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.