 Thank you very much. Thank you for the kind introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I would like to thank you for having me. I really feel, I'm feeling honored today because this institute has a tradition in organizing high level dialogue. So I feel honored for this opportunity and I'm here to show you what we are going to do about our next fisheries policy to present our proposal and to show you the Irish side of the coin because there is an Irish side and I would like you to be informed. I would like to say that from the very first beginning that this is the commission's proposal. I have worked and we have worked as a commission for years to come to this proposal. We have prepared it very carefully and me personally I have very concrete views on how we are going on. But I would like to say to you very openly that at the end of the line, the council and the parliament are going to decide on it. So this is a proposal. I'm here to discuss and we'll see what will happen. This is an open discussion and I will be very grateful to receive your options. So I would like also to say in advance that I know that I'm not presenting my proposal, our proposal just anywhere. I know that this country is suffering now because of the present economic crisis and I can assure you that I can understand really as you can imagine. I can understand what's happening. So I can understand that a lot of Irish people have a fear, let me use this word, about the future. They don't feel safe and I think this is very rational. This seems logic to me. There is the economic downturn. There is the fear of losing the jobs. This is very, very important. And the question always is there how can I manage, how can I pay my mortgage, how can I pay the school fees, whatever. So I also know that this feeling of uncertainty is something that European fishermen have to cope with. But I would like just to remind you, and let's start from this, that the fishermen here had the same uncertainty even before the crisis, before the proposal. They were not happy people and the bad commission is coming now to disturb their happiness. They had the problems. We think that we have found a way to go and solve them. I'm here to listen from you what is the right way, but I would like to start from this point. The situation in the fishery sector, European fishery sector, and also in Irish fishery sector was not good. So let us see some facts here. Even in Ireland, which is not the worst case, referring to fishery sector, of course, the economic performance of the fleet has been deteriorating since the late 90s. I would like to remind you that a particularly dark year was 2007, when profits went down 43% compared to the previous year. Between 2003 and 2007, the Irish fleet increased its time at sea by 11% and yet the total volume of landings decreased by 10%. These are Irish figures, right? I have been given by Irish authorities. And I would like to inform you that this trend is even more dramatic in other countries of Europe. So 2007, earlier days, something went wrong. What is that? What went wrong? Let's discuss about it. And I have some concrete ideas to propose to you. I think that basically we have been fishing too much. We have been carelessly throwing away unwanted catches. Fish, we caught it and back to the sea. And we have let our fleet become obese, obese giving money from taxpayers money. So this is the inconvenient truth. And I have to start with this truth. There are simply fewer and fewer fish to catch. This is the problem for you, for me. This is the common problem. It's not a problem for the commission, only it's a common problem. There is not a lot of fish there to catch. So we have to face this situation. 75% of our stocks are over fished. Here, our situation is worse than the situation of other countries. For example, United States. I have been there 10 days ago. They are doing better. Australia, they are doing better. New Zealand, they are doing better. We are the worst. Of course, there are some other countries. Okay, but referring to civilized world, we are not better than others. And we have to find, to have this in mind. So what we have done, since there was not enough fish, what we have done, we have given taxpayers money for decommissioning a lot of essence as a counter measure. So between 2000 and 2006 alone, we pumped over almost a billion euro. Almost a billion euro into scrapping. But as we get rid of older vessels, new ones are still being built and others are upgraded. And these are technologically more advanced than the older models. So every year, the union's fleet capacity actually increases by 3%. We have spent almost 1 billion euro to decrease 906 millions. To decrease the capacity, and the capacity is increasing 3% every year. So we have decided that we cannot spend the money this way anymore. And we have also some reports from the court of auditors. We have bosses also. The court of auditors, they came to us and say, stop this, we cannot go giving this money anymore. So we have to have in mind that we are forced to stop this. So what we can do? We have to break this vicious circle. And the vicious circle, let me describe it because it's very important, this is the following. There is less fish. So we resort to more fishing effort and more powerful boats, which leads to even less fish. So we deploy even more power and effort and so on. This is something we cannot afford anymore. And let me come to the truth. Our impact assessment, I'm not talking about NGOs or any other reports, United Nations because there are a lot, but our impact assessment, our official impact assessment. And our modeling exercises show very clearly that if nothing changes, only eight fish stocks out of 136 will be at sustainable levels by 2022. So after a decade, we fish now 136 stocks in Europe. Only eight of them will be at a sustainable level. So I have to do something about it. And we have to do something about it because our fishermen will not survive. If we are doing nothing, it will be very convenient, but then we will have to pay the bill. Our children will have to pay the bill. And this is a bitter, very bitter lesson I have had from my own country. So we cannot afford standing there and say no changes. We cannot afford it. So just imagine the situation here in Ireland. If we do nothing, let's say doing nothing. Our industry will then face even more economic pressure, particularly small-scale fisheries. We will lose more jobs and not just in the fishing sector, also in processing, in transport, in port infrastructure, packaging and retail. And imagine the impact on Ireland with its coastal regions. Coastal regions have economies that rely on fishing. I know it