“I’d like to see an appreciation that the CFP is no longer fit for purpose, and that that was recognised by enough member states to make a difference to change. That would then set the foundation upon which we could move forward.” – Minister Timmy Dooley TD
As Ireland began its 6 months role as EU Presidency, Skipper Correspondent Lorna Siggins sat down with Fisheries Minister, Timmy Dooley to reflect on what has been a turbulent year for the Irish fishing industry and questions him on the path forward.
Ireland’s assumption of the EU Presidency should have been a particularly interesting challenge for Minister of State for Fisheries and Marine Timmy Dooley.
However, on the eve of the new term, The Skipper revealed that a rift had developed between Minister for Agriculture Martin Heydon and his Minister of State over handling of EU Agri-Fish councils.
Mr Heydon informed Mr Dooley that he would be representing Ireland at all Agri-Fish councils, rather than splitting duties as has been the norm during previous presidencies held by Ireland and other EU member states, including Poland, Sweden, Germany, France and Spain.
In a letter to his senior minister, Mr Dooley expressed surprise at this, given that he was appointed junior minister for fisheries, representing two government departments, and has handled all EU fisheries council talks since this coalition was formed.
The tone of the correspondence suggested that Mr Dooley felt he may be being “reined in”.
It referred to an incident where a senior official from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine (DAFM) was said to have been so concerned about any impact on Ireland’s nitrates directive derogation that Mr Dooley was discouraged from invoking a key legislative provision, as in the Hague Preferences, at last December’s fisheries council.
The current nitrates directive derogation was due to expire at the end of last December, and its extension for three years from January 2026 was announced by the European Commission on December 22nd last.
Just over a week before, Mr Dooley lost his battle to safeguard the Hague Preferences.
Mr Dooley was unable to comment on the record about his senior minister’s EU presidency decision when asked by The Skipper. He explained that he had been specifically appointed with underpinning legislation to handle a number of roles relating to the marine, including fisheries, offshore energy and marine protected areas.
He emphasised he had built up a number of good working relationships at EU council level.
Q Regarding the Hague Preferences, which Ireland was not able to invoke at last December’s EU council for the first time, are they now gone forever?
A I don’t accept that. I think the Hague Preferences were weakened when we moved from a situation of the veto. So, when the veto was no longer exercisable, the principles behind the Hague Preferences were compromised.
I think other member states supported it under protest over a period of time. I think that in 2024, when for the first time the pelagic species went below the threshold that would have kicked in the Hague Preferences for them, the impact was very significant on a number of member states, and the burden that was placed on other member states was significant.
Mackerel being a valuable stock, and in some considerable abundance at the time, triggered a reaction that we saw culminate at the end of 2025 council for 2026 opportunities.
France, in particular, with the support of the Netherlands and Denmark (in the chair), and with Germany and Poland – who had little enough interest, but they seemed to support the French ally – were able to go through with a blocking minority.
And that was that was a challenge for us at the time, a really big challenge. But we’ve come through it now.
My view, and I have been working with other member states, is to work again this year when we see the scientific advice in relation to the various different species on how we might try to regain or re-engage on the principles in the Hague Preferences.
It’s my view that the provision is still there, but it does require enough support to get it over the line. It doesn’t have to be unanimous, but it has to be beyond where a blocking minority would engage.
A number of things have changed. There’s been elections in Denmark, the profile of the ministry has changed significantly, and it’s become a lot greener.
There’s been elections in the Netherlands. The Farmers Party, who had the Ministry for Fisheries and Agriculture, is no longer there. So D66 and PVD, two parties that are aligned with Fianna Fáil, would be all under the ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe party) umbrella.
And for four years prior to taking on this role, I was the co-president of the ALDE Party at European level, so we have a good understanding of each other’s priorities and concerns and issues.
So, there’s a lot of work to be done there, and I think with that experience, I’m well positioned to have a significant input.
Q So was the outcome of losing the Hague Preference invocation last December anything to do with Ireland’s concern about securing another derogation of the nitrate’s directive [ for the farming sector] which was due to expire in December 2025?
A Not from my point. I’ve always felt that, from a from a fishing perspective, it’s a small industry in Ireland in in GDP terms, but it’s a really important industry.
It’s the same, by the way, in France and Spain as well. In terms of their overall economy, it’s small, but it’s a really important part [ of the economy] because – and this is where the Taoiseach was very clear to me on my appointment- it’s about rural and coastal communities, and there aren’t alternatives.
If a large multinational or a pharma company [ closed] – for example, in my own county of Clare a number of years ago, Roche Pharmaceuticals, which probably employed 300 people at the time, closed.
