Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Tuesday, 30 September 2025
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs
Sprat Fishing: Discussion
2:00 am
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Céad míle fáilte roimh gach éinne. Before we begin, it is my duty to bring, as I do at every meeting, the attention of the members and the witnesses to a number of items regarding privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for 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 Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction 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 are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts - such as somebody joining on Microsoft Teams, for example - 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. They may consider it appropriate to get legal advice themselves. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.
I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they confirm to me verbally that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks, and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.
Sula dtosaimid ár ngnó inniu, tá rud éigin truamhéalach a thit amach le cúpla lá anuas. Before we begin our business today, I take a few moments to mark the very sad loss of fisherman Kevin McCloskey, who tragically died at sea last week off the coast of Donegal. On behalf of this committee I send our deepest condolences to his family, his friends and to his community. His loss is felt not only in Donegal but in coastal communities right across this island where it stirs memories of our own painful loses and reminds us all of the dangers faced daily by those who work the sea. To Kevin's family, we send our love, our support and our solidarity. To the fishing community in and around Killybegs and Donegal, and to the wider fishing sector, we offer our sympathy and our respects. I also wish to acknowledge all those who took part in the search and recovery operation, namely, the statutory agencies, the lifeboat crews, the volunteers, and Kevin's fellow fishermen who worked tirelessly to bring him home to his family.
I invite members to stand for a moment's reflection. I líonta Dé go gcastar sinn.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The main agenda item for today's meeting is sprat fishery and developments therein. The committee will hear from the largest number of witnesses we have had at a committee meeting to date. I welcome Ms Sinéad McSherry, assistant general secretary and Ms Carol Forrest, head of division, inshore and seafood climate, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine; Dr. Rick Officer, chief executive officer, who is joined by his colleagues Dr. Ciaran Kelly and Dr. Hans Gerritsen, the Marine Institute; Mr. Patrick Murphy, chief executive officer of the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation; and Mr. Michael Foley, National Inshore Fisherman's Association, NIFA. We may in time be joined also by Mr. John Lynch of the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation who will be joining us online. I believe there are some technical difficulties at the moment but I am sure he will be with us in due course.
The witnesses have each provided opening statements which have been circulated to members. As we have a number of witnesses, I ask that each witness or group would take two minutes to give a brief synopsis of their statements rather than reading the full amount into the record. That is just to allow us to get on with the business of the meeting. At this point, I also mention to members that we will take seven-minute blocks per member, again to allow us to get through this. I kindly ask them to include their questions in that seven minutes and to allow ample opportunity for the witnesses to respond. If their question is directed at a particular organisation or witness, will they please mention that. I hope that will enable us all to have our say, for all our witnesses to give their testimony and for us to have some time at the end for follow-up questions. I ask for the members' co-operation on that.
I now invite Sinéad McSherry to kick things off.
Ms Sinéad McSherry:
In order to synopsise, I will try to be quick. As the committee will be aware, sprat is a small pelagic schooling fish. It occurs inshore, it is a short-lived species and an important prey fish for many marine species. Again, it is important to the ocean food chain. The 2016 programme for Government committed to the development of the inshore fishery sector and to ensuring that the smaller inshore boats are given new opportunities for commercial fishing. As the committee will know, on that basis, in December 2018, a transition to a ban on vessels over 18 m trawling in inshore waters and inside the 6 nautical mile zones in the baselines was announced following a public consultation. While that ban had strong support, it was overturned in 2023 following a legal challenge. On the basis of the 2020 programme for Government, which set out a further commitment to ensure that inshore waters continue to be protected for smaller fishing vessels and recreational fishers, advice received from council advised us to go onto the next steps which was to proceed anew with a new public consultation. At that point, there had been five years since the original scientific and economic advice. Those advices were updated, sought from our colleagues in the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM. The public consultation was undertaken in 2024 and that was on a review of current access arrangements in waters inside 6 nautical miles in the baselines. A consultation paper was issued. We know over 5,500 submissions were received to the public consultation and on 22 July this year, the Minister, Deputy Heydon, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, announced that from 1 October 2026, trawling activity, that is the operating of trawl or seine nets, by fishing vessels over 18 metres in length in the inshore waters inside the six nautical mile zones and the baselines were to be prohibited.
Equally, a limited total allowable catch of 2,000 tonnes of sprat will be permitted for vessels over 18 m in length overall inside the 6 nautical mile zone and inside the baselines from October 2025 to 30 September 2026 only.
The Minister of State was very mindful that the opportunity these measures provided was important to our small-scale fishers, and was confident this would help to re-establish links, primarily between local fish resources, local fleets and local economies. The Government had also committed to maintaining support for our inshore sector in the most recent programme for Government and this decision helps to deliver on that promise. The Minister of State is equally acutely aware that fishing vessel owners will have planned their fishing activities for the rest of the year and, indeed, into 2026 also and for that reason a transition period for all vessels over 18 m will be permitted from October 2025. This will allow a period of adjustment for all affected vessels that have planned fishing activities inside the 6 nautical mile zone during the period.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I invite Dr. Rick Officer to give a two-minute synopsis of the Marine Institute's submission.
Dr. Rick Officer:
I thank the Cathaoirleach for the invitation to meet with the joint committee today. I am joined by Dr. Ciaran Kelly, director of our fisheries and ecosystem advisory services, and Dr. Hans Gerritsen, fishery scientist and team leader within the same division. We really welcome the opportunity to discuss the important work of the institute, particularly that related to the topic of today's meeting.
Before we get into that topic in more detail, I will brief the committee on the context of the Marine Institute’s provision of this advice in our role in fisheries stock assessment and advice. We have a statutory remit established in the Marine Institute Act 1991. In practice, that involves the Marine Institute in the conduct of environmental, fisheries and aquaculture surveys and monitoring to meet Ireland’s national and international legal requirements, and the provision of scientific and technical advice to the Government to inform policy and support the sustainable development of Ireland’s marine resources.
The Marine Institute's fisheries and ecosystems advisory services team assesses many of the key commercial fish and shellfish stocks around Ireland. Our overall aim is to provide evidence on the sustainability of the exploitation of these stocks. Our contributions focus on the biological and ecological aspects of fisheries science. The international dimension to the management of fisheries requires that many stocks be assessed in an international forum. Each year, our scientists are actively engaged working in international meetings associated with the stock assessment and advisory process, as well as carrying out assessments on many stocks in the inshore sector and non-total allowable catch, TAC, stocks of particular importance to Ireland. These meetings are normally convened by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, ICES.
Ireland's fishing for sprat occurs within an ICES assessment area for the species, which is very large. It covers an area to the west of Scotland, the waters off our Atlantic coast and includes the Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea. Sprat in this assessment area are assumed to be a single population, but this has not been verified genetically. No TAC has been set for the sprat stock. It has been determined by ICES that there is insufficient information to evaluate stock trends and the exploitation status of the stock. It has therefore adopted a precautionary approach when providing its advice. The ICES advice for 2025 was that catches should not exceed 2,240 tonnes. That advice and the summaries of the most recent assessment and management advice are presented in the Marine Institute’s annual stock book. We have made a written submission today of the key Marine Institute scientific advice and activities in relation to sprat and our ongoing research to improve the sprat catch advice. I thank the Cathaoirleach.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Go raibh maith agat. I invite Mr. John Lynch of the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation, representing the Seafood Ireland Alliance, to give a short two-minute presentation.
Mr. John Lynch:
I thank the Cathaoirleach.
Seafood Ireland Alliance consists of four producer organisations and the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association, IFPEA. Our general comments on the sprat fishery are that SIA was disappointed but not surprised that the Minister, Deputy Heydon, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, announced a ban on trawling by fishing vessels over 18 m inside the six nautical mile and baseline zones, to come into effect from October 2026. While the ban is general and far-reaching, it is clear the true target was the sprat fishery, which has long been the focus of a concerted public campaign targeted at the fishery in the south west.
