Vol. 489 No. 3
16 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the position regarding tuna fishing with drift nets; if his attention has been drawn to the fishermen's concerns regarding the proposed ban; and the assurances, if any, he can give these fishermen. [8136/98]
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to inform the House of the outcome of last week's Fisheries Council which considered the proposal to ban the use of drift nets in the albacore tuna fishery. I confirm that I successfully faced down any immediate decision, despite majority support for the ban, and that further negotiations will take place on addressing the consequences for Irish fishermen before any such decision is reached.
The UK Presidency has set a high priority on getting agreement to a ban on driftnets in the tuna fishery during its term. It has majority support for the proposal and hoped to push it through last week. However, since January, and at the Council, I have strongly opposed the proposal on the basis that there is no compelling scientific evidence of significant by-catches of dolphins and other marine mammals in this fishery. The proposal exceeds international legal requirements. A strict monitoring and control regime is in place and the Atlantic tuna stock is not under pressure. I made it clear that the tuna driftnet fishery is a sustainable and profitable fishery of vital economic importance to our south-west communities. I also made it clear that Irish fishermen have a legitimate stake in this fishery and are entitled to remain active participants. I urged my colleagues to give proper consideration to the need to address the human consequences of the proposal.
In the face of strong opposition from me and my French colleague, the Council very sensibly agreed to postpone any final decision to allow sufficient time to address the serious consequences for fishermen. In the negotiations ahead I will give priority to ensuring an appropriate timeframe for the introduction of any ban and that EU financial support is made available to fund programmes which will allow Irish fishermen to continue their involvement in the tuna fishery. Discussions on the key components of any settlement will begin with the Commission and the UK Presidency straightaway.
I have consulted fully with the fishing industry on this issue. I met the Irish South West Fishermen's Organisation in advance of the Council when we reviewed together the proposal and my strategic approach. I welcome their support for my stance and will continue to stay in close touch with them on developments between now and June.
It would be unrealistic not to recognise that the majority of member states and the Commission support a ban. I will maintain my outright opposition to any ban up to the June Council on behalf of the industry but I will also work intensively to maximise and protect their interest in the emerging settlement. The outcome of last week's Council put me in a position to do this, given that Ministers and the Commissioner fully accepted the need to address in a concrete way the consequences of the decision.
As the time for priority questions has concluded, this question is being taken in ordinary time.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He is aware that this is a vital summer fishery for fishermen on the south-west coast, particularly for trawlers which operate from Union Hall, Castletownbere and Dingle. The Minister must be disappointed that, despite the scientific evidence he produced, his EU colleagues did not support his view that there is no valid reason to ban this fishing. I am glad the Minister proposes to maintain his approach up to the meeting in June. However, in the event of the decision not going his way, without the necessary retraining and adaptation of vessels fishermen on the south-west coast will only be able to catch 25 per cent of the stock they currently catch. This would be very unsatisfactory. These fishermen have suffered a collapse in herring prices and this would be another blow to them. In such a situation there would have to be a long lead-in period before the introduction of any change and other forms of compensation would have to be considered for these fishermen
This fishery is vitally important to fishermen in this area between July and September. I made the point strongly that while this fishery may not seem important in an overall context it is crucially important during this time of the year.
It is proposed to have a two year lead-in time, including this year and next year. I objected strenuously to this proposal and I have no doubt from the discussions that there will be a longer lead-in time. France and Ireland fought this point strongly at the meeting.
The conclusions of the Presidency are relevant in this regard. The President of the Council concluded as follows:
It is clear that a majority in this Council is concerned about the by-catch problems which exist in the driftnet fishery for tuna and sword fish and envisage that a ban on such fishing is needed, although some delegations (France and Ireland) take a different view. The Presidency working document would represent a technical basis for such a measure. (This was the document before the meeting of Ministers.)
The Commissioner has been very helpful in her statement on compensatory measures. We note that the Commission is fully prepared to adopt, together with Member States, appropriate flanking measures. (These are effectively compensatory measures.) The Commission has indicated that 1. there should be assistance for those wishing to give up fishing and for those wishing to convert to other fishing activities or other methods of fishing [this effectively covers the three possibilities] and 2. any measures must become effective quickly.