The nature of the business that was there was quite old, and processes were outdated. When the company closed, it was no major shock to the system because you had other pharmaceutical companies in the mid-west region that could take up the slack.
In fact, Edwards Life Sciences were moving in. There was a whole raft of them, such as Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. So, the employees just went.
You lose 20 jobs in Killybegs, there’s no alternative. Castletownbere, the same, Greencastle, Kilmore Quay.
There isn’t something that you can just slot in. You’re not going to be able to get an offshoot of a tech company.
So that’s why this is really important, and we know and recognise that things are changing, opportunities are reducing, quota stocks are challenged.
Some of it is because of overfishing by third countries, some of it is because of climate change, and the industry is really working to adapt to that. They’re looking at new opportunities.
I was out in Teagasc [agricultural research agency] last week, where it is working with industry and looking at new opportunities in the bio-refinery sector. It is looking at the components, the various different molecules from certain fish that aren’t for human consumption, and rather than just going to fish meal or oil by- products they’re looking at potential usage in the pharmaceutical sector, in the cosmetic sector, which are really high value areas.
Those kinds of enterprises can be based in those coastal communities. So, I see great resilience both in the processing and in the catching sector.
And then some of the processors are looking to source fish from other jurisdictions to be processed here. So, there is a really viable business there, and the model is changing in some respects.
But you know they [fishing communities] are strong, they’re entrepreneurial in spirit, they’re hard workers, they’re resilient, and they will keep those coastal communities going.
But we have to be to be able to work with them and assist them and support them.
I mean, we’re working through a process admitted as a result of the fishing opportunities that went away for this year because of the reduction of the quotas.
But the fishermen will tell me that “we’re not looking for handouts, we want fish…we want to identify other species when the others are not there, we want to be able to, you know, find a way to keep these communities going”.
And then there’s all the ancillary businesses that support that, and that’s very much what we’re about.
Q On that subject of other opportunities, one that has been mentioned [ by Government] is offshore renewable energy (ORE). You set up the Seafood/ORE working group – that is still in mediation over unresolved issues?
A It is. So, the Seafood ORE working group chair Capt Robert McCabe has done a lot of good work over the past two years.
I felt that the good work had been done, but we needed to reach a finalisation of it, and I think a lot of really good background work was completed.
And I would pay tribute to Capt Robert McCabe for taking that [ working group] from nothing and bringing it to a very significant degree of completion.
The final piece of it is about trying to get ultimate agreement in relation to money at the end of the day, and so I had asked Kieran Mulvey to do a piece of work there.
He has, as he does very well, listened to all sides, and I think he will present a paper to both sides, and he will try to reach agreement – by the middle of this month [July 2026].
I’m really grateful to him for the work that he’s doing there, and I think he’s well positioned because when I was appointed first, I asked him to do a kind of a detailed scoping exercise across the sector generally, to go out and meet with the various different areas, all the various different stakeholders and actors to get a feel for where they were at, and bring forward recommendations that feed into the Programme for Government’s commitment to develop a strategy for the seafood sector out to 2030 – a five-year strategy.
That [ Mulvey report on the fishing and aquaculture sectors, published early July 2026 just after this interview] goes to the seafood task force.
Part of his work relates to the work of Michael Berkery, who is chairing the seafood task force. I established that task force as a response to the massive shock to the system that came last December with the quota cuts – Mackerel quotas dropped by 70%, blue whiting by 41%, and boarfish by 22%, which were large volumes and had a very significant impact.
And I want that his report looks as to how that would tail out for the next number of years, because when you get that kind of a cut you’re not going to see a massive improvement this year in the scientific advice that will see us going back to where we were.
So we’re expecting, you know, a considerably lower level of opportunities for the next number of years as that conservation piece takes hold.
The industry, together with myself and Minister Hayden, met with the Taoiseach on this back in December, and made it very clear …this was very supportive of the work that I’m trying to do.
It was very clear that the Government couldn’t countenance not standing behind the industry at that time.
The Tánaiste, as Minister for Finance, made it very clear that the State would stand behind the industry and the communities, and that a significant support to the industry and to the communities would be provided by Government under a financial framework.
So, then I felt the best way to address that was the appointment of Michael Berkery, tasking him with putting together [ a plan], notwithstanding the constraints that are there in terms of State aid rules, etc. but finding a way through supporting the industry.
So even though one report follows from the other, there’s been a significant degree of communication between the two gentlemen, both Berkery and Mulvey.
Q So whatever Berkery produces will be informed by Mulvey’s report?