The SIA does not dispute the need for management of the sprat fishery. However, it appears to the SIA the impacts of the blanket ban have not been properly assessed and the unintended consequences of the ban on vessels targeting other stocks such as nephrops, horse mackerel and herring were not properly considered. We contend there are other mechanisms and methods to deal with management of the waters inside the six nautical mile zone, rather than the use of the blunt instrument that is now in place which is unlikely to have the desired effect. Tools currently exist within the Common Fisheries Policy to address the problems which may arise in the six nautical mile zone which, through proper interaction and constructive dialogue between the various stakeholders, could effectively manage the fisheries without reverting to a blunt blanket ban.
In regard to the background of the sprat fishery, there is much confusion and misinformation spread about sprat, the state of the stock and the fisheries that target it. Currently, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea does not conduct stock assessments on sprat in Irish waters as it considers there is insufficient information to evaluate the status of the stock in the Celtic Sea. Instead, ICES provides catch advice based entirely on landings data which are subject to a 20% precautionary reduction every two assessments, regardless of the stock status. The sole purpose of this advice is to incentivise governments to develop the science needed to conduct a full stock assessment. Therefore, the figure presented by ICES each year is of no real value from a biological sustainability or management perspective. This lack of proper science means that the sprat fishery exploited by both big and small boats has until now been unregulated, unmanaged and unassessed despite the repeated calls from the industry to the Irish Marine Institute to develop the science needed to support sustainable sprat management.
As far back as 2013, the industry cofunded a PhD research project on sprat with the hope that it would spur on progress, yet 12 years later it appears little has been achieved. Early this year the SIA wrote to the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, outlining a suite of interim assessment and management measures including targeted acoustic surveys in the bays that would enable precautionary total allowable catch to be calculated and catches to be strictly monitored and controlled. The recommendations aligned with those published last year in a paper co-authored by Marine Institute scientists in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, describing how an ecosystem-based management plan for sprat in the Celtic Sea could be developed in the absence of a full stock assessment. The SIA also advocated the carrying of independent onboard observers in the fishery and full sampling of the catches to allay any fears over the validity of catch data. Despite these efforts the recommendations were ignored in the discussion and we have ended up with a blanket ban based on an arbitrary length of vessel which will not manage the sprat or any other fisheries inside the six nautical mile zone.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry to cut across Mr. Lynch. I ask him to conclude, please.
Mr. John Lynch:
I am nearly there. In conclusion, the SIA reiterates it does not support any of the options put forward in the consultation document. The SIA acknowledges the need for improved management measures in inshore waters and specifically for the sprat fishery. We highlight the impact Brexit has had on pelagic vessels of all sizes from loss of quota under the trade and co-operation agreement between the EU and the UK. Further restrictions to activities of pelagic vessels will increase the economic pressures on these vessels for no real gain in terms of conservation of stocks. Therefore, rather than a band based on an arbitrary vessel size or fishing method, the SIA still advocates tailored measures in inshore waters and fisheries where data supports the need for such measures.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I invite the representative of the NIFA to make an opening statement.
Mr. Michael Foley:
The Dunmore box was established in 2012 under the policy of the then Minister, Simon Coveney, which largely excluded the larger pelagic vessels from fishing for herring and sprat within that area. As a result, the sprat fishery is now operated exclusively by inshore fleet. Surveys show healthy sprat stocks in the Dunmore box. Surveys did not include bays and estuaries in areas of the highest sprat concentrate. The inshore fleet is a small-scale, weather-dependent fleet. Poor weather conditions restrict us from accessing bays and limit fishing pressure. Inshore boats therefore have limited impact on overall stocks.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank everyone for their statements and for coming in today. I have a question for Ms McSherry in relation to the policy measures that were recently announced. Reading through her opening statement, is it fair to say that those policy measures were designed as a tool to assist the inshore fishery rather than as a sustainable fishery tool?
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was for the inshore fishers, that is perfect. As part of that policy development, was the ICES advice considered in relation to the precautionary quota that it has down, of 2,240 tonnes? Was that considered as part of the discussions? Did that form any basis? Why is it not part of the policy?
Ms Sinéad McSherry:
Again, the policy was in respect of access. The updated scientific advice was provided by my colleagues in the Marine Institute. The Deputy is aware the EU does not have a TAC and quota regime in place for sprat. The options that were considered as part of the public consultation were: no change to the status quo; that all sea fishing boats be excluded from pair trawling inside six nautical miles; that all sea boats over 18 m be excluded from trawling inside six nautical miles; that all fishing boats over 15 m in length be considered for exclusion; and, finally, other possible options that may arise. The question was in relation to a specific sprat fishery. There is no sprat fishery. People engage in the fishing of sprat but it is not a quota species and it is not managed under the TAC and quota regime.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yet it is essentially being managed now. By excluding the larger boats the Department is managing it and ensuring there is actually a quota for the larger boats in year 1. Is that correct? There is no quota, however. The Department is not putting any quota, cap or restrictions on the species in total in line with the precautionary ICES advice.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. It was not about the sustainability of the sprat; it was about the inshore fishers.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms McSherry. I have a question for the Marine Institute. This is obviously a very important forage fish. What are the risks if this species is not sustainably managed? Do the witnesses see the measures that are being proposed as a means to sustainably manage this species?
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
Sprat, as mentioned in the opening oral submissions, is a short-lived species and sustainability of short-lived species is not managed in the same way as longer lived species like cod, haddock or things we are used to seeing TACs set on. In most cases, sprat productivity is driven by environmental concerns in the environment around them, namely, predation and the reproductive success of sprat in itself. The advice the Marine Institute is trying to formulate - it takes a long time to formulate this advice - is done through research in the first instance. The research mentioned by my colleagues in the fishing industry, which began a number of years ago, is building up the knowledge basis on the biology and what we call the demographics of the stock. Our advice would relate to the sustainability of that stock. Fisheries for short-lived stocks are generally managed in a different method to TAC and quota instruments, such as what people are used to hearing for most of the gadoid species that are subject to commercial fisheries. An example would be anchovy in the Bay of Biscay, where there would be surveys conducted in the first instance and then a minimum amount of biomass left over after a survey, which would be the basis for a sustainability of the stock moving forward. We are not in a situation like that in sprat yet.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Obviously, we are currently looking at this as a national stock. Last week, we heard from Mr. Foley regarding the Dunmore box and how there was a lot of sprat there. A recent letter from the Minister referred to how the Marine Institute survey had showed there was no evidence of collapse in the abundance of the species in the Celtic Sea. Is it important to assess for this species on a very localised area? What is happening on one part of our coast may not be reflected in others. Is that the best way to do it?
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
Currently, sprat is looked at as a stock in a very large area. It is the area west of Scotland and the area all around Ireland, but not including the channel, which is a separate stock. We do stock assessments based on the entire area. In answer to the Deputy's question, no, it would not be appropriate to look at bay-by-bay management because in addition to the fact those fish within the bays are part of a larger stock, they also move between bays and around the coast as well.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. What is the best way to do management plans?
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In the absence of that information, is there a risk we are not going to manage this stock sustainably? It is a very short-lived fish and if there is one heavy year of fishing, I imagine it could impact the populations significantly.
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
As was referred to beforehand, the surveys of the Marine Institute, which detect sprat populations both within and without the six nautical miles because they are distributed across both of those areas, have shown a change in abundance over time. That change in abundance fluctuates quite highly. Part of the issues we have regarding looking at the population is that, in some cases, we consider that the abundance we detect in surveys may not actually be due to a fluctuation in the population. It might actually be due to detection measures. These things are subject to errors as we go forward in time but we have not detected a signal from those surveys to suggest the stock has collapsed. We see a stock that changes in abundance rapidly from one year to the next.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
"Collapse" is quite a significant phrase.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are out of time, Deputy Whitmore.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Has the institute seen a decline? Does Dr. Kelly have any concerns about overfishing beyond the ICES's recommended and precautionary amount?
