Oireachtas Committee Hears Stark Warning From Industry Representatives About Top-Down Approach to Conservation
The Joint Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs heard impassioned testimony this month from fishing industry representatives who warned that Ireland’s approach to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) risks repeating the failures of previous conservation designations unless genuine co-creation with stakeholders is embedded from the outset.
In a packed committee room, representatives from the Seafood Ireland Alliance delivered a stark message: the industry supports marine conservation, but only if it’s done properly, transparently, and with fishing communities at the table from day one.
Industry’s Conservation Credentials
John Lynch, chief executive of the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation, opened by emphasising the industry’s commitment to conservation. “The Seafood Ireland Alliance recognises the need for conservation and restoration of sensitive marine habitats and ecosystems,” he told the committee. “This is important not only for addressing the biodiversity crisis but also for supporting sustainable fisheries, which are critical for food security.”
Lynch quoted directly from the EU Action Plan on marine ecosystems, noting that “sustainably managed and caught fish is a source of high quality and affordable protein with a relatively low carbon footprint. It is essential to food security for many people and to maintaining the economic basis of fishing communities.”
However, he was quick to stress that for MPAs to be effective, “their development, design and designation need to be informed by robust, transparent science and supported by the participation and engagement of all relevant stakeholders.”
The Co-Creation Imperative
The alliance’s submission laid out clear principles for MPA development, advocating for “co-creation, co-design and co-management, with the fishing industry playing a central role in the process.” Lynch outlined specific requirements: selection based principally on scientific evidence, meaningful stakeholder engagement, site-by-site management rather than simplistic general principles, and a presumption of use within MPAs if conservation objectives can be met.
“Management should be on a site-by-site basis, rather than on simplistic general principles,” Lynch emphasised. “There should be a presumption of use within MPA if conservation objectives can be met, accepting that some activities may need to be restricted.”
Painful Lessons From Past Designations
Patrick Murphy, representing the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation, brought a personal dimension to the debate, drawing on 40 years of experience in the industry. His testimony painted a picture of an industry that has already made enormous sacrifices while feeling increasingly marginalised in policy discussions.
“When I started fishing, there were 37 boats fishing out of Baltimore. There are three or four now,” Murphy told the committee. “We are seeing this replicated around the coastline, not just for the bigger boats but also for the smaller boats.”
The statistics Murphy cited are sobering. “Some 63% of our vessels have gone in the past 21 years,” he said, adding that according to BIM figures, “fishermen lost 82% of their profitability.”
Murphy spoke emotionally about the human cost of fishing, referencing the recent anniversaries of fishing tragedies. Those affected families are listening to these debates and they do not appreciate being told that their loved ones were destroying the environment.”
The Aquaculture Perspective
Murphy also highlighted the challenges facing the aquaculture sector, where he operates a mussel farm within a Special Area of Conservation. “My family and I have been involved in fishing for generations. We operate in an SAC producing aquaculture mussels,” he explained. “In 40 years, I have had two ten-year licences for that area. My son has been waiting five years for his licence and for an environmental assessment to be conducted.”
He took particular issue with assumptions about the environmental impact of fishing activities. “We take huge offence at now being told that because of our activities it is assumed that we are destroying the environment in which we work. It is a real slight.”
Murphy pointed out that aquaculture operators like himself are already demonstrating environmental stewardship. “We test our waters every week, make sure there are no minerals in them and protect the environment around us. We are so good at it that we are proud to say that with the help of BIM, we have received Marine Stewardship Council certification and organic certification.”
The South Coast DMAP Experience
Both representatives expressed serious concerns about the consultation process for the South Coast Designated Maritime Area Plan (DMAP), which they described as “little more than a box-ticking exercise with no meaningful engagement.”
Lynch elaborated: “We felt the public consultation and stakeholder involvement were not sufficient. However, after the selection of the sites, we had further engagement which proved to be more sensible.”
