WRITTEN QUESTION E-0475/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Freshwater fishing in Ireland: European subsidies for unattained objectives in the field of tourism, fisheries and nature conservation.
Date: 2001-02-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Ireland, environmental protection, freshwater fishing, lake, tourism

C 340 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Further strongly critical statements made by Donald Rumsfeld and other representatives from the United
States delegation on the European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI), EU reservations about the role of
Turkey and the further enlargement of NATO have raised the prospect of unacceptable vetoes being
imposed on initiatives taken by the Council and the Commission with the approval of the European
Parliament.

1.
Does the Council not consider that the issue of this dramatic shift in transatlantic relations should be
addressed as a matter of urgency with a view to adopting a common European position on the diktats
imposed by the United States at the (cid:145)Wehrkunde(cid:146) conference in Munich?

Does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy,

2.
Javier Solana, not
consider that he should report back immediately to the European Parliament on the official and unofficial
exchanges which took place in Munich and on the ways in which Europe should react diplomatically and
politically?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The Council does not agree that there has been a dramatic shift in transatlantic relations. There are
1.
frequent not to say continuous contacts between the European Union and the United States on the views
of the incoming Administration on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) as on other issues. The
Council
is confident that any differences will be resolved by this process of steady diplomacy and
exchange. It welcomes the assurances given publicly and in private meetings most recently by Secretary of
State Powell during the recent Troika visit to Washington, when he expressed satisfaction with the ESDP
which would raise European capabilities. The EU also welcomes the US administration(cid:146)s assurances that it
will consult fully with its European allies on US plans to develop a missile defence system.

The High Representative, Dr Javier Solana, does address the European Parliament regularly on the
2.
Common Foreign and Security Policy, most recently on 31 January 2001 and he intends to continue to
brief the European Parliament on the development of the Union(cid:146)s foreign and security policy, but he
cannot be expected to report immediately to the European Parliament on his many informal consultations.

(2001/C 340 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0475/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: European subsidies for unattained objectives in the field of tourism,

fisheries and nature conservation

Does the Commission recall that, in November 1995, the European Regional Development Fund paid
1.
a first tranche of
IEP 777 000 which represented 75 % of the cost of a project under the tourism
operational programme (OP) for Ireland to be carried out by the Western Regional Fisheries Board (WRFB)
over a five-year period at a total cost approaching IEP 3 million?

2.
Does the Commission also recall that the programme referred to in point 1 above is supposed to
result in the promotion and development of the Western Lakes System involving Loughs Corrib, Mask,
Carra and Arrow and that that programme is presented as part of a strategy to attract foreign tourists to
western Ireland and increase revenue from game angling, while it should also contribute, pursuant to
Directive 92/43/EEC (1) to the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna?

Can the Commission confirm that the cost of the Western Lakes System programme increased

3.
initially from IEP 3 million to IEP 5 million and is now running at IEP 7 million?

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/35

Has the European subsidy now been exhausted, apart from the continued use of the boats, motor

4.
cycles, nets and jeeps acquired with that subsidy and not yet amortised?

5. What is the basis for the complaints appearing in the Irish press that IEP 3,3 million has suddenly
been withdrawn from the subsidy, with the result that 16 young people employed by the WRFB have been
made redundant?

6.

Are any applications for further subsidies currently being processed?

Has the money spent over the past three years actually led to the intended increase in the number of

7.
game anglers in the region, or is my information correct that the objective has not been attained?

Is there any possibility of a demand being be made for repayment in part or in full of subsidies not

8.
devoted to the stated objective? Does the Commission intend to pursue that line of approach?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

1.
The initial costs of developing Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra was estimated at IEP 3 million. Over
the five years of the programme IEP 2,5 million were invested. The actual cost of the western lakes project
is IEP 2 459 657 of which IEP 1 844 743 (75 %) was paid by the European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF).

2.
The programme was to develop Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra (not Lough Arrow) and was
extremely successful at improving the stocks and catches of wild brown trout in Lough Mask and most
spectacularly in Lough Corrib which, as a result of the development programme, had the best fishing in
2000 in over 12 years. The lakes are being promoted very successfully by two specific product marketing
groups for game angling and the revenue from game fishing has increased very significantly. Data indicate
major gains in the recovery of the flora and fauna of river corridors as a consequence of this programme.
A recovery in marginaland aquatic plants, the aquatic macro-invertebrate fauna, fish stocks (both salmonid
and non-salmonid species (cid:129) stickleback lamprey etc.) and certain species of birds are clearly evident where
works have been carried out.

