‘Flawed, Out of Control and Unfit for Purpose’: Fish Processors Hit Out at SFPA

The Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association delivered one of the most forceful committee statements in years  calling for root-and-branch reform of the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority

In a detailed opening statement to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs on 24th March 2026, the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association (IFPEA) made a case for fundamental reform of the SFPA, citing a decade of disproportionate regulation, a broken relationship between regulator and industry, and a paper-trail burden found nowhere else in Europe.

Ireland’s Processing Sector: The Scale of What Is at Stake

When Brendan Byrne, speaking on behalf of the IFPEA, took his seat before the committee this week, he came armed with figures that put the importance of the fish processing sector in stark relief. Established in 1977, the IFPEA represents all fish processors and exporters in Ireland across the pelagic, whitefish, shellfish and retail sectors: from sole traders to the State’s largest seafood enterprises. Its active members account for 90% of the 3,600 people currently employed in fish processing.

The financial numbers are striking. According to Bord Bia data for 2025, the value of Irish fish exports reached €672 million: a jump of 22% on 2024, representing an extra €123 million in export earnings for the country. Much of that increase was driven by price inflation in pelagic stocks, particularly mackerel. Yet behind those headline figures lies a more complex picture.

Export volumes tell a different story. While 200,022 metric tonnes left Irish shores in 2025: up by nearly 49,000 mt on the previous year: that figure still sits 33% below the 290,400 mt exported in 2021. The partial recovery in 2025 was largely due to the reopening of West African markets for blue whiting, markets that had been lost in 2023 and 2024 when cheap Russian-caught blue whiting was rerouted through the Faroe Islands, undercutting Irish product.

France remains Ireland’s largest fish export market at €141 million, followed by the United Kingdom at €93.4 million and Spain at €63.1 million. Across all regions, EU countries absorb €398 million worth of Irish fish exports, with Asia accounting for €89 million, Africa €65 million and North America €15 million. Byrne underlined that significant growth potential remains: particularly across Asian markets, North America, Africa and the Mediterranean, where demand for premium Irish shellfish is strong.

“Ireland has consistently been in the top three most compliant Member States in the EU: yet our industry has been treated as a suspect sector.”

A Gold Standard: Undermined by Its Own Regulator

One of the most pointed arguments in the IFPEA statement concerned Ireland’s compliance record, and the contradiction at the heart of how the industry is perceived domestically versus internationally. The association noted that for the past decade, Ireland has consistently ranked among the top three most compliant EU Member States when it comes to fisheries enforcement: a fact, Byrne argued, that is rarely acknowledged publicly.

He cited a report published in October 2025 by the Environmental Justice Foundation: a coalition including Oceana, the Nature Conservancy, Pew Charitable Trust and the WWF: which acknowledged that Ireland is ‘well above the required minimum threshold, inspecting well above 30% of landings.’ The same report singled out the Netherlands for continuing to receive large volumes of seafood from high-risk flag states while still failing to meet basic inspection requirements.

The association was blunt in its frustration that this strong compliance track record has not translated into a more constructive regulatory relationship. ‘It is regrettable,’ the statement noted, ‘that some within our country wish to put out a false narrative regarding our fishing industry.’ The IFPEA acknowledged that committee members had tackled this issue head-on at a previous SFPA appearance.

€2.55 Million Invested: And Still Not Trusted

Perhaps the most striking section of the IFPEA submission concerned the substantial investment the seven remaining Irish pelagic processors have made in compliance infrastructure since 2022: entirely at their own cost. A total of €2.55 million was committed, with no grant assistance received.

This included the wholesale replacement of all flow scale weighing equipment with the latest state-of-the-art systems, standardised across all factories. The new equipment is capable of zeroing out every thirty minutes to guard against interference: a standard, Byrne told the committee, that has not been matched anywhere else in Europe.

More than 80 CCTV cameras were installed across processing facilities, providing live feeds directly to SFPA offices located on the first floor of the Killybegs Harbour Centre building. That footage is currently retained by processors for six months: a requirement that was increased from 31 days on 10th January 2026. In total, the system generates 370,000 hours of footage covering fish as it is landed, weighed and sampled, all streamed in real time to the regulator.

Despite all of this, the IFPEA told the committee that processors are still required, upon request, to download and deliver full high-definition recordings of at least three randomly selected landings per year to the SFPA’s Clonakilty office within three working days: at their own cost. The expense of hiring a specialist to handle the download of multi-day, high-definition recordings is borne entirely by the industry. Byrne noted that Minister Martin Heydon, on a visit to Killybegs on 20th February, was able to witness one such download exercise firsthand.