also very well this. So for Ireland, 900 miles of coastline and no place more than 60 miles from the coast, this would be a disaster. So this is why we have to change the things. And what I want is to have healthy fisheries, to be a source of wealth for fishermen and their families and for coastal communities. So that's why I came with this proposal. We can discuss about the substance of the proposal, but we have to agree between ourselves that business as usual is not an option anymore. This is something we really cannot afford. So what my proposal now? Three points I would like to make it brief. Sustainability, efficiency and coherence. Sustainability is the heart of the reform. To have environmental sustainability, we need to bring all stocks to sustainable levels by 2015. We have committed ourselves to this internationally. We have to go for it. This means that we are not going to stop fishing. We can keep fishing, but we have to fish in a way, to manage fish stocks in a way that we can get maximum financial gain while still keeping the stock sustainable. A second thing we need to do for sustainability is stop waste by stopping to chuck fish overboard that is already killed. This is something we have to do. Discarding is morally and environmentally unacceptable. It is being strongly questioned by consumers who are very important and the consumers are now more and more concerned with sustainability issues. And I think this is right. We have to face our discards gradually. This will be a gradual approach in all fisheries in a step by step approach. And it will have to be combined with better gear selectivity and with proper support for the industry to implement it. So to make a long story short, we are going to give money for this. For better gears, for incentives to stop discarding, we are going to give money have, we have to change the way we're giving money. We are not going to stop helping the industry, but we have to do it in another way. So here I would like to discuss another issue. We need also economic sustainability. We cannot build more and more and more, bigger and bigger and bigger ships and think that in the future they will be profitable. It is not the case. So in 2008, the World Bank and the FAO published a study called the Sanken Billions. This study shows that the difference between the potential and the actual economic benefits from global marine fisheries is about $50 billion per year. So if we rebuild stocks, we can capture a substantial part of this huge economic loss. I don't think that we have to trust completely the World Bank or anybody, but they show to us that there is a potential. So let's move to find the way. What is the way to go for this sustainability? We are going to rebuild the stocks, to have healthy stocks. And if we do that, we have proof that our fishery sector, the European fishery sector can have a lot of more money. I have figures here. I can give you figures about it. If we, for one or two years maybe, we'll have some problems, but afterwards if we have healthy stocks, then the profits will come and they will be bigger. So this is about sustainability. Let's come to efficiency now. So what I mean here, well here what I mean is that we have first to decentralize our decisions, to go for a regionalization procedure. So what I'm doing now is I'm deciding for everything. You cannot imagine how many decisions I have to take. You cannot imagine. Me, I mean the commissioner, the commission, the college sometimes. So for example, if you have somebody, a fisherman there in a port in Ireland, in Hout, for example, and he's going out to get some prongs, I have to decide about the mesh size he's going to use. We cannot do that anymore. We cannot do that. We have to decentralize. I was shocked when I took office last year about what I have to decide upon. So we have to persuade the parliament and the council, the European parliament, the council that they have to limit themselves only to the basic. They have to decide about the basic. For example, we can decide about the mortality, the fish mortality in order to get to sustainability targets. But afterwards, the member states, the industry, they have to go for cooperation in order to find out how they are going to reach these targets. So we decide about the targets, they are going to decide how. And we're going just to control if the targets are reached. If the targets are reached, then everything is fine. If the targets are not reached, then the commission is going to interfere. This is the way the new system will be working. And I think that such a decentralized policy is simpler to implement and much cheaper for the taxpayer. So as a picture, EU is a lighthouse. It gives signals and then all of you, the member states, the industry, they will steer the ship. They will steer the ship, but we have the targets, the lighthouse. The light is there, you have to go there. And you can choose your way to go there. This is about efficiency. So referring to efficiency, I have to mention another issue. I know it's very heated here. And this is the issue about transferable concessions, about the concessions referring to fishery sector. So what I'm trying to do here, what I'm trying to do is to find a way so the fleet adjusts to the available marine resources much better than with subsidies. Since we cannot give subsidies anymore for decommissioning the fleet, this is out of question because of the court of auditors report. Even if we want it, I don't want. I have to be honest here, but even if I want it, I could do it. So no subsidies, we have to find another way for compensation for those fishermen who want, for example, to go away from the profession or to give the boat to their sons and daughters. What we are going to do about them. There is no way we don't have early pensions. I would like to remind your finance minister. It's totally no early pensions, no compensation. So what we are going to do. So what we want to do is to give operators flexibility to reduce discarding and adapt to quotas. If vessel owners are allowed to trade concessions, they can get themselves a tailored combination of quotas according to their actual fishing patterns. I know that industry is very worried here. I understand that they want to avoid concentration. So I agree with them. We have to find ways to avoid concentration. We don't want to follow the examples of other countries. Well, I have Iceland in mind, to be honest. Where the bank sector came in, and I can say to you that they almost destroyed the fishery sector. We need to avoid concentration. And I have already discussed a lot with their presentation, their representatives of your industry and other member states industry. So I