Time to investigate the ‘watchdog’ pretenders

Given what has happened to the Irish fishing industry over the last twenty years what is the percentage that there was corruption in the civil service marine department and in its footsoldier wing, the Sea Fisheries Protection‘Authority’ (SFPA)?

This is the question the Irish fishing industry continues to ask as it has faced various challenges over the last two decades, including a lack of support from authorities, constant regulatory changes which are often more severe than elsewhere in the EU, Brexit impacts, and environmental concerns, all of which have led to significant tensions among stakeholders.

While history shows that pinpointing corruption specifically within any civil service body would require concrete evidence and thorough investigation,  it is however a fact that corruption can manifest in various forms, including favoritism, bribery, or misallocation of resources - - and many in the fishing industry believe that mismanagement of this industry over the past 40 years cannot simply be attributed to incompetence and that at least one of the aforementioned factors have been at play.

While there may be allegations or reports suggesting misconduct in certain areas, quantifying that as a specific percentage is complex and would typically rely on detailed inquiries or audits.

To gain a clearer understanding, it would be necessary for a political party, or an appointed body such as the Oireachtas Committee on Fisheries, to propose that reports from oversight bodies or watchdog organisations be reviewed; Examine any existing or previous official inquiries or investigations into the fishing industry, including looking into sources from various industry authorities for media coverage regarding specific cases of ‘alleged’ wrongdoing on the part of fishermen or fish companies.

Its interesting that a search online via AI assistance reports that under the category of ‘Ongoing Investigations’ there are current investigations in the seafood sector, with the SFPA stating that some forty cases are being looked into which they say “indicates a level of scrutiny over practices within the industry”.

But noticeably, the SFPA are less forthcoming with information regarding ‘Whistleblower Complaints’ and the fact that there have been reports regarding whistleblower complaints related to the same fisheries agency, which have been forwarded to the Garda Commissioner.

Strange then that the same body who are so quick to point the finger at cases of wrongdoing by fishermen and factory owners have no comment on the ‘complaint cases’ that have been forwarded to the Garda Commissioner as these complaints suggest that there are serious allegations worth investigating further, but again, specifics about corruption rates or allegations would require deeper inquiry.

It has always been the case that, as seen in the SFPA raids with armed Garda in Killybegs some years ago and more recently in Kilmore Quay, that these attacks on the industry were preempted by national media coverage who had been furnished with anti industry propaganda reporting of “expected arrests to follow” and yet when little or no evidence turned up then neither the media nor the Government ever held the SFPA accountable for what was a wild goose chase as well as a huge waste of taxpayers’ money.

The SFPA have always been quick to claim that investigations into the Irish fishing industry, have had several significant impacts including and resulting in: Increased Accountability, Scrutiny of Practices; Greater Transparency; and it aids Market Stability.

However, the impact of such investigations also have a negative effect in that they lead to Industry Tension; Strain Among Stakeholders; Fear of Retaliation if anyone stands up for themselves; Negative Economic Implications resulting from rumours of SFPA investigations even if no evidence is found or no case arises against those accused.

Of most concern to the industry is that of Public Perception … any investigation of the industry by the SFPA, even if no wronging is found, seems to get media coverage and erodes public trust in the industry but the regulatory bodies involved in such botched investigations that turn up no evidence are careful that such negativity and mistrust falls on the industry and not the regulatory body.

Overall, while these investigations aim to enforce regulations and ensure the long-term sustainability of the fishing industry, they also bring challenges that require careful navigation by all involved stakeholders….. But all things being equal, if both the industry AND the regulatory body are to be trusted and believed as trustworthy then BOTH sides should be equally beholden to open and in-depth investigation when required and not, as is at present, the scenario where ‘no one is watching the watchdog’.

Accordingly it seems more than a bit strange that so-called ‘whistleblower complaints’ in the Irish fishing industry, particularly those involving the SFPA, have surfaced repeatedly over time as crucial elements in ongoing discussions about transparency and accountability and yet these complaints seem to get buried but cases against fishing vessels and processors more often than not finish up in court.

Whistleblower complaints highlight significant concerns about integrity of those supposedly tasked to maintain justice and fair play within the Irish fishing industry and yet it seems clear that this is not the current situation and an in-depth investigation, not only into the SFPA, but into the connection with the DAFM, is long overdue, not least to investigate how, despite successive fisheries ministers being told that there is no connection between the DAFM and SFPA, it has seen that job transfer appointments result in high level DAFM civil servants gain a new job in management of the SFPA.

Footnote

It’s worth remembering that in the past two decades no fewer than THREE independent Government-appointed Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) reports all came to the conclusion that the SFPA were “disorganised, ineffective and incompetent” and yet successive Governments, after commissioning these reports, took no action on the recommendations  - something that leads many to believe it clear to see that the civil servants closed ranks and out-powered the politicians.

Also, in more recent times, an EU investigative report in which the SFPA themselves contributed to, and attempted to blame the fishing industry for everything that is wrong in the system, completely backfired on them when the report came out and once again found many faults within the management of the SFPA and also used the word ‘incompetent’…… and yet, with the help of senior DAFM officials, this report was buried and was never made public.

This collusion, despite several fisheries ministers being told there is no connection between DAFM and SFPA, once again showing how the SFPA seem to be under a protective wing of the DAFM and this is yet further evidence, if needed, that any genuine investigation of the SFPA must be equally and simultaneously be applied to the DAFM.