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is not happening at the moment.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To put the discussion we are having into context, we have had reckless overfishing for a number of years by Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland, which is having a devastating impact on mackerel stocks. It is in complete disregard of ICES advice and with no repercussions, it appears to me. What happens then is that the pelagic stocks in the industry are squeezed, as is the ability to negotiate a fair distribution of quota. In Ireland, the quota of mackerel is a publicly owned quota and belongs to the Irish people and no one else. What happens then is there is not a good outcome in terms of inshore versus offshore. That has a squeezing impact. Inshore fishers are fishing crab, lobster, other shellfish and now sprat. All of this is interrelated.
There is a lack of political leadership in addressing these issues. To me, it is very simple and any fisher I would speak to would say the same. If the science is showing a species is under threat, it is madness to fish that species. It has to rest; it has to be able to recover. That has been completely ignored, though, if we work our way out. All of this is interrelated because sprat is in the food chain, particularly in the pelagic sector. I wanted to say that at the outset. It would be remiss of me not to say that everything was interconnected, so everybody is under pressure and we do not have proper, responsible management right through the system in terms of offshore fishing by other countries, our offshore into inshore, and so on. That is where we find ourselves now.
What stood out to me in the Marine Institute's opening submission was how ICES had determined that there was "insufficient information to evaluate stock trends and the exploitation status of the [sprat] stock." That seems to be the fundamental issue here, namely, that there are environmental campaign groups making their cases but they are challenged, according to the submission from the fishing organisations. The problem, as it appears to me, is that we do not have definitive science. If something is so critical in the food chain to a species that, up the line, is so important to our coastal communities, we must have rock solid science. I am not convinced by what I am being told. Obviously, this is an issue of international co-operation. From the Marine Institute's perspective, will Dr. Officer elaborate on how we can get to the point where we can trust the data so that we do not have environmental campaigners fighting with inshore fishers who are trying to sustain their livelihoods and get by in very serious circumstances on our coast?
I am mindful we had a minute's silence at the start of today's meeting for someone who lost his life. It is an incredibly difficult industry and we do not need to make it more difficult for people. Can I have a response from the Marine Institute?
Dr. Rick Officer:
It is not unusual that stocks do not always have complete data to be able to make a definitive assessment. What we are seeing here with the adoption of the ICES approach, which is a precautionary approach, is essentially to provide the time to gather the data and information necessary to be able to improve the status of the stock assessment. That is the basis. There is actually a definitive basis in the ICES advice. It is the precautionary approach in the immediate term.
What we do during that time is work with our colleagues internationally. There is a workshop, the exact name of which I cannot recall, on improving the basis for advice for this particular stock. There has been Marine Institute contribution and involvement in that group to agree a programme of data gathering and evidence gathering to improve the status of the ability to assess the stock. Dr. Kelly mentioned some of the aspects of that, such as gathering data on the biology of the stock. Its distribution is hugely important. I might offer the opportunity to my colleagues to elaborate on this.
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
Just to be clear, it is not as if nothing has happened about this stock in terms of research just because there is no assessment on the table for a catch-based advice that comes from an assessment such as where the TAC species are set from.
There is in fact a roadmap within ICES. That roadmap is a meeting of all of the ICES member countries that come together. They discuss the data gaps and come up with plan for how to address them with a view to putting a stock assessment in place. There are two pieces of information that need to be put in place to move forward with that plan, one of which is the genetic information needed to accurately determine the extent of the stock. Deputy Whitmore asked whether it should be managed on a bay-by-bay basis or on some other basis. That is really important in terms of the distribution of the stock itself. Work on that is imminent. Within 2025 we should have an outcome from that.
I will explain the way the process works in ICES. It does not just happen that a piece of evidence comes to the table and is then accepted. There is a process within ICES whereby that information has to be gone through by ICES. It is vetted, peer-reviewed, approved, accepted and then moved on. Also within ICES there is a benchmark process to establish an appropriate quality framework around any assessment that is done. One of the dangers of scientific data is that one can look at anything from one year to the next. Deputy Whitmore asked about trends. If I told her that the sprat biomass was particularly low in 2023 and particularly high in 2024, that is not necessarily a trend; that is just two observations over time. Factors like that in the interpretation of the information must be looked at properly in order to give a sound basis for the advice.
As my colleague, Dr. Officer, said, in the absence of a full stock assessment the advice that comes from ICES is purely on a precautionary basis. There is a rules basis for that advice at the moment based on the average catch.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will Dr. Kelly clarify this point? Sprat is not a quota species. If there is a quota, it appears there is definitive guidance from ICES that instructs the December Fisheries Council meeting and so on. Is that a factor here? Is it the case that because sprat is not a quota species, we do not have the level of data co-operation that would be expected?
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
Not necessarily. I will speak to the scientific aspects of this. The question of whether a species is managed by a quota is a matter for fisheries managers. The Marine Institute works in the science lane. Essentially, we do research on both commercial and non-commercial species. We also provide information in terms of the marine strategy framework directive on the environmental status of commercial and non-commercial fish stocks. So that is not a factor. We work on these stocks irrespective of whether they are quota species.
In terms of the main direction of effort, we have to organise ourselves to get our science done effectively and efficiently. In that regard, there tends to be a focus on the species we cover in our surveys. Our surveys are broad-scale ones at present. We have adapted that over time to make sure we cover information on sprat.
Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank witnesses for their presentations. It appears to me that, initially, the idea was to protect sprat for inshore fisheries but the wide brush was used on all of the other fisheries. In the north west, this will have implications for horse mackerel, nephrops and herring as no vessels will be able to fish there from October 2026. Even though the initial purpose was to ensure the sprats would be protected, we do not have any idea of the quantities of sprat there. It is hit and miss. I think it was based on the annual review of the Celtic Sea acoustic survey. The primary aim of that survey is to provide data on herring stock. While the biomass of sprat is also estimated, it is just estimated and reported. I would have thought there is nothing stopping or prohibiting us in Ireland from carrying out a study of sprat stocks in our EEZ area. Is that possible? Are we just linking this to herring and arriving at this conclusion?
There will be a limited allowable catch of 2,000 tonnes of sprat for vessels over 18 m in length between now and September of next year. What vessels are we talking about?
There is no quota on this TAC. Who decides what will be available to each vessel or is it hit and miss again? I would like some clarification on that.
I have just learned some frightening news from my contacts of many years in Brussels, although I am sure the witnesses know it. They will be aware that last year we had 37,640 tonnes of mackerel and with the Hague preferences it went up to something like 39,000 tonnes. ICES is proposing that this be reduced by 70%. I know that at the end of the day it will be less than 70%, but that is frightening. It will reduce to such an extent that it will not pay our boats to go to sea.
We had 57,000 tonnes of blue whiting last year. It is being proposed by ICES that this be reduced by 41%. The witnesses will be able to clarify if this devastating news is right or wrong. We have 80% of the European TAC for boarfish. Unfortunately it is not high, but it is to be reduced by 22%. That is the frightening news coming through from Brussels today.
We have to meet with the Minister as soon as possible to decide what action we are going to take. Why is mackerel to be reduced by 70%? As my colleague Deputy Padraig Mac Lochlainn has referenced, it is because the Norwegians, Icelanders, Finnish, Faroese and the UK are fishing indiscriminately and we are suffering as a result of that. Something has to be done. This has to go to highest level, the European Council, not just to the level of the Council of Ministers.
If we were not in the European Union and acting indiscriminately, we could fish 120,000 tonnes. It has got to such an extent that something has to be done about the overfishing by these other countries. The more they fish it has implications for price. I have said enough. I am just dumbfounded by the news. Perhaps some of the witnesses can clarify whether this is true. I hope they can clarify that what I have told them is not true.
