Summary of Joint Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs Meeting on Inshore Fishing
On September 23, 2025, the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs convened to hear testimony from representatives of the National Inshore Fishermen’s Association (NIFA) regarding the critical challenges facing Ireland’s inshore fishing sector. The witnesses—Michael Desmond (chairperson), John Menarry (vice chairman), and Michael Foley (head of the pelagic steering group)—presented a comprehensive and at times stark picture of an industry they described as being systematically marginalized despite its economic and cultural importance to coastal communities.
Core Grievances and Systemic Issues
The witnesses opened with a pointed observation that Ireland appears to have more marine NGOs and anti-fishing social media groups than actual fishermen, with many of these advocacy groups possessing minimal understanding of the fishing industry yet wielding disproportionate influence over fisheries policy. This imbalance, they argued, has led to the closure of important fisheries without adequate representation from those most affected.
Central to NIFA’s concerns was what they characterized as the privatization of Ireland’s fishing quota—a national resource that legally belongs to the Irish people. Menarry explained that ministerial policy has effectively privatized pelagic quotas for a chosen few, with approximately 50 large vessels owned by perhaps two dozen people receiving almost the entirety of Ireland’s mackerel and herring quota. The inshore sector, which represents approximately 95% of Ireland’s fishing fleet, receives only 400 tonnes of mackerel out of a total quota that has reached 70,000 tonnes. Menarry noted that their association’s inability to make political donations might explain this grossly inequitable distribution.
Closed Fisheries and Lost Opportunities
Desmond emphasized that the European Union never mandated Ireland to ban wild salmon fishing or bass fishing—these were domestic decisions driven by lobbying from the tourism industry and hoteliers, implemented at a time when no producer organization existed to represent inshore fishermen. He pointed out the bitter irony that French and British vessels continue to fish for bass on Ireland’s doorstep, with French boats even pair trawling, while Irish fishermen cannot legally catch bass with a rod and line. Irish consumers, meanwhile, purchase imported farmed fish from Turkey or Asia rather than fresh wild-caught Irish sea bass.
The witnesses argued that reopening these fisheries with sustainable management plans would allow their members to diversify their activities and alleviate pressure on shellfish stocks. They noted that thousands of people were once employed in these fisheries around the coast, and thousands of anglers are now permitted to catch salmon and bass recreationally without issue, making the commercial ban appear arbitrary and economically damaging.
Financial Support and Economic Viability
A recurring theme throughout the testimony was the desperate need for financial support. Desmond drew a compelling comparison to the arts sector, which receives approximately €35 million annually for roughly 2,000 artists because they are recognized as part of Ireland’s culture and heritage. Inshore fishermen, he argued, are equally integral to Irish culture and heritage, yet receive no comparable subsidy despite being primary producers of the healthiest food source available.
The economic situation facing inshore fishermen has become increasingly untenable. Desmond testified that they receive lower prices for their product now than they did thirty years ago—specifically mentioning getting €3 per kilogram for velvet crab today compared to £3 thirty years ago—while expenses have increased tenfold. Atlantic storms and gales have become more frequent due to climate change, reducing their time at sea during winter months. The witnesses emphasized that every fisherman in Ireland is down approximately €10,000 per year due to the combined impacts of Covid, Brexit, and the war in Ukraine, with the shellfish market having collapsed four times in the past five years.
Access to social welfare remains inadequate. The fish assist scheme was described as “minuscule in comparison to what is needed,” with parliamentary questions revealing that only approximately 51 fishing families throughout the state receive assistance—a number that demonstrates the scheme’s fundamental inadequacy.
Brexit Adjustment Reserve Funding Controversy
Particularly galling to the witnesses was the allocation of Brexit Adjustment Reserve (BAR) funding. Despite €242 million being available through this mechanism, the inshore sector—representing 95% of the fleet—received nothing directly into their hands. While the government claimed the sector received €40 million, the witnesses explained this money went to piers and infrastructure, with the larger vessels receiving direct payments. The funding NIFA members did receive came from de minimis aid rather than BAR funding, contradicting claims made to EU Commissioner Costas Kadis that tens of millions from BAR had gone to the inshore sector.
Safety Concerns and Port Designation
The witnesses raised serious safety concerns regarding current regulations requiring vessels to land catches at designated ports. Under existing legislation, inshore vessels must travel to designated ports such as Baltimore or Dunmore East, even when this requires steaming for ten hours out into open seas in potentially dangerous conditions. Foley explained that a vessel with fish on board might be forced to leave a safe harbour during an amber weather warning and steam around to a distant designated port, risking the boat, captain, and crew.