The project did not include Lough Arrow, which is in the North Western region. However, a stream
restoration project for Lough Arrow, submitted by the North Western Board, was also funded under the
programme. The amount of the grant was IEP 316 600, of which IEP 237 450 (75 %) was paid by the
ERDF.

3.
The costs for the western lakes programme were estimated in 1996 at IEP 3 million based on the
time requested to do the work and the duration of the programme. During the five-year time frame IEP 2,5
million was invested. To complete parts of the catchment not previously considered possible under the last
programme will cost an additional IEP 3 million.

The total cost of the Lough Arrow Project was IEP 316 600. The project was delivered within budget and
no additional funding was sought.

4.
The European co-financing was fully exhausted at the end of the tourism angling measure of the Irish
operational programme for tourism. The last claim was made in November 1999. There is no on-going
Community funding being provided in respect of Lough Arrow.

5.
During the programme 16 additional staff were recruited by the Western Regional Fisheries Board to
undertake the development programme. When funding ceased there was no more funding to maintain
their employment and they were laid off.

6.

No applications are currently being considered for funding.

C 340 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

As indicated by the Western Regional Fisheries Board (WRFB), there has been an enormous increase
7.
in the numbers of anglers fishing on Lough Corrib in particular and to a lesser extent on Lough Mask.
Lough Corrib is now regarded as the best destination in Europe for wild brown trout and currently it is
impossible to get a booking on the lake during the peak angling periods. Initial reports from the tourism
operators are that the year 2000 was unprecedented in its success and the lake fished extremely well
throughout the entire season. Indications during the year 2000 were that brown trout angling on Lough
Mask had also shown a significant improvement.

According to the information received from the North Western Regional Fisheries Board (NWRFB) in
relation to Lough Arrow, the project was carried out over the period 1998-2000 and would not be
expected to have resulted yet in any increase in the number of game anglers. The purpose of the project
was to provide a major boost to stocks of wild trout in Lough Arrow by improving spawning and nursery
streams. Such a project will not, by its very nature, yield results in terms of increased numbers of anglers
for a period of 3-4 years, after which time the works will result in an increased stock of adult trout in the
lake. It should be noted that a monitoring programme has been carried out on streams, following the
works. The results are extremely encouraging as they show a very significant increase in numbers of
juvenile trout. Dr Martin O(cid:146)Grady, Senior Research Officer, Central Fisheries Board, has stated that the
streams will, for the first time, be able to provide a sufficient number of wild fish to stock Lough Arrow
where, traditionally, stocks of wild fish had to be supplemented by hatchery reared fish. All the evidence,
therefore, is that the project has been extremely successful.

8.
All the funds were spent on the specific objectives of the plan as proposed and all were covered by
the eligible criteria as laid out under the tourism angling measure of the Irish operational programme for
tourism.

(2001/C 340 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0478/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: restoration of a natural balance instead of a continuation of the

extermination policy

1.
Does the Commission recall the letter dated 15 September 1997 (ref. SG(97)D/84642) from its then
President, Mr Jacques Santer, to Mrs Caroline Jackson, MEP, in which he pledged that, where necessary, the
element in the programme aimed at (cid:145)stock control(cid:146) (i.e. pike culling) would be reformed and that a new
project manager would be appointed for the Corrib System Development Programme? Have those
commitments been honoured yet? If not, why not?

Can the Commission confirm that a further culling of pike took place between the autumn of 1998

2.
and April 1999, and subsequently in the spring of 2000, when any pike discovered were killed?

3.
Can it also confirm that, each year, six of the seven Regional Fishery Boards in Ireland are still
carrying out a policy of pike culling during the pike spawning season and that such culling took place,
inter alia, in December 2000 in Lough Arrow, which comes under the responsibility of the North Western
Regional Fisheries Board (NWRFB)? Does such ongoing extermination of pike take place as part of
a programme that is financially supported in any way whatsoever by the European Union?

Does the Commission see any possibility of terminating this merry-go-round of implementation,
4.
suspension and renewal of extermination programmes, which has been going on for years now, by
ensuring that it no longer forms part of the fisheries policy? Is the Commission prepared to make the
granting of any further financial aid conditional upon pike culling being prohibited or, at best, permitted
on the basis of strict authorisation which would be granted only in exceptional cases?

5. What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that, after long years of neglect, the lakes in
western Ireland finally receive the treatment they require to restore them to health, treatment which will
result in the attainment of the original aid objectives such as a reduction in pollution, the promotion of
tourism and the management of the natural fish stocks?