Mr. Patrick Murphy:
Our scientists behind would definitely be able to confirm it but those are the figures we have been told are coming. We have written papers about this. How this impacts us and which has been admitted to, is we do not have sufficient data or advice to do an MSC or an MSY fishery on sprat, yet for 50 years this fishery has been happening by the same boats around our coastline and inside the bay and have been asking as an industry to bring in management measures. We in the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation put out a paper that gives reasons we should have management measures, we made suggestion and we asked to sit down and talk to people. We are going to see guesswork without the sufficient data. On top of what the Deputy said, this is shocking
We are talking about a just transition for the boats that have been fishing inside here for 50 years with massive amounts of their income being derived from this sustainable fishery. Why do I call it sustainable? It is a fish that lives for two years, it has been fished for 50 years and it has not been fished out yet. We are the ones calling for scientific advice to make sure it is a proper managed fishery yet we are being told that it is no happening and not there. We are going to discriminate against larger vessels and give it to smaller vessels because they need the opportunities. However, the smaller vessels have never been restricted from entering this fishery. It is up to them; it is an open fishery. There is no TAC quota so they can go at this fishery.
A small boat was never prevented from entering the fishery for a number of years. Suddenly, we are going to increase the number of opportunities in circumstances where how those opportunities are going to be managed has not been explained. As Deputy Jennifer Whitmore stated, we do not know. What we are going to do is take more from boats that are already going to lose massive amounts.
There is nothing else, because we see cuts of 70% in mackerel, 41% in blue whiting and 22% in boarfish. What you have to realise is that the 70% in mackerel relates to the fourth year of cuts. Therefore, the actual amount of fish our boats will now be expected to catch will probably be one third of the amount that pertained four or five years ago when this policy was being drafted. It was on the basis of these figures that the policy was drafted. The figures are now completely out of whack, and we are still moving ahead with taking an opportunity from boats that depend on it within the six-mile zone, in which they have been fishing for 50 years. They are now being told to leave the fishery because there is to be discrimination in favour of the small boats. This has nothing to do with science. We have heard it here today. It was said that it was not about sustainability but about access. That is what we heard from Sinéad McSherry. It is absolutely shocking to come all the way to Dublin to hear that boats are being discriminated against just because taking entitlements from larger boats and giving them to somebody else was promised in the programme for Government. Nobody seems to think that is wrong, but I do. I ask the committee to consider that.
Mr. Michael Foley:
We are sitting here talking about mackerel and what boats have or have not got. In actual fact, the inshore fleet has nothing. We do not have mackerel, blue whiting, redfish or boarfish. We did have herring but that was taken from the inshore boats to satisfy a few larger vessels.
We are actually getting away from the point of why we are here today. It is about sprat. When former the Minister Michael Creed introduced his measure – I will not use the word "ban" – it was not about sprat but about trawling inside the six-mile zone. It was to create opportunities for inshore boats that did not have any opportunities. Let us face it, Mr. Murphy, the bigger boats worked from the inside out down through the years. I have seen it first-hand. It is very easy for your boats to say we should stop or not do something. It is like a child who throws her rattle out of the cradle when she does not get her own way.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not mean to cut Mr. Foley off mid-flow, but I must ask him to direct his comments through the Chair. I want to avoid getting into a back-and-forth between witnesses.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Foley is more than entitled to make his point and respond to Mr. Murphy, but he should do so through the Chair. We will try to do that so we will not get into a back-and-forth if that is okay.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will give Mr. Murphy one minute only because Senator Boyle is waiting patiently for his opportunity.
Mr. Patrick Murphy:
There are ways in which we manage the fisheries. There is a hook-and-line opportunity for boats to catch mackerel. As Mr. Foley has pointed out, there are also draws for sentinel fisheries. There are 2,000 boats – the Department can verify this – and about 40 apply. The mackerel hook-and-line quota has been exceeded only once in the past ten years. Those concerned have not caught their quotas. To say that small boats do not have opportunities in Ireland is not true. I can say that as a small inshore fisherman. I have the evidence here on what is given out to small boats and big boats every month. You can see that those in question get half.
To give a quick summation, if small boats, which number 2,000, get 5 tonnes each, that is 10,000 tonnes. There are 140 big boats, and if they get 10 tonnes each, that is 1,400 tonnes.
On paper there are more opportunities for small boats. We keep defending our country's system of giving out fish in Europe under Article 17 because we keep being told that we are not giving out the opportunities. That is not true. As a small inshore fisherman working in a punt, giving me a quota for blue whiting is impossible. I cannot catch them. I had a 12 m boat. We had to fish to what our boat was capable of catching. It is not true to say the opportunities are not there. I agree with Mr. Foley. There should be more opportunities because, as Deputy Gallagher said, our country has the richest fishing waters in Europe but we do not get a proper share of our own fish.
Instead of fighting with Mr. Foley or other fisherman and boats inside, we are looking for our politicians to fight for us in Europe and elsewhere to make sure that the share-out, which is 15% to Irish fisherman and 85% to other visiting fleets, is addressed. We are being put out of business. We should look at areas where we can all work together to get more fish rather than fighting between ourselves over the crumbs and saying this fella or that fella is wrong.
Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I first want to pass on my condolences to the McCloskey family. I knew Kevin very well. He was a hard-working fisherman for 42 years and he was a good member to me. I offer his family my sincere condolences.
We are all here today but we will not be here next year if these proposals from ICES come through. We have lost 85% of our mackerel since 2022. I know we are here to discuss sprat and I will come to it in a minute. Our leaders - our Ministers and MEPs - need to stand up. It is time for the boys to do something. The industry cannot take these cuts. Other countries are overfishing here. Let us call them out as my colleagues have: Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. We are being really hammered. Anyone who tells me any different is wrong. There has been an 85% cut in mackerel since 2022. It is just criminal what has been going on. Somebody needs to stand up and be counted. People in coastal communities cannot live on scraps. That is what we have been doing for the past ten or 15 years. Somebody needs to draw a line in the sand and get a fair playing field for our coastal communities. Enough is enough. I ask committee members to all take a stand. Let us all get out and put the pressure on. These cuts cannot happen. I am sorry about that but with everything that is going on it is very hard to sit and listen to what ICES is saying.
Nobody exactly knows what the biomass of sprat out there is. Is that what is basically going on here? Nobody can turn around and say there is 20,000, 30,000 or 5,000 tonnes. Is there any way we can get figures on that?
Dr. Rick Officer:
A few questions have come from Deputy Gallagher and now from Senator Boyle. I am going restrict my answers to the role of the institute around assessment. As Dr. Kelly said in his opening remarks, for a species like this where the abundance is largely driven by environmental factors, including predation and environmental conditions, the optimal approach would be to assess through a survey basis. This would give an almost in-year indication of that change in abundance and then the catch limits could be set on the basis of that.
We are a long way from that for this stock. The first thing we would need to do is identify what we are dealing with. What is the identity of the stock? To what extent is it contained such that the survey abundance estimate is meaningful for the area in which we are choosing to manage it? There is a bit of a hierarchy in the order in which we would go about trying to achieve that assessment.
Maybe Dr. Kelly would like to elaborate on that, but that would be the kind of approach that we would need to adopt to address Deputy Gallagher's question around how you would go about it.
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
Deputy Gallagher referred to the herring surveys, for example, which we have currently in the Celtic Sea. We detect and can calculate a sprat biomass from that, but the issue here is not what you see on a survey but what the stock size is. The stock here, for sprat, is currently area VI, which is that area west of Scotland, all the way up to the Butt of Lewis and west of the western isles, and down to the north coast of Donegal, all the way around Ireland and up into the Irish Sea, and down into the Celtic Sea. There is not currently a single survey covering sprat biomass across that area, and if you were to move to a biomass-based estimate for managing the stock and giving a catch advice, you would need to have that put together. It can be done, because there are different surveys across that area, but what we would do, first of all, is find out the area of distribution of the stock. We are not completely naive on this. We have been for the past number of years gathering samples of sprat caught across all of that area of distribution. It is delayed currently, but we were expecting to have the genetic results from that by the end of the summer, in August. It has now been delayed. It is likely to be October, at this stage, before we get that. When that information is on the table, we should be able to say if, for example, the sprat west of Scotland are the same stock as the sprat in the Celtic Sea. If they are, we would need a survey across that entire area in order to be able to calculate the stock biomass. If they are not, we can then use the surveys that we have currently to estimate a biomass that would be relevant for the stocks. That work will have to be done through ICES because assessments are done in an international context, given that fisheries are international. Therefore, the ICES programme of work is currently putting up benchmarks for 2026. We cannot benchmark for sprat in 2026, but we may be able to do it in 2027 when that genetic information comes through. That is the timescale within which science works. We are better off getting the science right here before we try to base an advice on it, and that is the way we would always work in the institute.
Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I remember 15 or 20 years ago, out in a bay beside where I live, when people would go out fishing for sprat and it was all done for human consumption. It was done to put it into the food chain. What galls me is that sprat now goes to fish meal. It is no criticism of those involved in fish meal; they have to do it.
There needs to be a more in-depth approach to this. At the minute, it seems to be that we will try to fix it but it is not thinking into the future for moving on because there will be other species mixed through the sprat too, for instance, such as herring and mackerel, in the bays. We need to know what we are dealing with here. One cloth does not fit everything.
I get where Mr. Foley is coming from. The ordinary inshore fisherman relies on this. There might be four or five men out in a boat and that keeps them going all winter. They need to be looked after. We have to come up with something better than the six-mile limit.
Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Cathaoirleach and welcome our guests here today. I concur with Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher, who hit the nail on the head. It is fair to say that our rich waters have been and are being robbed and raped of our fair share, our country's fair share, our fishermen's fair share, and that has led to a debate in regard to inland fisheries here and disagreement, obviously. I am a firm believer in supporting and securing our fishing communities and fishermen.
I have supported the ban on pair trawling here at this committee and on the floor of Dáil Éireann, and as a county councillor in Kerry, I have seen at first hand what has been happening. I live on a beach. I have seen the trawlers operate outside me. I have seen it in Dingle Bay and Kenmare Bay. In that context, I acknowledge the work done by the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, and the Minister, Deputy Heydon. The students in Pobalscoil Inbhear Scéine, the school I referenced here on a couple of occasions previously, did terrific work but I suppose we would not be talking about that only for what has happened at EU level. In that context, maybe it is time that we organised a high-powered delegation, I would suggest headed up by the Minister for agriculture and the junior Ministers, Deputies Heydon and Dooley, and this committee to go to Brussels and meet with the powers that be there. We have been talking for long enough about this issue. We cannot change history or decisions that were made, but we can certainly fight our corner. The only way we can do that is by going to Brussels, sitting around the table, making our case, and putting it out there in black and white because it is black and white. Here we are speaking about, basically, the scraps. We are speaking about protecting the sprat. They are a vital part of the fish food chain, obviously. I am not an expert in fisheries data, etc., although I listen to the facts, obviously. It would be a wise decision for us to go to Brussels with a high-powered delegation, including this committee.
Ultimately, like our Ministers and Department officials, we in this room are responsible for securing the future of our fishermen, our inland fisheries and our coastal communities, as I have said, and if we do not act, it will be gone.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Would anybody like to respond to that? Mr. Lynch is at a disadvantage because he is on Teams, but he has his hand raised. We will come to Ms McSherry afterwards.
Mr. John Lynch:
To get back to the substantive issue here of the sprat fishery, from the point of view of my organisation, the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation, we were instrumental in the development of the Sentinel herring fishery in the Dunmore box when the stock collapsed. We were also instrumental in the development of the hook-and-line fishery, which started from some members in Dunmore who were having issues around access to a quota for a hook-and-line fishery. That fishery evolved from there.
In terms of the sprat fishery, those are the types of management systems we need to look at in the absence of having a full stock assessment for sprat. The lads in the Marine Institute are working to improve our knowledge on sprat. We need to do that also and develop fisheries that suit the available stock. We all know that sprat is an important forage fishery and we need to measure how we catch it and where and when we catch it, and how much of it we take. We can work our way through it. On the development of a fishery that is sustainable for ourselves around Ireland, we can avoid in this fishery the collapse that we are seeing in the other pelagic stocks because of the actions of others.
Deputy Gallagher mentioned the pelagic stocks and the cuts. What is unfortunate about those cuts, and particularly the one in mackerel, is that it will not help the mackerel stock one bit because of what is going on in the coastal states outside of the European Union. Unless that is brought to a head and something is done about that, we are heading in a bad direction.
On sprat, we need to get back to square one to negotiate how it should be managed and in what manner. As Ms McSherry said, the six-mile ban was not in particular to manage the sprat fishery, but as a consequence it has done so. The six-mile ban also has other consequences that I mentioned in the SIA's opening statement. It has an impact on the nephrops fishery in the Irish Sea and in the west of Ireland. It also has an impact on herring fisheries around the coast, where access will be a problem. From our organisation's point of view on the six-mile ban, we think a ban on vessels longer than 18 m is arbitrary. There is no difference between a vessel of 17.9 m and 18.1 m, but this regulation will force vessels over 18 m to go outside the base lines, and six nautical miles of those base lines in the depths of winter and in poor weather. I know that particular section of the fleet has been depleted because of fishing pressures over the years. Nonetheless, I do not like to see people forced to do something they do not normally do.
Ms Sinéad McSherry:
I will first deal with the comments by Deputies Cahill and Gallagher on the publication of the ICES advice this morning. It was published while we were here, so I have not done a full analysis of it. However, the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, will be here on the 14th to discuss the sustainability impact assessment of fisheries opportunities for 2026. That will be a significant issue of debate. Second, if I recall directly, in his first appearance at the committee, the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, invited the committee to join him in working with and visiting the Commission to set out Irish priorities. That is something on which Deputy Cahill's proposal could be moved.
I will comment on a couple of issues coming up relating to the ban on over 18s inside six. The Minister will not accept that these are discriminatory toward the over 18s. The aim of the new arrangements is to provide a benefit to smaller boats in terms of improved security and economic opportunity. The value of the catch forgone by the larger sea fishing boats could in theory be taken up directly by the smaller sea fishing boats. We have discussed at length that sprat is a non-quota species. It is concentrated inside the six nautical miles, and the increased availability of sprat to smaller boats could represent a significant diversification opportunity for the inshore, which Mr. Foley spoke about earlier. I understand what Mr. Lynch said about the base lines and how they are measured around the coast. The six nautical miles from the baseline can be further on the south-west and west coast than it can on the east coast. I would say on those comments in respect of pelagic species, that they are available to fish outside the six. I think herring and horse mackerel were mentioned. There are opportunities to fish those outside of the six nautical miles and the base lines.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is really important that the Government supports inshore fisheries. I know that inshore fisheries have been squeezed out of many of the fisheries. Last week they outlined a series of ways in which they could be supported. It is important that Government does that. I understand the rationale for the ban on larger boats. However, and this is more directed at the Department, there will not be a long-term benefit to the inshore fishery if you do not have it as a sustainable fishery. When you are developing policies, you cannot separate those two things. There is a real risk with it. In the absence of data from the Marine Institute on what can be caught sustainably and where, there is a significant risk. That risk is not just to the livelihoods of the inshore fishermen. We have also seen that many marine tourism operators are being impacted by this, as is the wider environment in its own right, whether mammals or seaboards.
That was important, and this was a missed opportunity to deal with that. When I have been calling for a moratorium on fishing, it was for that purpose - a moratorium until a sustainable management plan was in place. That is ultimately what will assist the inshore sector many years into the future, and not just be a benefit over the coming few years. That is important.
I also make another point. It is unfortunate that some of the environmental groups were not invited in or invited to make a submission, because quite serious allegations are being made against them and they do not have an opportunity to respond. That is really unfair. When we talk about the marine, which this committee is tasked to deal with, it is not just fisheries issues that we have been tasked to deal with. We have been tasked to deal with the wider marine environment as well. It is important that we see all of those different aspects work in conjunction. It is not the case that we will just focus on fisheries and how much more quota we can get. Fundamentally, if we do not have the science right and do not have sustainable fisheries, we will see collapse of all those and then no-one will have any work. That is really important.