On conversion to other fishing activities, our argument is that there is already a fishery and our fishermen want to stay involved in it. This is what we must try to achieve. The third proposal is that expenditure should be kept within existing funding provisions. This means existing funding provisions for the fishery sector generally. We pointed out that we are different from other countries in that we do not have major funding we can shift to this area and, therefore, there will have to be specific provision for us. This point was accepted. We will have to see what can be negotiated in this regard.
The fourth proposal is that compensation should apply only to those who have already participated in the fishery. This is a reasonable point. We made the point that we are talking about people who have a track record, not people who fished this year or last year. That is another point for considerable debate.
We have already spent ten minutes on this question and we have had only one supplementary. I will call Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and then Deputy Sheehan.
Will the Minister agree we have been pushed off the pitch by the Spanish on this issue? Will he also agree we are talking about a fishery approximately 250 to 300 miles offshore and that the concern about dolphins and whales is phoney? Will he further agree that 20 fishing boats and their crews, mostly in west Cork, are being pushed out of the only lucrative part of their business because of this decision? Is it not correct that because of the decision that appears to be in the offing, the prospects of a cannery onshore is now put out of the reckoning? Will the Minister agree we should fight this case to the very end and should not go along with the British, who are obviously pushing for a decision during their Presidency, and that it will be a disaster for many fishermen in the south west, and particularly in west Cork, if this decision goes through?
I agree with the Deputy it is important to fight the issue and that is what I have been doing. The reality of the politics, however, is that the British Presidency will be followed by the Austrians and then the Germans, and they have made it clear they are in favour of an immediate ban. They do not see a need for compensation of any kind in that area. That is the problem we are facing. It would be preferable if the matter could be resolved in a satisfactory way by the June Council.
The Deputy mentioned fishermen being pushed out by the Spanish but that is a simplification. It might suit the Spanish fishermen who fish by other methods—
The long nets.
—such as the long lines or other trawling methods if the Irish fishermen were not in that fishery. That is why we want to create a situation where Irish fishermen can remain in the fishery and benefit from it. Obviously the Spanish would be in favour of this ban. They tend to fish in the warmer waters and they have less difficulty with the question of dolphins, although I am sure they catch dolphins also. It is from that point of view that the issue arises. It is no longer acceptable, certainly among the members of the Community, to catch dolphins in nets. The issue arises from that quarter rather than specifically from the Spanish fishermen.
In relation to the number of boats mentioned by the Deputy, we had six boats fishing last year but, taking the track record, 20 boats have been involved over the past number of years.
It is well known that dolphins do not associate with albacore tuna. They associate with blue fin tuna which is caught in the Pacific Ocean. There is no basis for the argument put forward by the EU that driftnet fishing of tuna should be banned because dolphins are being caught. That is not the case. I have made inquiries into this matter. Irish fishermen do not catch dolphins in their nets, only tuna fish.
One a month.
Perhaps stray dolphins come here from the Pacific Ocean through the Panama Canal but the number would be few because they do not associate with albacore tuna. The Minister is being fobbed off by the EU Fisheries Ministers in relation to this matter.
A question please, Deputy Sheehan.
The Minister should fight the matter tooth and nail because we have a traditional method of catching tuna and this ban will completely reduce our stocks and decimate the fishing industry.
I think Deputy Sheehan should come with me to the next meeting.
I will gladly travel with the Minister.
I said in my reply that we do not have significant catches of dolphins but we do have some.
One or two.
Partial research and investigation has been done in this area and that was presented at the meeting. Nevertheless the almost unanimous view of the member states is that there should be a ban on the driftnet. Already driftnet has been restricted from 7.5 kilometres to 2.5 kilometres. That affected the economics in a considerable way because anyone using 2.5 kilometre nets will experience difficulty. That may be one of the reasons the numbers have decreased somewhat in the past number of years. We are trying to provide alternative measures because we would prefer fishermen to stay in the fishery. We want funds to be made available to train and equip them in the fishery and to ensure they can sustain it. There will be separate provision for people who want to get out of this area.
