Mr. Alex Crowley:

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend today. As this is our first attendance here I feel it is a significant one. It further underpins the role of National Inshore Fisheries Forum, NIFF, and the regional forums as credible stakeholders. NIFF has engaged with the Minister, Deputy Creed, and his predecessor, Deputy Coveney, on several occasions. Personally, I feel it is important that we engage with public representatives from right across the political spectrum when and wherever necessary. Today's meeting allows us an opportunity to do so.

With respect to the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2017, NIFF has no formal position on this difficult topic at present. To explain why that is the case I must explain how the inshore fisheries forums operate. On policy and legislative issues such as this the national forum takes its direction from the six Regional Inshore Fisheries Forums, RIFFS. NIFF tries to form consensus based on the views expressed by each individual regional forum. The topic was discussed by several of the RIFFs but only one, the south-east RIFF, requested that the issue be progressed to the NIFF agenda. In doing so serious concerns were raised regarding the issue. These concerns were acknowledged and agreed with by all those on the NIFF. No views to the contrary were expressed at that particular meeting. However, for NIFF to form a solid policy position on the issue ideally we would receive some further direction from the other five RIFFs but that has yet to happen. I can offer my own considered opinion on the subject and it is an opinion supported by my NIFF colleagues. My following comments on the subject need to be taken in that context.

The issue is a complex one for the inshore sector and I will try to outline why. First, there are a number of inshore vessels registered in Northern Ireland that are genuinely owned and operated by inshore fishermen in the Republic of Ireland. The recent Supreme Court ruling had the implication that virtually overnight these vessels could no longer operate within the Republic's 12 mile limit. These operators now find themselves in a serious predicament in that their business effectively can no longer operate. These operators are a minority but the views of a minority need to be taken into account.

On the other side of the coin, so to speak, the majority of inshore vessels operating within the Republic's inshore waters are registered in the Republic. Many of the operators of these vessels invested significant amounts of capital to purchase Republic of Ireland replacement capacity in order to obtain Republic of Ireland fishing licences. The cost would have been significantly higher than that incurred by their counterparts who were able to register in Northern Ireland. Many of the Republic of Ireland registered operators would be more empathetic than sympathetic towards the plight of their counterparts who are registered in Northern Ireland. Many of the Republic of Ireland registered operators would feel that their Northern registered counterparts exploited a loophole of sorts. Many of them would feel that the Supreme Court ruling effectively closed that loophole and levelled the playing field.

In a broader context, the Bill is essentially about access to resources in our inshore waters. This is a very serious subject as many coastal communities depend greatly on these resources for their survival. The management of these resources is a priority of the inshore fisheries forums.

I appreciate the genuine intentions of the voisinageagreement, which is an arrangement dates back to the 1960s it not earlier. I also appreciate what I feel were genuine intentions on the part of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, to introduce a Bill to give this well-meaning and long-standing arrangement standing in Irish law. Having said that, one must understand that we live in a very different world from that of the 1960s. We live in a world of multinational fishing companies. They tend to be purely profit driven and exploit fishing resources when and where they can find them. History has proven that they will do this irrespective of the impact the practice has on the coastal communities that lie in close proximity to these resources. Technological creep now means that boats are far more efficient than ones of equivalent size 20 years ago.Large vessels can now fish right up to our shorelines and quite often, after short periods of intensive fishing, leave inshore fisheries so depleted that smaller inshore boats struggle to stay viable.

The long-standing voisinageagreement allowed these companies, when registered in Northern Ireland, access to valuable resources within our inshore waters. The result has had severe negative implications on our mussel fishery. We have heard reports of where the actions of these operators had a negative impact on other inshore fisheries. One such example is the whelk fishery where spatial conflict between Northern Ireland registered mussel vessels and Republic of Ireland registered whelk vessels that operate mobile and static gear, respectively, was an issue. I do not claim to be an expert on what happened in the mussel fishery and I will not elaborate on the issue. However, it is fair to say that there is a significant level of discontent within our inshore sector about the issue and a fear that similar could happen in other fisheries. This fear is compounded by the fact that most other EU member states have up to date restrictive technical and fleet management measures in place in their inshore waters. These measures are restrictive in terms of what size and horsepower of vessels and the type and size of fishing gear they can operate in the inshore waters of that particular member state. In comparison, we in Ireland have not reviewed our own such restrictions in many decades. For example, the existing measures are so arcane that the legislation is written in terms of feet and inches.

