do not have the information to be able to catch them. This is a real problem for Ireland in terms of how we implement the European Union rules and regulations because most fishermen would agree we always have been the most vigorous and accurate in implementing rules but only against our own vessels, while not getting support from or achieving results against the vessels of other member states. This issue must be addressed to have effective management of fisheries stocks. I refer to the fishing in which the Margirisis engaged off the west coast.

According to the SFPA, the Margirisonly had quota for horse mackerel but it is very difficult to catch clean horse mackerel at this time of the year. They had to catch something else along with the horse mackerel so they discarded it, which is breaking the law, or they processed it on board and froze it, which is also breaking the law. There is a lack of will when it comes to enforcing the law and investigating these practices. The SFPA said the weather conditions off the west coast were too dangerous to consider boarding the vessel and inspecting it. That may be true but we could have a system where those vessels would be instructed to come closer to the shore or to a safe harbour where they could be inspected. Perhaps BirdWatch Ireland has a view on this.

This is a serious problem in the attempts to get fishermen to buy into the conservation of stocks. I am from Killybegs and our fleet, even the 23 boats which have most of the quota, will be tied up while Dutch factory vessels will be fishing away happily along our west coast. We have a bigger quota than the Dutch so how do they manage it? On paper, the Margirisis a Lithuanian vessel but it is actually owned by a Dutch company. The Dutch have bought up German companies and now have the German quota as well as the Lithuanian, English and Dutch quotas. How can other fleets continue fishing when they have less quota than we have but our fleets are tied up? It does not make sense.

I have a couple of questions on the slideshow presentation. It showed how achieving MSY would lead to larger landings and more income for fishermen. I know the calculation cannot be done for all stocks but does the report have any detail of how quickly this could be achieved? It would have a huge economic impact on the fishing fleet that set out to do it in the first place and the report must have looked at how long it would take. If we adopted a policy of only achieving MSY, what impact would that have at European level? Are we just relying on the moral right of Ireland adopting this approach to persuade the Dutch and everybody else it is the way to go?

On the upcoming negotiations on stocks and TACs, do the witnesses have any information as to what the likely uplift will be in terms of landing obligation or is this also up for negotiation at the end of December? It will have a significant bearing on how whitefish fishermen, in particular, will be able to buy into the process of managing stocks sustainably. There are proposals within the CFP for small-scale fisheries but I understand it is up to member states to implement them rather than it being done at European level. It will be up to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to look at small-scale fisheries in Ireland and decide whether to give them a quota to allow them to fish. There is no doubt that smaller-scale fisheries have less impact environmentally and less capacity to catch large amounts of fish. They also have a large economic impact on the small communities that depend on them. If it is up to member states to devise policies and put them in place, what are the barriers to it happening here at this level?

BirdWatch Ireland is part of a wider European lobbying network. What responses are its fellow organisations getting in the different member states around Europe? Is it an uphill battle for everybody? Will any real change take place?

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland is like a tadpole in terms of what it fishes. Does BirdWatch Ireland have counterparts in the Netherlands or other countries which are trying to explain to the latter the impact of what they are doing?

When the quota was distributed, we got the worst length of the piece of straw. Four ships in Donegal almost caught more in an hour than we would catch in a year with our gear. We need to look at curtailing the big guys from coming in and mopping up everything. There is an opportunity and we should be able to put more Irish trawlers out with Irish people working on them. This would get rid of the big things while still not catching as much.

On what are the figures for employment at 4% or 5% based? Have the figures allowed for trawlers getting bigger and fishing becoming more efficient over the years? The witnesses will go over and look for a hit in respect of this issue but they are hitting a lot of Irish people who have damn all quota. Other countries are coming into our waters, swiping our fish and making a living out of it. I am sure our Minister is well aware of the problem but we need to make Europe aware that we should not be hitting the small dinghy, which the Irish guy has compared to the big trawler someone else has registered in some other country. When common fisheries are being discussed by the different countries of the EU we need to protect the Irish fishing fleet and we need to make sure the foreign fleets mopping up our fish are curtailed. We should be able to put this argument in Europe and I think our Minister would back such an approach rather than agreeing to 20% across the board. It is like the mouse and the elephant. We need to make sure the smaller man is looked after in these negotiations.

Ms Siobhán Egan:

BirdWatch Ireland works with other environmental NGOs and we are in contact with our bird life partners and a wide range of NGOs in other countries. We try to talk to each other as much as we can and to share information as access to the people who do the number crunching on stocks is very useful for us. There is a joint effort and people are working in the UK and other countries to influence their Minister with similar messages. The point of the sections which were written into the CFP, as shown on the slide, was to protect small-scale fisheries and those fisheries which have the least environmental impacts and can benefit society more. Just because it is written into the legislation, however, does not mean it automatically happens and that is why we are still involved in fisheries policy. It would be nice to think that once something is written down it happens but implementing the policy is proving to be a battle. It should not be as big a battle as it is and it needs the concerted effort, not just of NGOs but also of small-scale fisheries and others to be part of the movement to make sure that Ministers do what they ought to do and what they have committed to do.

A lot of the implementation is at national level and allocating resources at national level is in the Minister's gift. There is only so much that can happen at EU level.

However, he can put pressure on other Ministers to show the socioeconomic justification for their positions. They can do the same for him. As such, two things need to happen. At national level, he needs to show how he is allocating the resource and his justification for that. What is the sustainability impact assessment? When he comes to present that impact assessment, where is the rest of it? If I was looking at last year's one, I would be looking for the rest of it. It cannot just be what this year's or next year's revenue will be for particular stocks. It should be a question of the consequences for local communities and the rationale for allocating the resource to these smaller communities. Where is the justification and how has he come to that decision? I would be looking for that information when he comes to present the sustainability impact to the committee. That is at national level. He needs to make the decisions around that available.