I return to the Marine Institute. The plan and policy are in place. There will be a ban on the over 18s, and the inshore fishers will have access to unregulated and unlimited amounts of sprat going forward. I will not be able to change that, no matter what Bills I introduce. Hopefully, these discussions will assist the Minister going forward in making further decisions on this. However, I ask that the Marine Institute is tasked to conduct all the analysis it can and that it is resourced. I am not sure how the ICES process gets kicked off for 2027, but it is fundamental that it is done. We cannot have a situation where we have the international organisation responsible for fisheries management saying that as a precautionary measure, we should not be fishing above 2,200 tonnes and yet we do not have any quota on them at all. There are no restrictions other than the short-term restriction on the over 18s. That is not acceptable. How do we get that ICES process kicked off, or is it already under way?
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
For the avoidance of doubt, I take Deputy Whitmore's point that it would be interesting to hear the perspective of environmental organisations. At least one invitation was issued and there were a number of opportunities where proposals could be made to invite in further organisations. It is not that it was not a consideration. The clerk can correct me if I am wrong, but one invitation was issued and unfortunately was not taken up. That is an important point to make.
Dr. Rick Officer:
I thank the Deputy for her question. We are not starting from scratch here. We have provided the committee with a substantial written submission. The second appendix of that summarises some of the Marine Institute work, which is ongoing to close out some of the data gaps she mentioned. They have been well reiterated within the committee's discussions today. We have mentioned some basic things on the biology of the stock such as its longevity, which is important to the timescale over which management would be implemented. The investigation of stock structure is important, and we have genetic work under way. It is being conducted with our equivalent agency in the UK. There is a better explanation of biomass, so using surveys. There is management strategy evaluation, which is quite immature at this stage, because it needs to be conditioned by the previous information. You can only really get at that once you have some of the precursory information in place. There is work under way. Of course, the institute is under the aegis of the Department. We negotiate annual oversight and performance agreements.
We are open to responding to imperatives from the Department to accelerate this work.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Dr. Kelly mentioned a pathway for ICES. Has that pathway or roadmap started in the context of genetic testing and trends? Has that started? Do we as a State have to request that is done?
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
Yes, it has. It has been under way for several years. Unfortunately, one of the difficult parts of doing science is that it takes a long time to get this information to the table. That is doubly so in the case of fishery science, where you have to work across an international community and work through intergovernmental organisations such as ICES. We are well on the path to the process. As I said, and just for the record, the expectation is that we may be in a position to do this in 2027. It also depends on a number of other factors.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will turn to the Department.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Do so very briefly, Deputy.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is important that the Marine Institute gets support because this issue is not going to go away. We have this unregulated fishery and the chances are that this issue is going to keep arising, again and again. I do not know if the Department has already directed the Marine Institute or ensured that it has all the resources it requires. Some work is happening already but if the institute needs anything else, there should be close agreement with the Department.
Ms Sinéad McSherry:
As Dr. Kelly said, the science needs to be mature in order to use it. As regards the Marine Institute, tasking and the OPA we have with it, naturally the resourcing of the Marine Institute is down to the Vote at the end of the day. We will work with the Marine Institute to use the Vote that we receive from the Government as efficiently as possible.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I said earlier that huge political failure at European level puts immense pressure on the entire Irish fishing fleet and leads to some of the tensions articulated here today. We should note that. Iceland and Norway, which are two sovereign countries, and the Faroe Islands, which are pretty much sovereign although they are part of Denmark, have utterly ignored scientific advice and overfished a species. As it is a migratory species, it was a shared resource for the countries bordering those waters. It is absolutely devastating. We are looking at the bankruptcy and destruction of a sector, along with the destruction of jobs and communities, with no repercussions whatsoever. Our own fishermen would never get away with that. It is devastating in the context we meet today. It is no wonder that fishermen are fighting with each other. The pressure people are under is immense. That is the context which should focus all our minds.
I believe in a science-led approach, but it must be applied consistently across the board. Nobody can escape the science. That is reckless and destroys the opportunities of future generations. It is hard to argue for a strong, robust scientific approach today, but we must. We have no choice, even if other countries utterly recklessly ignore it.
In her written submission, Ms McSherry stated, "Ireland will, of course, have regard for a possible TAC [total allowable catch] and quota regime or other appropriate conservation measures going forward if recommended in the scientific advice to support the sustainable management of sprat." In its submission, the seafood alliance protests repeatedly, and compellingly, that it wants to see robust scientific evidence for management. I am led to understand that in the Baltic and North seas, a maximum sustainable catch of yield approach, based on science, is taken. Is there an international model that Ireland could follow? I will say again that it appears to me that we could set a quota in Ireland. Can we do that?
Can the Irish Government, on the basis of science and taking a science-led approach, set a quota for sprat? In her written submission, Ms McSherry stated, "At this time, there is no proposal from the EU Commission for a total allowable catch". That is absolutely extraordinary. On the one hand, we are not ensuring that the food chain for a species is protected by not using a scientific basis. On the other hand, we ignore countries that recklessly destroy species in defiance of international and scientific advice. We do nothing when people ignore the rules to that level and we do not even bother to provide a framework. This is tough. We are legislators. We always say that laws only work if they apply to everybody equally and are enforced. We see today the breakdown of international law. There are implications when people ignore the law and when laws are not in place.
It is hard not to vent. Many of the committee members know what this means for our communities. We know that people are losing their livelihoods and jobs on the back of this advice. The news we are getting today is absolutely devastating. It is impossible not refer to that when we are dealing with this issue. We have no choice other than to base this on science. I again ask the Marine Institute and Ms McSherry, the assistant director in the Department, how we get to a point where we have absolutely solid scientific advice? Is it a matter of employing more officials? Do we need more resources for the Marine Institute to do this? Will we do what the fishermen have asked us to, which is to have a scientific framework on which we can rely in order that they are not fighting with each other? Is there a model in other countries, as I am led to understand there is in the Baltic and North seas, that we could lean on in considering how to address this issue?
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There were a couple of different questions there. I will go first to Ms McSherry, next to Mr. Murphy and back to the Marine Institute thereafter.
Ms Sinéad McSherry:
I have written down a few of the Deputy's questions, and I hope I get to them all. The first question he was asked was in respect of sprat and the introduction of a quota management system. In my statement, I outlined the extant situation, which is that there is no plan at EU level. The policy directive that was subject to the recent public consultation was on trawling inside six nautical miles of the coast. It is a political decision for the Minister if he wishes to introduce a sprat management policy. That can be considered but was not the subject of the recent public consultation, which was on trawling inside six nautical miles of the coast. That is that issue.
On the ICES advice, both Dr. Kelly and Dr. Officer have spoken at length about the process around the establishment of that advice and the time it takes. Science takes time in order to establish those patterns. Irrespective of the genetic system that we spoke about earlier, it will be at least 2027 before that element of advice is available.
The Deputy also mentioned the actions at EU and international levels. The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, previously spoke to the Deputy about his views on the actions of third countries and their overexploitation of mackerel in particular and of blue whiting. For coastal states, there was a recent proposal from the EU to take emergency management measures to combat that. The Faroese regulation was recently voted on in Council. That is the colloquial name. I am afraid I cannot remember the relevant digits because that was not a matter we were here to discuss today. The regulation is designed to take actions against those countries that do not fish sustainably. That has been moved on by the EU. Politically at the EU level there has been a high-level dialogue between the Commission and Norway. Commissioner Kadis spoke at the Council last week about trying to re-engage on the issue and move that further forward.
The final piece is, as I mentioned earlier, an issue that will be discussed directly with the Minister at the committee meeting of 14 October, that is, the Minister's political view on the EU negotiating on behalf of all member states in respect of coastal state stocks and whether there will be bilateral or trilateral agreements between the member states of the EU and the UK, the EU, Norway and the UK, and the coastal states in general.
They were the issues the Deputy mentioned. Have I forgotten anything?
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, that is fair enough.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is for the Marine Institute to deal with. Do we need more resources and are there other international comparisons we lean on?