The current rule allows landing of up to ten tonnes at non-designated ports, but fishermen cannot predict their catch size before hauling nets. Menarry highlighted the absurdity: “Ten boats can land 10 tonnes, but one boat cannot land 11 tonnes. Ten boats can land 100 tonnes, but one boat cannot land 11 tonnes and that is down to legislation.” The witnesses argued this issue could be resolved immediately through ministerial action, suggesting the limit be raised to 25 tonnes—the capacity of a standard fish transport lorry.
Quota Species and Article 17
The witnesses met with EU Commissioner for Fisheries Costas Kadis earlier in 2025 to discuss Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy, which requires fair and accountable allocation of quota. Desmond testified that while Article 17 exists specifically to help inshore vessels by ensuring a fair share of quota stocks, Ireland simply ignores it. He pointed out the bitter irony that the Irish government can implement penalty points legislation overnight when threatened with EU penalties yet faces no consequences for failing to implement Article 17’s requirements for fair quota distribution.
Deputy Mac Lochlainn questioned whether it was fair to say the inshore sector was heavily reliant on non-quota shellfish species due to lack of access to quota species. Menarry confirmed this assessment, explaining they don’t need to diversify but rather need to regain access to stocks from which they’ve been excluded. He noted that a polyvalent allocation of 13% mackerel access existed previously, but ministerial policy has privatized this for 27 vessels, leaving just 2.5% of that 13% allocation—approximately 200 tonnes—for the rest of the polyvalent sector.
Brown Crab and Shellfish Dependence
Brown crab emerged as a critical issue, described by Menarry as “the most socioeconomically important stock in Ireland.” He explained that while everyone focuses on mackerel as the “gold standard,” if mackerel disappeared, it would have virtually undetectable consequences for the inshore sector outside of 50 RSW vessels operating for six weeks yearly. By contrast, brown crab is fished by 90% of the inshore sector, making it genuinely vital to their survival.
The witnesses testified that fishermen now must put out 100 pots where they previously used 30 to catch the same amount of crab—a clear indication of stock pressure. They had requested establishment of a brown crab working group three years prior, which finally met twice in 2024 before stalling. Four recommendations went to the Minister in October 2024, but the group hasn’t met since, despite NIFA’s eagerness to implement sustainable management measures.
Bluefin Tuna Opportunity
The witnesses made an impassioned case for Ireland to obtain a bluefin tuna quota, specifically a hook-and-line quota for the inshore sector. Foley provided compelling personal testimony, explaining he had previously travelled to the Bay of Biscay to fish tuna in a 12-meter boat because he wanted to experience it, and now these fish swim outside his doorstep yet he cannot legally catch them. The witnesses reported seeing tuna throughout Donegal Bay and even inside Killybegs Harbour, with angling boats fishing for catch-and-release all around working crab fishermen.
Menarry noted that vessels from all EU coastal states plus fleets from the southern hemisphere have access to this stock, while Irish commercial fishermen can only observe. He argued that just one or two tuna per week would alleviate pressure on brown crab stocks and provide meaningful income diversification. The environmental credentials are impeccable—hook and line fishing for tuna has no bycatch and is as sustainable as fishing can be.
The witnesses highlighted a potential trade opportunity, noting that Iceland is seeking access to Irish waters for blue whiting and discussing trading self-appointed mackerel quotas based on mackerel presence in their waters. They argued that if Europe grants Iceland such access, Ireland should similarly receive bluefin tuna quota based on these fish being present in Irish waters twelve months of the year.
North-West Herring Advisory Committee Dysfunction
The breakdown of the north-west herring advisory committee represented a case study in poor governance and lack of departmental engagement. Menarry explained that from the outset, there were conflicting interpretations of ministerial policy, with decisions apparently changing between meetings. When NIFA members questioned slides presented at meetings, claiming they had never agreed to certain provisions, they were told the majority had agreed.
After reaching out repeatedly to the Department seeking clarification and receiving no meaningful engagement, NIFA stepped away from the committee. A meeting with departmental officials in March 2024 resulted in the Department requesting NIFA return within a week with recommendations, which they did. However, they heard nothing until October when fishing arrangements for the year were announced based on submissions—despite NIFA having made no submission in the interim.