There is a feeling within our inshore sector and, indeed, in NIFF that the arrangement while well-meaning and relevant in the 1960s is no longer fit for purpose and no longer has our inshore sector's best interests at heart. There also is a feeling that the current Minister rushed into introducing this Bill, that provides for this arrangement to be recognised in Irish Law, without taking that feeling into account. I appreciate that we may only be a small piece of a bigger picture, a picture of Anglo-Irish relations and cross-Border co-operation. I appreciate that this may be an ever increasing important picture now with Brexit looming. This big picture is of little consolation to those in our coastal communities who are dependent on the resources in our inshore waters.There is also a fear within NIFF that with our counterparts in the UK lobbying for as hard a Brexit as possible, including a campaign that would see the UK withdraw from the agreement of the London Fisheries Convention of 1964, that these arrangements could result in no longer being reciprocal but favourable only to the UK.

The fact is that recognised stakeholders raised concerns prior to the introduction of this Bill. It may be matter of opinion whether or not these concerns were justified but it is a fact that they exist. It is also a fact that there was no stakeholder consultation prior to the introduction of this Bill. It may be matter of opinion whether there should have been stakeholder consultation or not. It is my opinion that when genuine concerns are raised by recognised stakeholders there should be consultation. Such consultation should allow the complexities of the issue to be teased out in full while addressing stakeholders' concerns.

On the issue of quota allocation within Ireland, I will break the subject into three parts. First, on whitefish and prawns or nephrops, it is acknowledged that Ireland’s share of EU quotas in comparison with the resource within our waters is poor. Whitefish and prawn quotas are allocated by the Minister on a monthly basis. The Minister bases his decisions on advice from quota management advisory committee, of which the NIFF is a member. We would see the system as a fair one which essentially makes the best of a bad lot. All vessels with polyvalent licences are allocated quota on a monthly bases. Vessels over 55 ft. in length are allocated double the quota of those that are less than 55 ft. Quota that is allocated but uncaught effectively goes back into a pot to be reallocated to all vessels again the following month. This arrangement continues until the annual quota for a given species in a given area is exhausted or the year comes to an end. Despite its criticisms it is a system that works well considering the constraints, the main one being that we simply do not have enough quota. The success of this system is in no small part due to the expertise of both my colleagues in the producer organisations and that of a dedicated unit within the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

On pelagic quota we have a different system on which we would have a very different view. Pelagic quota is allocated under specific ministerial policy. In these policies, the vast majority of that quota is allocated to a very small number of operators. Quota tends to be allocated on the basis of historical track record in the fishery. We would feel that these policies are very unfavourable to the inshore fleet. The inshore fleet represents the majority of the Irish fleet in terms of number and employment. Vessels under 12 m in length account for approximately 82% of the fleet in number and represent approximately 53% of direct employment in the fleet. A case example of this is north west herring. We have not had a commercial north west herring fishery for a number of years due to the poor state of the stock. The existing policy was set down in 2009. The policy allocates 95% of the quota to 57 vessels that are deemed to have a track record. That is only 57 vessels out of the Irish fleet which stands in excess of 2000 vessels. To be considered to have a track record vessels had to have landed a certain amount of fish over a given reference period. We have a centuries old tradition which outlines a track record in inshore herring fisheries. In north west herring this tradition is particularly strong in Donegal but also extends as far south along the western seaboard as the fishery extends geographically, to the mouth of the river Shannon. Despite this, only eight vessels of less than 15 m, including just four that are under 12 m are deemed to have a track record under this particular ministerial policy. The rest of the inshore fleet is given the option to share the remaining 5% - if it is considered economically viable to do so, which in reality it is not - with any larger boats that are not deemed to have a track record either. I appreciate that some pelagic stocks are outside the reach of inshore vessels and that they are found too far offshore to be of any practical use but that is not the case with herring. In fact, the results of the 2016 north west herring scientific fishery demonstrate that the heaviest aggregations of herring were found very close inshore. In fact so close in were they, and in water so shallow, that difficulties were experienced in estimating the size of these aggregations. To put it plainly the herring were found to be most plentiful on the doorsteps and around the boots of the inshore fishermen.