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Dr. Officer can respond to that directly and I will come to Mr. Murphy then, if that is okay.
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
Yes, there is a way to move forward here, but the fundamental basis for it is a definition of the stock. In the case of the North Sea, the channel and the Baltic, there is a stock definition that defines the area within which the stock is distributed. Surveys are then carried out across the full extent of that area and then you can collate the appropriate catch data for where the catch is relevant to that stock. You would need those three elements to be put together. We have a putative stock at the moment, which is areas 6 and 7. It is to establish whether the stock is over all of those areas. If it were, you would need to co-ordinate, at the very least, with the UK to cover the area west of Scotland and you would also need to collate the data with regard to the catches across that area. That would all be done through ICES.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Why has it not been done?
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
How does it become known?
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
It becomes known through genetics. That is what I referred to earlier on - a piece of work we expected to have been due before the end of this summer but which is slightly delayed. We would expect it to be out before the end of the year. However, I also mentioned that once that genetic and scientific information is available, it has to go through due process. It goes back into ICES. There is a stock assessment ID working group and it would peer review that information. It would then give advice to say that these are now the stock boundaries for one or more sprat stocks around Ireland and Scotland and, following that definition, it would work to benchmark the assessment, which is where you get an assessment, similar to that which is done in the channel, the North Sea or the Baltic, done on the appropriate assessment area around Ireland.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On the timeframes, let us assume all the witnesses collectively, the Department and the Marine Institute, would have the will to have an accurate scientific assessment of the stock moving forward. What is the best case scenario with regard to timeframes to get to the point where we have a similar model?
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
The best case scenario, as I mentioned earlier on, would be about 2027, but that depends on everything going according to plan. The reason it is out that far, and people might think that is an awful long way down the road, is that it requires in the first instance that stock identification working group to sit. It has not sat because the information is not currently on the table. That would be planned for 2026. In 2026, we are then working through an intergovernmental organisation, ICES, to table a benchmark, and because ICES is an actual voluntary network of scientists, the tabling of that work needs to be done according to prioritisation. Sprat would be one, and we would be pushing sprat as a high priority for that. The best outcome we could expect is that, by 2027, we would have a benchmark assessment for sprat subject to us being able to define the stock appropriately and getting the appropriate information.
If the information regards a sprat stock in, let us say, for example and for argument's sake, in the Celtic Sea, we already have surveys covering that area appropriately, but if the stock is distributed further and wider, we would have to co-ordinate those surveys effectively. That is just a piece of work. If there was a gap in the survey information, you would then have to begin the survey work at that point. That is why I say 2027 is an optimistic outline for that but it is not impossible.
Mr. Patrick Murphy:
I will address this to Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, who I think is one of the best advocates for our industry I have met in my time as CEO of the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation. However, I do not agree that I came here to argue with my fellow fishermen. Absolutely not.
I wanted to put out the facts about the fisheries that are there. We have nine closed fisheries. We have MPAs and wind farms coming towards us. This is not just about sprat. We have boats that have traditionally fished and earned their living - it is part of their income - inside these areas where they are now no longer going to be able to do it. When I hear this is not discriminatory, I scratch my head and wonder how that evaluation can be come up with. I am going to give an example. We have faced, and will face, the UK, which did the TCA deal for 12 years, to which we gave 49 million of fish, 25% of our fish, in order to have access to UK waters. Now they are saying that 43 areas are going to be designated as marine protected areas. In one of those areas, our boats spend 80% of their year's catches, and they are going to be excluded from those areas. Can members imagine if the UK turned around and brought in a measure to say that they needed to protect their English boats and, ergo, they were going to give those opportunities just to English boats? Would we call that discrimination? For me, that is a simple "yes".
I know we have been discussing 101 times about the science and how we need the science to decide on how we can set a quota for this important stock. For my members and the larger members, if they do not have a quota in this, then they will be even further discriminated against with regard to this opportunity. We have spoken today about the loss of opportunities.
To make sure people understand where I am coming from, on the wall of my organisation there were 87 boats and members in 1995. After three decommissioning schemes, we are left with 37. That is where we are. We have vessels landing into our ports that are actually increasing their activity since Brexit. We have boats coming into Castletownbere landing fish into the backs of lorries that are damaging the roads due to the weight of the fish and our fishermen still do not fight with those fishermen because it is a competitive industry outside. However, we do need a fair share of the fish in our own waters.
Coming back to what Deputy Michael Cahill said about going to Europe, we have a Common Fisheries Policy that has three pillars under relative stability. They are the protection of coastal communities, the protection of our oceans and the protection of our stocks. Aside from the impending doom coming in pelagics, we have nine species, both in the Irish Sea and the Celtic Sea, with zero catch advice. We have no quotas. We are not allowed to have a quota unless we have a by-catch for whiting, cod, haddock and pollock in the Celtic Sea. We are at death's door. They are the facts of our industry. We are in such danger of losing our industry.
This is the last thing I want members to remember. I ask them to please remember this. In 2004, on the Irish fishing register, we had 400 vessels over 15 m. There were 400 boats for the entire Irish people. Now, in 2025, we have 140. That is it. They are the boats we are talking about that are trying to earn a living in our waters.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Murphy. We will leave it there because we have one more question.
Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not think the question I posed around how they proposed 2,000 tonnes of sprat to be distributed over the 18 m vessels that are allowed to fish there between now and the end of September next year has been answered. Could somebody give me the chronological order from the date the Minister will sign and place before the House the statutory instrument bringing into force the ban from October 2026? We always have to be conscious of the judicial review and what the deadline is by which that has to be taken by any parties.
On the unilateral fishing and overfishing by non-EU member states, I could not emphasise enough the importance of addressing that and calling them out for what it is: overfishing, and knowing full well they are going to overfish.
In time they will suffer but now we are suffering and it may be too late once that is resolved.
At the time, I sat in the dining room with Michel Barnier, who looked me straight in the eye and told me, when I asked how we were going to be affected, that fish and trade would be inextricably linked and, for whatever reason, he said, "You will not be affected." As a result of Brexit, however, we lost 26% of what was a low quota at that time. I recommended and I said it, but of course, fishing is a small pawn in the overall game, that we should have threatened to veto Brexit, and a threat of vetoing Brexit would certainly have saved our industry. I blame those responsible at the time, because I recommended it but I was not listened to.
We talk about area 6. That is offshore and there are conflicting messages. It is important when we look then at the south of Ireland, the nephrops south of the Aran Islands, they are inside six nautical miles. If we take Tory Island, in the heart of my own county, it is also inside six nautical miles. Someone has to be more pragmatic. The six-mile ban is not right. It needs to be looked at and we have to talk to the Minister about that. Everything can be changed and common sense has to come into it. Having said that, maybe we could get the answers to those few questions and I sincerely hope it is not too late for a revival of our pelagic fishery.
Ms Carol Forrest:
I thank the Deputy for his questions. To answer his question on the timeline, once the policy directive or legal instruments required to bring this restriction into place are signed and laid before the Houses, they will then have immediate effect. That would be a very quick timeframe once the policy directive is signed.
I believe my colleague, Ms McSherry, wanted to come in.
Ms Sinéad McSherry:
The Deputy's second question related to the matter raised earlier on the actions by third countries in respect of the pelagic fleet. I cannot speak to the direct negotiations on Brexit. They are what happened. The key piece relates to fishing opportunities for 2026 and that we analyse carefully the advice that comes out today. The impact of overfishing from those third countries will be evident in that advice. How Ireland interacts with the negotiations and the TAC and quota regulation for 2026 will be very important. To reiterate, that discussion will be here on 14 October.
Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What about the 2,000 tonnes of sprat?
Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To finish up, there is an urgent need for financial support for the inland fisheries sector. In an ideal world, I should not even have to say that, but to wrap up, the monster in the room is obviously the foreign boats coming in.
They are robbing and raping our waters. Will the committee move on organising that type of deputation to Brussels?