The witnesses proposed simple solutions, including appointment of an independent chair from within the Department, noting that an independent chair already exists for the Celtic Sea herring management committee. They emphasized that all it would take is one representative from the Department attending a single meeting to clarify the policy on the record, yet the Department has refused to engage.
Grant Applications and Producer Organization Funding
The witnesses identified significant barriers in the grant application system. Currently, applicants must pay 100% upfront before receiving a percentage back from BIM, making grants accessible only to those with existing capital. This creates a two-tier sector, with those who have resources able to access grants for improvements while those most in need cannot participate. Desmond suggested a simple solution: BIM could pay suppliers the grant percentage directly, with fishermen paying the remainder, similar to how BIM originally operated when it provided loans for fishing boats.
As a relatively new producer organization (only three years old), NIFA faces additional challenges. While Spain gave €8.4 million upfront to its POs to use as needed, and while established Irish POs received startup funding and now operate with continuous cash flow from percentage reimbursements, NIFA received nothing upfront. Operating entirely from members’ pockets with membership fees of just €100 per year (compared to percentage-of-gross fees charged by other POs), they are compiling three years of expenses to claim a percentage back retrospectively—an impossible financial burden for a voluntary organization whose members are cash-strapped.
Seal Predation
Desmond testified that seal populations around Ireland’s coastline are at record levels, now numbering tens of thousands. He emphasized that seals’ only diet is fish, meaning tens of thousands of seals consume millions of fish. Making a basic ecological point, he noted that when an animal in the wild lacks predators, its prey becomes extinct. He argued that unless seal numbers are reduced rapidly, no amount of Marine Protected Areas will halt fish stock reduction.
Drawing international comparisons, he noted that Norway, Greenland, and Iceland maintain abundant inshore fish populations because of seal culls, while Finland, Estonia, and Sweden have written to the EU Commissioner requesting permission to reduce seal numbers. The witnesses connected this to the salmon fishery closure, explaining that when they were permitted to fish salmon, they kept seal numbers under control, which is why salmon populations remained viable. When prevented from fishing salmon, seal populations exploded, and now even if fishing were reopened, 100 seals at a river mouth prevent salmon from migrating to spawn.
Climate Change and Shifting Stocks
The witnesses addressed climate change impacts on fish populations. Foley explained that the Marine Institute is conducting DNA sampling on Celtic Sea herring because they believe 50% of these fish have migrated north into the Irish Sea due to rising water temperatures. This presents a complex challenge since Ireland lost much of its Irish Sea herring quota in the Brexit deal. If Celtic Sea stocks have indeed moved to the Irish Sea without corresponding quota access, the fishery is effectively lost.
Regarding sprat, Foley explained that warming waters have made pilchards and anchovies the dominant species in southwest coast bays for several years. He noted that 200 years ago, 200 French vessels sailed from Brittany to Bantry Bay fishing those stocks when no sprat were present, demonstrating that environmental changes rather than overfishing often drive stock fluctuations.
Imported Seafood and Market Competition
The witnesses expressed profound frustration with Ireland’s seafood import situation, revealing that the biggest fish ports in Ireland are now Dublin Airport, Cork Airport, and Belfast Airport. Supermarket shelves display shellfish farmed in Asia under questionable water quality conditions, packaged with images of Irish counties and lighthouses despite coming from Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, or India. Desmond noted seeing packaging labelled “From Thailand and-or India,” questioning how food safety can be assured when the country of origin is uncertain.
Irish processors have received tens of millions of euros in state aid for Covid and Brexit impacts, yet use this money to import thousands of tonnes of foreign fish. Desmond highlighted seeing scallops from Australia, mussels from Chile, and prawns from India and Thailand competing against fresh Irish wild-caught product. The price for Irish shellfish has collapsed as it cannot compete with this inferior imported product, yet consumers cannot distinguish between wild-caught Irish seafood from clean waters and farmed imports.
Particularly concerning was mention of pangasius, a fish farmed in sewers with excrement from factory workers feeding the fish, being used in major supermarket fishcakes. The witnesses argued this represents both a public health concern and unfair competition against their healthy, sustainable product.
BIM’s Contradictory Role
Menarry raised the troubling issue of Bord Iascaigh Mhara’s role, noting that while BIM is meant to be a development agency for the fishing industry, representatives who attended a previous committee meeting highlighted as an achievement their work helping processors import product into Ireland more efficiently. He characterized this as BIM fighting against Irish fishermen rather than supporting them, with the agency claiming credit for facilitating imports while the sector it’s meant to develop struggles to compete.