A It will. What Mulvey did was a kind of wide range piece of work prior to the December council last year. He’s been very busy, in the middle of reports on Dublin Airport, An Post etc.
He has a zest and zeal for life and a capacity to strip out the nonsense. He has that cachet…and he doesn’t always tell the State what the State likes to hear.
He looks at what’s possible, what’s not possible, and he put pressure on all of us, but I wanted that because there’s no point in telling me what’s easy and then not putting what might be a little bit more difficult because it’s difficult.
This is about trying to help an industry through a really difficult time, so we need that. We needed that fresh thinking, and I needed that objective analysis that will push me a little bit too out of my comfort zone, and that’s the way it should be.
Q What’s the situation in relation to Iceland, Norway, and the Faeroes and agreement on pelagic quotas?
A So the European Commission negotiates on behalf of the European Union in that coastal states format. Different countries end up chairing that format, but regardless of whether they’re from the coastal states or those states, or whether it’s the European Union is in the chair, the Commission represent the interests of the European Union.
For quite some time there’s an effort being made to get agreement around a sharing arrangement, particularly around mackerel and blue whiting, and those species that we share, France would have liked to have seen movement on getting an agreement.
Our position was yes, we felt there should be agreement, but it shouldn’t come at a reduction in the previous sharing arrangement, where we had 21.85 per cent on mackerel – as in the EU, not Ireland, in relation to the total allowable catch in the region.
I’ve been very strongly against that [reduction] because I think it would send entirely the wrong message to countries who have set unilaterally their own total allowable catch without having a comprehensive sharing arrangement that was based on nothing other than what I would have felt “we are doing it because we can…. we are not constricted…”
They are not constricted as we are in the EU. And they then excluded Greenland completely in one of those [moves].
And then the UK joined with them the last time, which I thought was disappointing as well, knowing what we had gone through, and what Ireland had lost in the TCA [Brexit] agreement.
But in any event, I still believe it’s important to get an agreement, but not at any cost on pelagics.
Because I think you’re sending the wrong signal that you reward bad behaviour. I know there are broader geopolitical interests, and you know there will be a challenge as to how or what comfort the European Union will want to show to Iceland and to the voters of Iceland as the referendum emerges there.
All of that’s for discussion. But everybody berates, and rightly so, the Russian grey fleet and the blackfish that’s referred to in terms of their illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.
But the way I look at it is, setting an unsustainable or setting unilaterally an allowable catch is no different, really.
Q So, if there’s a deal now, how does it relate to the fact that EU Commissioner for Fisheries Kadis was talking about the idea that there might be some flexibility with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) if Iceland agrees to talks on joining the EU. There would be holy war here if that occurred.
A We’ve got to be minded by the broader geopolitical context for sure. We do want to build the [European] Union.
Ireland is very strong on accession to the union and the growth of it. Ukrainian president Zelenskyy’s visit here [ for the start of the Ireland’s presidency] is a very strong signal from the Irish presidency that we do see enlargement as important.
It broadens Europe. It makes it safer. I think with what has happened in in in the region, it’s important to have that from a broader economic perspective.
And that’s the strength of having a dedicated person or a dedicated role as a minister or a ministry of state for fisheries and the marine in that concerns are addressed at that level.
It doesn’t mean that we get to have a veto, but it means that we’ve got to be represented, and I think that it plays into an earlier discussion [on the Agri-Fish council representation] by ensuring that the position isn’t diminished or diluted during a critical period, and that it has standing thereafter.
So there’s always challenges, but when you’re talking and you’re working through what you can and so long as you’re standing up for our national interests as well…
So, any discussions around that will be the other side of the Irish EU presidency.
There are other issues in in the CFP that are important to us.
Q So are you saying that any discussions on Iceland and CFP will be discussed on the other side of Ireland’s presidency?
A Well, they will be discussed through it, but I think the Icelandic issue is further out.
Commissioner Kadis recently published a paper on the evaluation of the CFP, and I think that will now lead to some review, potential revision.
I know the French have signalled their intent to bring forward through an omnibus approach to some revision of the EMFAFF (European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund) regulation and the CFP, and it’s aimed really at some of the issues that will arise in principally the Mulvey report but also will feed into the Berkery report.
You’re looking at generational renewal. You’re looking at fleet renewal. You’re looking at how do you support that? How do you support that at a time when you’re trying to bring new people in?
You’re trying to transition the fleet to a greener fleet, with less impact on CO2 emissions.