Similar could be said for Celtic Sea herring in which the inshore sector fares a little better in that 11% of the quota is put aside for a dedicated inshore sentinel fishery. It is the view of the NIFF that this percentage for the sentinel fishery needs to be increased. The benefits of this sentinel fishery are visible in Dunmore East, County Waterford which becomes a hive of inshore activity for the duration of this valuable winter fishery. The fishery is restricted geographically to the Dunmore box off our south-east coast and fishing vessels greater than 17 m in length are prohibited from taking part in this sentinel fishery or from fishing herring inside the Dunmore box. Dunmore East, the main landing port for the fishery becomes hive of activity for the duration of the fishery, which is in stark contrast to many of the other small fishing communities around our coast, many of which resemble ghost towns at this time of year. This fishery provides a lifeline to inshore vessels from all over Ireland who travel to participate in this winter fishery. Some even travel from as far away as County Donegal, presumably because they have little or no other opportunities available to them closer to home. The fact that these operators must travel the length of the country in small vessels in the middle of the winter is indicative of the lack of fishing opportunities available to our inshore sector in general.

I fully appreciate that our pelagic catching sector, both the RSW and polyvalent tier one and two and the related on-shore processing sector they support, are in a great part the result of the bold vision and investment of the operators involved. I fully appreciate that Ireland would not have its current share of EU’s pelagic quota were it not for that vision and investment. I also fully appreciate that Ireland’s inshore fleet could come nowhere close to catching all of Ireland's pelagic quota. What we all need to realise, however, is that Ireland’s quota is a public resource and not a private one. It would be our view that some pelagic quota in general needs to be reallocated to the inshore fleet. This could present a vital lifeline in diversification opportunities to a currently beleaguered sector of the industry. The inshore sector has seen the opportunities available to it dwindle over the past couple of decades. We are not looking for the sun, moon and stars here, just modest increases that could make huge differences to a large amount of vessels and the families and communities they support. Reasonably small amounts of quota tend to go a long way when it comes to smaller inshore vessels.

Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, states that member states are required to use:

...transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. The criteria to be used may include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on the environment, the history of compliance, the contribution to the local economy and historic catch levels. Within the fishing opportunities allocated to them, Member States shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, such as reduced energy consumption or habitat damage.

One does not need a degree in economics or environmental science to see that allocating some more pelagic quota to Ireland’s small scale fleet would be in line with this article of the CFP.

Finally and specifically on the recent and pending review of mackerel quota allocation, the NIFF has made a submission on this issue as part of the public consultation process. That submission has been published on the Department's website and is attached as appendix to this submission. Three of the regional forums have made submissions which are similar to that of the NIFF. The NIFF supports the proposal put forward by the Irish south and west producer organisations but we feel that the potential increase in white fish quota available - some of which may theoretically benefit the inshore sector - which the proposal promises is not sufficient to warrant that support. To that end, our support is conditional on a modest increase in mackerel quota for the inshore sector. Our submission has been criticised by some in the inshore sector for not being ambitious enough. Perhaps that criticism is justified as we seem to live in a world where no one claims to have enough and everyone seems to want more that. However, I stand over our submission. I feel it is fair and realistic and as long as I Chair the NIFF, I will endeavour to keep our policy grounded in the principles fairness and realism.

I appreciate the importance of this specific issue to those involved, those who stand to gain or lose the most, namely the RSW fleet segment, the polyvalent fleet segment that have pelagic entitlements and the elements of the processing industry that depend highly on them. However, in the bigger scheme of things I feel this specific issue has become overly high profile and is distracting from the bigger picture that concerns the wider Irish seafood industry. As a colleague of mine aptly put it, “the issue has become a distractive squabble between the two millionaire’s clubs of Irish fishing - the club of 22 and the club of 27 - with little or no consideration being given to the club of 2000 plus”.

If I could deliver any message to this committee today it would be to implore its members, when giving consideration to any fisheries matters, to always give consideration to the club of 2000 plus. That concludes my presentation and again I thank the committee for the opportunity to deliver it.