He urged the committee to “use the south coast DMAP as a learning exercise in the context of what we are about to undertake,” pointing out specific deficiencies. “A lot of fisheries data was not, in our interpretation, used in the assessment. If you take the layers of the south coast DMAP and the hard constraints and other constraints, put them all together and leave fisheries out, you can identify the four sites very clearly on the map. That led us to believe that fisheries were not given due consideration.”
Industry’s Proactive Conservation Record
Both representatives were keen to highlight the industry’s track record on conservation measures. Lynch cited the example of the Porcupine Bank, where “the Irish fishing industry self-regulates a de facto closure during the spawning period for the nephrops. Unfortunately, other countries do not participate.”
He also referenced historical protection measures: “The fishing industry has been proactive in the past. For instance, it protected spawning areas for cod in the Irish Sea and the Celtic Sea.”
Murphy added: “We keep pointing out that Irish fishermen take 15% of the fish from their own waters,” emphasising the frustration of implementing conservation measures while foreign fleets continue to access Irish waters without the same restrictions.
The Foreign Fleet Problem
This disparity with foreign vessels emerged as a recurring theme. Murphy explained: “We have an issue with sole in fishing areas 7f and 7g. A total of 450 tonnes are allocated to one country, whereas our fisherman are given 28 tonnes. When you put in a technical measure to reduce the Irish catching sector, unless it is applied to the other countries, which may have ten or 20 times the amount of fish that we have, you do not get the benefits.”
Scientific Approach to MPA Selection
On the technical aspects of MPA designation, Lynch advocated for a rigorous analytical approach. “When we are selecting a marine protected area, we need to use a fairly well-established, best-practice, multi-criteria analytical process where each layer is measured on its own merits.”
He warned against simplistic approaches to spatial management: “If we see an area where there are high levels of fishing and ask why that is, it is because fish congregate in that area. That is not to say there is not fish in other areas, but if we move the concentration of fishing to another area, we may extend and increase the effort that is on the ground rather than trying to minimise it.”
Murphy reinforced this point with specific data: “We have 880,000 sq. km of water around our island, of which 264,000 sq. km needs to be designated. One of the statistics is that 80% of the fish that are caught are caught in 20% of the grounds. A total of 20% is caught in the 80%.”
Compensation and Support
When questioned about compensation for fishermen affected by MPAs, Lynch was clear about the industry’s position. “When an area is selected, there is going to be a trade-off in socioeconomic terms for the seafood industry. That has to be taken into full consideration. Fisheries and the seafood industry have to be fully involved from the start and not left on the sideline as has happened in previous iterations.”
He suggested looking beyond simple compensation: “Small-scale and even larger scale fishermen could be part of the ongoing monitoring of these MPAs and resources. They can be part of the process as opposed to something outside that has to be managed.”
Murphy enthusiastically supported this vision, noting: “If you were looking for information on the sea, who the first people you would go to? Fishermen. Nobody knows their environment better than the people who have to survive on it.”
Looking Forward
Both representatives expressed willingness to engage constructively with the MPA process, provided it’s done properly. Lynch stated: “We want to be kept involved. We want to be fully involved in the new MPA LIFE process and we will be. We want full transparency and to have a full input into the design and establishment of these marine protected areas, which we will fully support if they are done in the right manner.”
Murphy was equally clear about the industry’s position: “We want managed fisheries and to be able to continue to manage fisheries. We would like to see them being more involved.”
The hearing concluded with committee members agreeing to write to the Minister urging expedited publication of the MPA legislation, while ensuring it incorporates robust consultation mechanisms from the outset. As Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn noted, the longer the legislation is delayed, “the less time we have to make sure the practices are good in terms of co-creation, research and everything else that needs to be done.”
For Ireland’s fishing communities, the stakes couldn’t be higher. As Murphy poignantly concluded: “We are talking about protecting other species and things, and quite rightly so. We absolutely believe in that. Fishermen need to be included in the conversation, however, because, otherwise, before you know it, we will be gone.”