You’re looking at multi-use of boats, so it is possible that you can have craft that can be used for fishing and used as a wellboat as on a fish farm – as in dual usage, which will require increasing the kilowatt rating of boats which would be prevented currently.
And it’s not about increasing the catching capacity of the fleet. It’s about the kind of things that are impeded at the minute, moving towards a more fit-for-purpose fleet, supporting investment in fleet renewal.
Many of these boats are 30 years old and longer, and if you just continue to just stretch those to the end of the life, then the hill becomes too high to climb at the end, so we’ve got to find ways to do that.
You got to look too in terms of the species. We don’t have a quota for bluefin tuna, but there’s an abundance of bluefin tuna in waters very close to us.
We do have scientific catch and release programme in the recreational sector. If we could take that to a harvest – bluefin tuna are worth 500 US dollars on the Japanese market.
So, access to that quota could be transformative to the even the inshore fleet, who I have huge regard for. It’s hand to mouth for some of these people, but they are just wedded to a tradition that’s just in their veins.
There’s a few of them in my own county. I know them, and my God, the conditions they go out in, the hazardous approach they take, they just are marvellous people.
Some of them could give up, and they’d probably get a job on shore, but what would that do to their family if they get a job on shore and their kids don’t see the tradition being continued? Well you’re never going to get the kids to go back and start from scratch on something like that.
They are custodians in my view because many of them don’t view it from a viability or from a PLC perspective.
I see it in small farming as well, which is the background that I came from. And I saw the struggles in my community growing up among small farmers who knew nothing else, and it wasn’t an option to give up.
And it comes through and it works out over time. And it’s the same with this…I really want to do more for that [inshore] sector from a government perspective because of how inherently they’re ingrained in and they’re part of that…
You look to even say some of the smaller piers and harbours around the country, and even say somewhere like Dingle, which isn’t a big fishing port the way it was anymore. But there’s still life there, lots of leisure craft there now, and the same in some of the other ports around the country.
These places mightn’t be such an iconic tourist attraction or venue, if there wasn’t some marine-related life there. So, they’re hosting an activity that’s attractive to others to observe, to look at, and it keeps those places maintained rather than becoming rust belts.
It’s the same in Ros-a-Mhíl and other areas where there are some pleasure craft now. I was in Union Hall recently. Some fishing going on there, but there’s some leisure and pleasure, and we’ve got to reorient to where it’s not just the fishing effort we need to look to.
It is how it acts as – pardon the pun – the hook that pulls so many other aspects together. It’s the central nervous system. It’s the heart that pumps the blood, so we’ve got to look at how do we continue?
Q Returning to the bluefin tuna, how realistic do you think it is that Ireland will secure quota for this?
A There have been efforts but somebody else has to give. This is, again, to go my earlier point you build, and you argue the toss. Maybe for some…
By having that provision of the CFP, the stock is abundant and even last year the catch limits went up. I know nobody wants to give on percentage terms, but there has to be a way there. And the only way that will be is through give and take on something else, and I think the EU presidency provides us – if we take the right approach – with an opportunity to build those connections where we were centrally involved in the negotiations, rather than just one of the 27 member states on the periphery.
And it’s not about favouring Ireland, but being seen as an honest broker can be an advantage – there’s give and take, there’s an ask without it being a shout, and there can be a give without it being a surrender. And I think that’s the essence of how the presidency can work.
Q Just to be clear, will you be at any EU Agri-Fish councils during the Irish presidency?
A I expect to be there, yeah,
Q But the detail still has to be worked out?
A It is…
Q Going back to the seafood/ORE working group, and the ORE sector, which assures me it does have the fishing industry at heart.
A Well, I put to you like this. I have the interests of all elements at heart. I know it will be challenging to get agreement. That was the challenge I was given, and I feel privileged to be in the position I am in.
Step aside from the individual, it’s about the role. The role [ of Minister of State for Fisheries and Marine] was created to address the challenge, and I’m well up for the challenge and feel privileged to deal with people of such integrity on all sides, and such passion.
Fishing is important for coastal communities; it is also important from a food security perspective. ORE is really important for climate change in terms of reducing emissions, but also from our energy security perspective, because we never again want to be dependent on the activities in far flung places where fossil fuels are in abundance. We don’t need to be beholden to them, and to suffer the price fluctuations that we have.
Q It has been said within ORE circles that the Government is being too hands off, in setting up a seafood/ORE working group and saying “ye sort it out”. They suggest that if the Government was to set up a strategic fund that was inevitably going to support compensation – or fund a just transition through which community benefit funds [ as part of planning conditions] would come – this strategic fund would be seen as more independent?
