7. We consider that the
following raises questions of political importance, but make no
recommendation for its further consideration:-
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,
FISHERIES AND FOOD
(17822)
12466/96
COM(96)682
| Draft Council Decision on specific measures to encourage Italian fisherman to diversify out of certain fishing activities.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 43; qualified majority voting.
|
Background
7.1 The Italian drift
net fleet has not complied with Community legislation requiring
that the maximum length of drift nets should be 2.5 km, and this
has led to threats of trade sanctions by the United States. The
Commission says that drift net fishing is a traditional activity
in Italy and that shorter nets jeopardise profitability. The
proposal is to encourage conversion of Italian fisheries away
from drift net fishing.
The Commission proposal
7.2 The Commission proposes
that Community funds should be made available by reprogramming
structural assistance already allocated from the Financial Instrument
for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) under Objective 1[15].
100 million ECU (£74.2 million) would be specifically allocated
to the Italian drift net fleet for re-equipment for other forms
of fishing, decommissioning vessels not so converted, and providing
pensions for fisherman no longer employed. An inspection scheme
would provide for fines and criminal proceedings in cases of infringement
in addition to the usual Structural Fund rules.
The Government's view
7.3 In his Explanatory
Memorandum of 6 February, the Minister of State at the Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Baldry), tells us:
"... The Government
would not wish to see established the practice of paying fishermen
to comply with Community conservation rules. The Government has
opposed the proposal in Working Group and will continue to do
so until a more acceptable package is produced. British fishermen
have not received compensation for complying with the 2.5 km net
restriction."
Conclusion
7.4 We agree with
the Government's view that Community funds should not be used
to pay fishermen to comply with Community conservation rules.
Even though there would be no additional expenditure of Community
Funds, the reprogramming of structural assistance already allocated
precludes its use for other more appropriate investment. We consider
that the proposal raises questions of political importance, but
do not recommend debate.
15 Objective 1 of the Structural Funds: promoting the development and structural adjustment of the regions whose development is lagging behind (defined as where per capita GDP is less than 75% of the Community average). Back
|