The witnesses also mentioned a missing report on hook-and-line mackerel fishery commissioned by former Minister McConalogue two years prior. BIM tasked Bord Bia, which hired a private company to assess whether 400 tonnes was sufficient quota. The report, costing €26,900, concluded 400 tonnes was inadequate, yet two years later it remains buried and unavailable, with BIM claiming it was merely a “review” still being finalized.
Political Representation and Ministerial Engagement
Throughout the testimony, witnesses expressed frustration with the lack of meaningful engagement from the Department and successive ministers. They noted that 18 months had passed since their previous committee appearance with no substantive change to any issues raised. Desmond directly asked whether the committee could ensure financial support, noting that if it couldn’t deliver results, the exercise seemed pointless.
The witnesses were meeting with Minister of State Dooley on the same afternoon and expressed hope for progress, though their testimony suggested skepticism based on past experience. They emphasized that many of their issues are Irish-based rather than EU-based, stemming from ministerial policy interpretation and enforcement. Menarry stated that while other producer organizations travel to Europe to “bang on the table about fair and equal access,” achieving such fairness at national level must come first.
Senator Craughwell proposed that the committee investigate the privatization of quota, demanding empirical evidence from the past five years on quota distribution. The committee agreed to invite the Minister, departmental officials, the Marine Institute, and BIM to respond to concerns raised, with particular focus on quota allocation for mackerel, herring, and pollock.
Cultural and Heritage Significance
The witnesses repeatedly emphasized that inshore fishing represents Irish culture and heritage equivalent to the arts, yet receives no recognition or support. Desmond testified that his family’s fishing history traces back to at least 1864 with documentation, and likely 200-300 years before that. Foley expressed emotional attachment to fishing as “a way of life” he doesn’t want to be pushed out of by policy failures.
Deputy Ward acknowledged the generational and cultural importance, noting fishing was once the heart of island communities but has declined precipitously. He characterized the current situation as “discrimination of the highest order” against fishermen. The witnesses agreed, with Desmond explaining he now seriously considers abandoning fishing despite receiving a FLAG grant for marine tourism, because the industry simply isn’t viable under current policies.
Employment and Economic Impact
Menarry provided crucial context on the sector’s economic importance: the inshore sector is responsible for almost 95% of Ireland’s fishing fleet and at least 65% of direct employment, achieving this with only non-quota species, approximately 5% uptake of whitefish quota, and access to just 2% of pelagic quotas. For every job on an inshore fishing boat, seven additional jobs exist ashore—a 1:7 ratio that rises to 1:15 in Cornwall’s better-managed hook-and-line fishery.
He illustrated this with a concrete example: one young member under 30 recently upgraded his boat and employs three crew, creating four direct jobs. Multiplied by seven gives 28 additional shore jobs, totalling 32 jobs in a remote area. He noted that if IDA Ireland or another development agency proposed creating 40 jobs in such a location, government support would be immediate and enthusiastic, yet the fishing industry creating these jobs receives no equivalent backing.
Decarbonization Hypocrisy
Desmond addressed calls from some politicians for fishing fleet decarbonization, noting that inshore fishermen have the lowest carbon footprint of all food producers. Hundreds of small open fishing vessels use between 1 and 2 litres of fuel per hour, while ecotourism boats seeking basking sharks, dolphins, and marine mammals operate alongside them equipped with twin 300, 400, or 500 horsepower engines, emitting 100 times more carbon. He questioned why, if marine decarbonization is necessary, it wouldn’t begin with ecotourism boats rather than primary food producers.
The witnesses positioned themselves as part of the climate solution rather than the problem, offering small-scale, sustainable, wild-caught, fresh organic food that could invigorate employment and sustain coastal communities—if political will to help existed.
Conclusion
The testimony painted a picture of an industry under existential threat not from resource depletion or environmental challenges primarily, but from policy failures, inequitable quota distribution, lack of financial support, and inadequate political representation. The witnesses made clear that solutions exist for most problems they face—reopening sustainably managed fisheries, fairly redistributing national quota, providing financial supports comparable to other sectors, improving grant access, and ensuring meaningful departmental engagement.
The committee responded with broad support, agreeing to write to the Department demanding meaningful engagement, to invite the Minister and officials to respond to concerns about quota allocation, and to consider recommendations for financial supports. Whether this engagement will produce the substantive change NIFA members desperately need remains to be seen, but their testimony succeeded in clearly articulating both the scope of challenges facing Ireland’s inshore fishing sector and the straightforward policy changes that could address them.