A I think the established practice for these large infrastructure projects is the community benefit fund is part of it.
Q But in these cases, that fund could be going to onshore groups like tidy towns…
A I don’t want to be prescriptive here. I disagree that the State has stood back. When I could see that the work of the seafood/ORE group had reached a plateau, and having spoken to all sides, I felt that we needed the assistance of a facilitator and that’s why Kieran Mulvey was pulled into that.
He had developed a very good working relationship with the fishing sector through his work for this department, and that’s why then I felt he was the right man at the right time with the right skill sets.
He is a very experienced negotiator. I have every faith in him and the two sides, and I don’t want to be prescriptive in terms of what he might come forward with later this month [July], but I’ve been assured by all sides that they are engaging now in a really progressive way.
We have to get a deal here, we have to get an agreement, and I think we will sooner rather than later.
You reference tidy towns and all that. That was happening in an area where there were five turbines on a hill and there was pushback locally because of visual obtrusiveness etc. This is a very different scale. If you are putting a windfarm into a fishing ground, and there is an established loss based on fishing records to fishermen, then there has to be a degree of compensation there. That will work through.
I’m conscious too if fishermen in a particular area are no longer fishing and there isn’t somewhere obvious for them to go, the knock-on impact is that the activity that happened ashore, whether it be processing or whatever, they are now under pressure. So, there may need to be a recognition of finding a way to assist in the transition that they will go through.
There’s a pipeline of activities – loss of fishing quota. You’re never going to be able to follow all of that. But I think there’s a central core there in terms of employment.
There will be opportunities out of ORE too.
Q – There will, but not huge.
A – Not huge right now. People would say there’s a lot of wind turbines across our island – we have about 5 gigawatts of onshore wind.
By 2032 or 2033, we’ll have another 5 gigawatts in the water. By 2040, we’ll have a combined total of 20 gigawatts.
That’s a lot of wind turbines. That’s a lot of maintenance. That’s a significant activity of marine expertise – you have boats involved in maintenance, work onshore which will support some of the engineering activity that might heretofore have been providing support to a larger fleet – now already reducing due to loss of fishing opportunities due to the impact that climate change has had which is seeing scientific advice going down.
So, I think that realisation is there amongst some, but it has a way to go. And that’s why we do need to support that transition.
Change is difficult and I see what happened in the midlands when the decision was taken to stop the extraction of peat by Bord na Móna. That was a massive shock to those communities. Now you have people working on re-wetting of those bogs, there’s a lot of funding put in to just transition. Some of that has been very successful, some of it less, but that’s how business works.
It hasn’t been a big electoral issue, so communities seem to feel that that was handled well.
You see in Denmark very significant transition in the way they have met their climate change objectives, the Netherlands too, so I think there’s an opportunity here to look to that, and with the sole purpose and focus about retaining those communities.
I meet lots of people who have developed their businesses significantly. They are the second, third generation, sometimes more. They’ve gone and done their graduate studies, they’ve done their degrees in business, and they are back now with a very commercial focus when their forefathers mightn’t have passed primary school and in many cases didn’t finish primary school.
It is that kind of mindset that will make the opportunities for families into the future.
Q If there is one think you’d like to see that you have achieved by the end of this EU presidency, what would it be?
A I’d like to see an appreciation that the CFP is no longer fit for purpose, and that that was recognised by enough member states to make a difference to change. That would then set the foundation upon which we could move forward.
The CFP does not take into account of the loss Ireland took in terms of quota with the Brexit agreement.
I think that would be an important significant movement.
Q Would this move by Iceland provide an opportunity in relation to reforming the CFP?
A Anytime there’s flux…. We’ve been asked to do a whole lot more, with Brexit, with Iceland, and still keeping your core policy at European level locked, saying we can’t touch that, we can’t look at that. I challenged that and will continue to challenge that, as that then gives us opportunities.
All we’re seeing is losses, losses, losses, resulting from the scientific advice for sure, while at the same time the European Commission is not being prepared to impose any impediments on trade into the EU.
So that would set a foundation to move forward.
In the short term, what I want to do is re-establish the principle and the benefit in some way of the Hague Preferences.
And I would also like, at the end of it, to see that our reputation as an honest broker will stand, because I think that the longer-term benefit for whoever will occupy my role into the future will benefit from a successful presidency.
As in to say with the Irish EU presidency, it will be said that “yes, they hit challenges, they were fair, they were honest and tried to do what was right and they tried to help the entire sector rather than ignoring the issues that were there”.
Often times with a sector like fishing, the enemy isn’t always your neighbour, it is other aspects of wider economic activity.