At EU level, when the Minister is negotiating in December, he can ask the Dutch and others their sustainability criteria for allowing this vessel to catch its quota in Irish waters or waters that are also of interest to Ireland. When we have raised this with the European Commission, it has said there is a need for better guidance for member states to make it clear what the Commission might expect when it comes to making socioeconomic arguments. That is as far as we have managed to get with the Commission. To me, it is not a very firm commitment about what the Commission is going to look for from member states, but it is clearly acknowledging that there is a weakness there which member states are not addressing adequately. We will certainly be pushing for clearer guidance as to what might be expected by way of a justification to delay addressing overfishing and also for any allocation of resources. We can push the Commission to make guidance available and we are looking for that, but it is more important to push the Minister to ask questions of his ministerial colleagues and to ensure he is also providing his justification for national allocations.

The point of that text being written into the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, was to protect the small guy or rather the fisher who fishes in the most sustainable way. The key is what we make of that and how we capitalise on the text now. It will take effort. It was stated that Ireland is just a tadpole. We are quite an influential tadpole. I do not know if the Minister is listening today, but he is very well known in fisheries circles and is well respected among fisheries Ministers. During the Irish Presidency of the EU, he chaired the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. While we may think we are a tadpole, the Minister is an influential person. We must ensure he has a position for Ireland that makes the most sense. He is, of course, under pressure. Our fish stocks are under pressure, the sector is under pressure and the Minister is also under pressure from parts of the sector. We know that, but he still must represent Irish interests more widely. It is written into the legislation and we should ask him how he is doing it.

On the specifics of the report where I showed the 4% to 5% loss in employment, it is from the New Economics Foundation. I will find the information for the committee. As far as I know, it looked at the number of people directly employed in fisheries. I cannot say which member states were considered or how good the information was, but I am sure it is available and I will get it for the committee.

I was asked about the uplifts and what they will look like. I do not know what they will look like. Some information became available as recently as last week, but it was very little information. I am not a fisheries expert and it was not clear to me how the numbers were calculated. It was not a complete table. As such, I do not know what they will look like. Having spoken to the Marine Institute and the Minister in the space of the past two weeks, it is not clear how it will operate. As it is the first year, it could take a while for it to be sorted out.

I was asked about maximum sustainable yield, MSY, getting more income, how quickly and for which stocks, but I am afraid I will have to come back to the committee. I do not know off-hand. The exercise has been done for a number of stocks and the reports I referred to were at EU level. There is more work being done in the Marine Institute to model what stocks would look like, the implications of the landing obligations and what can be extrapolated from that in terms of what the revenue would be. As such, work is happening closer to home but the reports I quoted are at EU level.

One of the things that came out that would be worth exploring in greater detail is the local knowledge and the expertise that exists within local communities from different types of fishers, the risks of it not being used and the extent to which it is not being used and is being lost. That is something that has come up with us before. When we are looking for the Marine Institute to ensure funding is available for what we call "citizen science", it is about a way for different sectors or parts of the community to contribute information that can add to decision-making processes. We hope that there is money available through things like the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF, for citizen science initiatives. That is something it would be worthwhile for the committee to explore in more detail with the Marine Institute. Certainly, it is an area we are interested in.

If I have missed any specifics, I ask members to flag them with me. The key thing here and in the space of the next couple of weeks is to change old habits. We are in a new framework. Our Ministers across Europe last year were meant to have raised their game to bring an end to overfishing. There is an opportunity to do it this year through the sustainability impact assessment. I would be looking for more clarity and information about what our Minister is bringing to the table by way of sustainability in respect of fishing opportunities.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Egan.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask about enforcement and the difficulties of enforcement at European level.

Ms Siobhán Egan:

Certainly, when we have brought up control and enforcement before, it is clear that the Sea-Fisheries Protection Agency needs more capacity.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I doubt that.

Ms Siobhán Egan:

I understand that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund will be able to provide for more capacity there, but an element of willpower is needed too. We have a huge area of sea so I do not know how it is going to work. We see it as an important component of what needs to happen.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There have been instances where a Spanish boat has landed into an Irish port and is inspected by the SFPA and everything is above board. At its next landing in Bilbao in Spain, nobody hears anything about it or what happened. When the boat comes back to the Irish port the next time, everything is above board again. There is that problem in terms of enforcement and access to information that we do not receive here.

Ms Siobhán Egan:

I am not sure what the structures are and if the SFPA is talking to its equivalents in the UK or-----

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is supposed to, but they just tell it where to go.

Ms Siobhán Egan:

I am not familiar with that process. Certainly, we would be concerned that there needs to be enough capacity and willpower to ensure things are happening as they ought to.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Egan referred to the citizen science initiative. Does that envisage fishermen providing information rather than just citizens as such? From speaking to fishermen, I know they complain that surveys are done in areas where they would never fish. They see very big marks of herring in a particular area which is never surveyed.

It is the local knowledge of the fishermen that could be also fed into the survey system.

Ms Siobhán Egan:

Yes, citizen science is just the general term that is used for when there are non-scientists but that does not mean that one cannot contribute to the information which informs the science and informs the policy. It happens in other areas. Obviously there is an element of skills and training and so on, but that should be provided for through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and the Marine Institute. It would be a good course.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Egan for the presentation. It has been a useful discussion in advance of the Minister coming before the committee next week and in advance of the Council meeting towards the end of December. I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today. As there is no other business this meeting will adjourn. The Thursday meeting with the agriculture committee from Northern Ireland is postponed so we will meet again next Tuesday.