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As Ms McSherry reminded us, we have an invitation to attend from the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, the logistics of which we can discuss at our next private meeting. It would be useful. Most of us around this room and any of us who have been involved in any way in sea fisheries have been over and met DG MARE, the Commission, the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries, PECH, and our MEPs. Earlier today, we discussed having a joint committee, at Deputy Gallagher's suggestion, with the fisheries committee in the European Parliament. I also suggested that we ask our MEPs to attend a committee meeting here in the not-too-distant future. We need to continue that engagement with all the various institutions at European level. As has been referenced multiple times during this meeting, we will have the Minister appear here on 14 October, where we will be discussing the December Council meeting and the issues around fishing opportunity, in particular quota, which is the elephant in the room, as Deputy Cahill mentioned, and the fact we need to dramatically increase fishing opportunity for the Irish industry or consign it to a watery grave. Therein, we can have discussions about how we allocate that national quota domestically.
It is also important to note that, following our meeting with the National Inshore Fishermen's Association last week, we will have another engagement in a couple of weeks' time with the island fisheries operators. We will also be seeking to have the Minister before us to discuss issues emanating from those discussions, so there is a piece of work we are undertaking. To answer the Deputy's question, we will definitely be following up with that invitation. Whether it will be this side or the other side of the Council meeting remains to be seen, but it is very important that all the testimony we have gathered in all the meetings since this committee was re-established be fed to the Minister as he and his team make their preparations for the December Council meeting because the industry waits with bated breath. Our communities wish to charge the Minister as strongly as we possibly can before he goes over to that.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have a brief question for the Marine Institute. It is a sort of closing question. Dr. Kelly said it would take a number of years to build up the evidence and data and to go through the ICES process, so it will take a number of years before there is any possibility of developing any specific sprat management plans. Leaving aside economic or political reasons and purely on the basis of science, what would the witnesses recommend in relation to the sprat fishery in the absence of that information to date? Is it the use of the precautionary quota that has been determined by ICES or do the witnesses have any other opinions or recommendations on it? That is purely on the evidence and the fishery science.
Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is for whoever wishes to answer.
Dr. Ciaran Kelly:
The Marine Institute participates in ICES and we are party to the ICES advice. Of course, we would recommend the ICES advice because that is the best available science at present.
That said, as we referred to earlier on, that advice is not particularly useful in terms of management. It is a precautionary approach but it is not particularly useful. The basis for saying this is that that average catch advice is useful for stocks for which there are multiple year classes in a fishery and stock. In the case of sprat, though, it is not useful and the abundance goes up and down very rapidly. However, in the absence of any other information, it is that precautionary advice.
There is a process ongoing within ICES and Ireland is both intimately involved and an actual leader in ICES, too. There are individuals seconded from the Marine Institute, for example, who hold positions within ICES in terms of the chair of the advisory council. We are working through those channels to try to get a better basis for the advice.
This is called data-limited advice within ICES and a process is ongoing in ICES to better provide such advice, particularly in the case of short-lived species like sprat. We hope in the interim - between now and 2027, for example - we could have better advice from ICES with regard to these types of stock.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have no further members indicating to speak. I have been listening attentively and would like to pose a question to the three fisheries representatives and give them a minute or two to sum up. Notwithstanding the lack of scientific evidence on the table, we would be better able to manage this and it would not be a crisis were there sufficient fishing opportunities for Irish vessels, both big and small. Mr. Lynch has been waiting patiently so I will go to him first, then to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Foley to finish up.
Mr. John Lynch:
The Chair has asked whether it is a lack of fishing opportunities that is driving the issues around sprat and, in a way, that is correct. The further reduction in fishing opportunities announced today is a disaster for the pelagic industry in Ireland. We have these issues in other fisheries as well and are looking at fairly poor advice around whitefish stocks and this all leads to a concentration on what is available. In demersals, there is an increased concentration on nephrops. That is due to a lack of whitefish opportunities because of stock depletion or for one reason or another, mainly due to poor recruitment in gadid stocks.
On the six miles, it is not as though any huge fishery is being stopped in terms of demersals but the access to certain nephrops fisheries and partial access to some herring fisheries really is an issue. The cumulative impact of ORE and marine protected areas will further reduce access of fisheries to certain fishing grounds that they have traditionally fished. The cumulative effect of everything is pushing vessels to make the most of any opportunity available to them but that does not take away from the need to manage in line with scientific advice and the need to manage our fisheries so they are sustainable. In Ireland we have generally done quite a good job of that. If we set up a committee or a system where we could negotiate or at least discuss managing sprat or any other stock we have issues with, either outside or inside six nautical miles, our organisations has always advocated for sitting around the table and discussing the best way to manage these fisheries for everybody's benefit.
Mr. Patrick Murphy:
I want to let people know we do not just come in and not prepare. We look at the science, work with the scientists and take advice from the scientists. We have an IFSRP working partnership with our scientists behind us. We look into the science. I will explain. A short-lived stock, a couple of years old, if they are not caught, they die of natural causes - natural mortality. In the fishing industry we feel, as hunter gatherers, that, rather than let them die and go to waste, we prefer they be brought into the food chain to provide food security. That is what I am saying about the sprat. We need proper advice to make sure they are managed properly. I hope that happens soon because we have two MSC-certified sprat fisheries in Europe. Last year I think the science gave them a doubling, which is a couple of hundred thousand tonnes.
These fish are designed to spawn. I do not know the year class when they come into maturity. Maybe that could be answered. These are the real facts. If you have a real fishery that has been sustainably done by Mr. Foley and the other lads, regardless of the size of the boat, that leads other fisheries to say it is sustainable, like Mr. Kelly said, but it is different because it is not a long-living stock so they do not take the landings as an indicator of how healthy the stock is. There is a complication there. We understand the science. We realise if there is a stock our fisherman are watching, they do not want to fish it out. I am sure Mr. Foley would agree. They have equipment like sonars on board the boats and they see the marks of the fish. They know where they are and move around the bays. It would be helpful if the spawning cycle of these fish was clarified because much is being made of the fish going into the bays to spawn, yet we are told that is not true.
This fishery happens in the autumn. Even if you see boats in the bays, it does not necessarily mean they are in there to shoot the gear. They are looking for the fish. They fish sustainably. They do not drag the bays, start at one end and work their way out. I am sure Mr. Foley will agree with that. They are professional fisherman; they target the fish, look for the best fish, bring it in, fish sustainably and do not wipe out the stocks or trawl all around the bays. A lot of the misinformation out there could be addressed by the committee getting the facts and making sure there is a paper there.
The last thing I will say is what I started off with. We reached out to all the different parties with a draft proposal of management in the bays with net sizes and times. The amount of days fishing in the bay for sprat and the other species, as Deputy Gallagher pointed out, is critical to the boats. The information from the first consultation said only 3% is caught by the overall fishery. If you look at the data, you can see this is not as detrimental as people might be led to believe. I understand it. Suddenly there are big boats in the bay, but you have to see whether the nets are shot. You can easily find out how many times these boats have shot and it is way less than one would believe.
Mr. Michael Foley:
From a NIFA point of view, we are delighted with the six mile zone. It will give opportunities to the inshore boats. We took a big hit last year on pollock. It was zero TAC. I am not so sure about ICES. I am not here to question it but last year was zero TAC and this year is 3,000 TAC. In my experience of stock recovery, it does not come up from zero to 3,000 within 12 months. It is quite possible it is making a mistake - maybe not, we will have to see where the science goes. Inshore boats are inshore. They cannot go up into the fields and are not big enough to go off. There has to be something there for them. We cannot be taking the dirty end of the stick all the time. That is what we have been doing as far back as I can remember. The inshore boats get the short straw. Any more than that I cannot really say.
Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank all our witnesses for their contributions, statements and conduct today. It has been very informative for all our members and an important piece of work for the committee. It is something we will return to and discuss again. We do not quite have a resolution - we will put it that way. We await advances in research and science on which we can rely as committee members, people involved in the fishing industry, managers and all the rest. I also thank our members for their contributions, good conduct and the quality of the discussions. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.