have some proposals here. First, transfers are limited to the national level. This is absolutely clear. I have to clarify it again. I have discussed with your minister. I have discussed with other ministers. I know that they are coming again and again with their costers, but this is absolutely clear. There is no way to have transferable concessions at an international level. This is strictly, this is written inside our regulation in a very clear way, only at a national level. So I would like to say very openly, I have read what Mr. Coven said. I would like to say very openly that fisheries, fish stocks, they remain a national public source. Absolutely. And it's the first time that the European Commission recognizes that fish stocks are a public source. They have public ownership. It's not sources of fishermen, of the industry, there is no ownership over these stocks. So there is a national asset. And what we are doing is that we're giving your government the possibility to allocate the users' rights, only users' rights of this national asset, but in a more logical way. So this is the first, national asset. Second, only fishermen, fishermen that have now boats can acquire fishing concessions. Not everybody, we're not going to privatize the seas, as I have read somewhere. We are going to give our fishermen one by one owner a concession. Third, Ireland can accept small-scale fleets from the system, totally. It's also written, small-scale fisheries can be totally exempted for the system. So we are talking about the big fleet. Let us be honest. The concerns and the objections are about the big fleet only, not about the small-scale fisheries, because small-scale fisheries are exempt, are out of the system. Fourth, your government can set additional safeguards to avoid excessive concentration and ensure a real economic link between the Irish quotas and the coastal communities that depend on them. For example, the government can have a ring-fence approach saying that we can permit the trade, but in this area of Ireland, not from this area to the other area, from this coast, not from this coast to the other coast. So this is not something that we have invented. And the most important, I'm sorry for taking so long time, but I would like to explain it clearly. And the most important, this system is already working. This is not our invention. It's already working. I have been to the States, as I have told you. There in the Gulf of Mexico, they have the same system. And all the fishermen, all NGOs, everybody is pleased with this. We have the example of Denmark. Denmark has introduced a similar system. It's our member state. So five years after introducing the system, the Danish pelagic fleet, because this is what it's about. It's not about small-scale fisheries. The Danish pelagic fleet slimmed down by 50% and increased its income by 10%. During the same period in Sweden, without the concessions, the pelagic fishermen were earning 25% less. So Sweden 25% less, Denmark plus 10%, and half of the pelagic fleet. We have facts, I'm not talking from my head. So this is a difference of 35%. So why do you don't want to end 35% more? This is my simple question, I cannot understand. So ladies and gentlemen, this is the kind of result I want for the Irish fishermen. Of course, you know the situation here better than me. Of course, I'm here to discuss with you, but I would like you also to open your mind to these facts because we are talking about facts. We are not talking about European ideas. We are talking about facts. Of course, we have to finance the transition. We have this in mind. We also care about social sustainability. We also care about it. So we have to finance the transition and our next financial proposal will take care of it. A third point, coherence. I have sustainability, efficiency, coherence. So what does it mean? It means very simply that all the other parts of the policy like market organization, external dimension, aquaculture, subsidies all must be in line with the first two, sustainability and efficiency. Here is, there are some very important issues. And you don't discuss about it. I think they are much more important than others. For example, labeling. Labeling is very important. If we achieve, this is a very difficult way to go because there are strong reactions. But my ambition is at every supermarket after this regulation, the consumer goes and has some essential, essential information on the product about where the product is coming from. If it is fresh or defrosted. So all the products that are coming to us and we import a lot as you know, 60% from other countries they will be defrosted. So fresh or defrosted, where it is coming from. What is its value? This means that the consumer can have a good choice and this will be for the profit of our industry because they have the better fish. They catch the better fish, fresh fish, good fish in our system. So they can get better prices for their fish through labeling. For example, I have been informed that here we have an example, Fisherman Frank and responsible Irish fish. These are systems that can show us the way. And also we are going to enhance aquaculture. Since we have to reduce our fleets we have to find another way to create jobs. Aquaculture sector can create jobs. We have seen that. We import a lot from other states. A lot, a lot. Our dependency on imports is getting bigger and bigger. So we are going to give money and the funding and very good advice to aquaculture and I'm looking forward to discuss new opportunities for the Irish fish farming industry. Almost 100 million euro worth is this industry so we have to enhance it. These are some examples about coherence but also what we really need here is to have very good control about what the fisheries, the fisheries products we import from other countries. We have to have a level playing field between our fishermen and the other fishermen. And the other way, the only way to achieve this is to go with the rules. To try to have common rules everywhere and this is something we are trying to do. Well, I have said a lot, I'm sorry but this reform is very important for me. I would like you to understand that this is a reform for the future. I'm here to discuss with you what will be the future of our children, of our seas, of our fishery sector. Our children, we have to imagine, after 10 years only eight stocks will be there. Of 136, I cannot afford, I cannot permit. I would like to remind you what James Joyce once said. You know him better than me of course but he said, I am tomorrow what I established today. So this is the case. I would like very much to discuss with you but I would like to introduce a policy for the future. Thank you.