“Ireland is the only country in Europe that requires a transport document for moving fish less than 1,000 metres: and since January 2026, it must be emailed from the cab of the lorry.”

Paperwork That Defies Belief

The association then walked the committee through a detailed list of the documentary requirements placed on pelagic processors for each and every landing: 15 separate steps in total, covering everything from the skipper’s prior landing notification (submitted at least four hours before entering port) through to monthly coldstore stock reports and pre-export health certificate applications.

One requirement in particular drew attention. EU regulations provide that no transport document is needed when moving fish less than 25 kilometres. In Ireland, a transport document must be completed when moving fish less than 1,000 metres: the typical distance between pier and factory in Killybegs. Since January 2026, that document must be emailed from the lorry cab on the pier to the SFPA office before the truck can move. The SFPA office is between 35 and 45 metres away from where the lorry is parked. Failure to send the email before moving is a criminal offence.

‘No other EU member state has all of the above,’ Byrne told the committee. ‘Many have some, but none have all.’

The Sampling Scandal: Accuracy Sacrificed for Procedure

The statement saved some of its sharpest criticism for the weighing and sampling regime that has been imposed on the pelagic sector since 2023. Despite processors investing in precision flow scale technology costing around €89,450 per unit: capable of delivering 100% weighing accuracy: the official weights recorded on all legal documents are now determined not by those scales, but by extrapolation from a 25 kg basket sample.

That sample basket costs approximately €19.99. Yet it is the legal basis on which the entire species composition and weight of a landing: potentially thousands of tonnes: is calculated. And if the resulting figure is found to be inaccurate, it is treated as a criminal offence. No other EU member state imposes criminal liability in this way.

The IFPEA told the committee that for the past six months, the SFPA and the Marine Institute have been jointly conducting a study of the current sampling procedure. Their conclusion, according to the association, was unambiguous: it is not possible to accurately determine weights by means of sampling and extrapolation. A copy of the Marine Institute’s report was submitted with the opening statement.

The reputational damage caused by this regime, the IFPEA argued, has set back the sector’s ability to attract landings from other EU member states and third countries: particularly for higher-value species such as mackerel and horse mackerel.

A Regulator Without Oversight: and Built on a Failed Act

The association did not spare the SFPA’s senior management when it came to apportioning blame. Byrne referenced the PricewaterhouseCoopers organisational review of April 2020, which found that the SFPA lacked independent direction, that port officers were ‘operating with a degree of independence’ that was shaped by a range of poorly managed factors, and that the organisation required urgent clarity of mission and management accountability.

‘It is pointless quoting the entire report,’ the statement noted, ‘and it is equally clear that serious issues remain within, and with how, the SFPA functions: whether in the pelagic sector or elsewhere in white fish and shellfish.’

The IFPEA was also critical of what it characterised as a deliberate framing by the SFPA’s current executive of its regulatory approach around ‘healthy friction’ with the industry. That philosophy, the association argued, set the wrong tone from the outset: and filtered down to frontline staff and officers. Recent court cases, it noted, had exposed to the entire country what the SFPA is capable of when its powers are left unchecked and subject to no effective oversight.

The association called the 2006 Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act a ‘failed piece of legislation,’ comparable in vintage and in failure to the financial and building regulations of the same era: both of which have since been repealed and replaced. ‘The regulator cannot be permitted to self-regulate itself,’ the statement said, ‘and herein is the kernel of the failure.’

The Ask: Real Reform, Not Another Report

The IFPEA was direct in its ask to the Minister and to the committee. The reform of the SFPA must be ‘deep, real and meaningful.’ Previous reports: including both the PwC review and the Wolfe Report: achieved nothing, the association said, and allowed a bad situation to become significantly worse.

‘This is not a case of additional resources or finances for an authority,’ the statement concluded. ‘It is a case of an authority of state that thus far has overexerted its authority, went beyond the normal proportionate application of regulations and rules on a sector: which ultimately has led to the devastation of a sector of our economy.’

The committee now faces a pivotal test. With Minister Dooley’s SFPA reform proposals already under discussion, the industry will be watching closely to see whether this Oireachtas cycle delivers the overhaul that two decades of reports and reviews have so far failed to produce.