Vol. 521 No. 2
29 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the status of the mid-term report on the multi-annual guidance programme recommending a 10% reduction in the Irish fishing fleet; and the strategy he will adopt to ensure the recommended cuts are not considered, which would be to the detriment of the Irish fishing industry. [16781/00]
The Council decision in 1997 on the multi-annual guidance programme required the Commission to present a mid-term report. The report is required to address the state and evolution of fish stocks based on the most recent scientific advice available. It is also required to assess the impact of fleet programmes as well as conservation, control and other policy measures on the state of the resources and on the sector.
The report acknowledges that the expert committee, STECF, found no evidence that stocks had in general deteriorated or improved since the adoption of MAGP IV. The committee was therefore unable to comment on whether MAGP IV has had any influence on the status of stocks. Nevertheless, the Commission's report asserts that the current exploitation rate of stocks in European waters is too high and that there is a large problem of over capacity in the EU fleet. On this basis, the Commission's report deems the reductions set under MAGP IV to be inadequate in purely structural policy terms as opposed to impact on fisheries resources.
The Commission's report suggests that the programme be radically rewritten and extended to the end of 2002. The Commission wants to return to the large fleet cuts rejected by Council in 1997. It also wants to redesign the system to require that all fishing effort reductions are achieved through capacity rather than activity reductions. This approach would lead to significant capacity reductions in the short term for the Irish fleet, particularly in the pelagic sector.
The Commission's report does not as yet have the status of formal proposals. The Commission will have to submit a formal proposal for Council decision if it intends to proceed. This would fall to be considered during the French Presidency and a prolonged and difficult debate could be expected.
Commissioner Fischler will present the report to Council next Friday, 16 June. I will spell out in debate my fundamental views on the flawed assumptions, limited analysis and unacceptable conclusions of the report.
I will also meet the incoming French Presidency in Dublin over the weekend to exchange views on the way forward. I expect him to agree that the Commission's report is not the way forward. MAGP IV should run its course. What is needed is an objective and detailed debate on EU fleet policy, backed up by comprehensive analysis of the impact of all the policy measures at our disposal.
The Minister is aware that Franz Fischler says we have to reduce our fleet at sea because of over capacity. The Commission's proposals are to reduce the Irish fishing fleet by 11.2% and to reduce the Spanish fleet by 3.6%. How can the Spanish fleet with 26,000 vessels be equated with the Irish fleet which has 2,300 vessels? This proposal will have to be fought tooth and nail on the basis of being unrealistic. Our quotas are very much undermined on an ongoing basis. I entirely support the Minister's stance on these draconian proposals which would equate with taking about 250 trawlers out of circulation and which would have a profound impact in terms of employment in our ports and in downstream activities. It would take at least 1,000 fishermen out of the sector as well as other people in the processing industry. I hope the Minister will tell the Commission this is totally unrealistic.
Franz Fischler represents Austria, which has no fishing fleet. His proposals should be based on reality. Ireland certainly deserves a fairer deal than what we have been getting at EU level in the past.
The Deputy can take it from what I have said that I will fight tooth and nail the recommendations in the report. They are not yet a set of proposals and I will take the opportunity over the weekend to get the agreement of the French Presidency to oppose this suggestion given that it is unrealistic and that there are far better ways forward.
