Fisheries Newsletter – July 2013

http://agritrade.cta.int

Contents

Market access: Tariff and non-tariff aspects _______________________ 2

The EU–Chile FTA shows the way for EU to apply new standards to imports ____________ 2

FTA negotiations with Thailand to promote fish exports to the EU ____________________ 3

Sustainable fishing certification too lenient and discretionary, study finds______________ 4

Global sourcing derogation in EPA shouldn’t be linked to access to resources considerations,

say Pacific ACP ministers ______________________________________________________ 5

Deadline for ending free EU market access for Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, and Namibia _ 6

EU taking first sanctions against third country “allowing unsustainable fishing” _________ 7

ACP–EU fisheries relations; Fisheries Partnership Agreements ________ 7

Russia calls on WTO after Mauritania says it must respect same conditions as “subsidised EU

fleets” _____________________________________________________________________ 7

Mauritania to renew its national trawler fleet: Will EU vessels move back in? ___________ 9

Measuring fishing capacity in the Indian Ocean: “An essential step for sound management”,

says Greenpeace ___________________________________________________________ 10

ITLOS opinion on IUU fishing requested by West African sub-regional fisheries committee 11

MEPs approve Commission’s proposal on IUU regulation on technical alignment and urge EC

to take action against South Korea on the fight against IUU._________________________ 13

EU Common Fisheries Policy and its implications __________________ 13

EU anti-discards policy ________________________________________________________ 13

WTO and international developments ___________________________ 14

EU decision on fish subsidies may pose risk to global negotiations ___________________ 14

China reporting only 10% of its distant-water catches, says new study _________________ 15

Interview: Points of view from ACP–EU stakeholders _______________ 16

“If we achieve increased domestication of foreign longline fleets, we won’t need global

sourcing derogation” ________________________________________________________ 16

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 2

Market access: Tariff and non-tariff aspects

The EU–Chile FTA shows the way for EU to apply new standards to imports

In the context of the Common Fisheries Policy reform, in particular its market organisation rules for imported fish and aquaculture products, the European Parliament and Council both called for social and environmental standards to be applied to imports, equivalent to those applied to EU products, to create a more ‘level playing field’ between EU and imported fish products.

An article about the EU–Chile association agreement shows how these types of standards – on animal welfare in this case – have been introduced in the agreement 10 years ago and gradually implemented since then.

In 2003, with the objective of developing standards, the EU requested the introduction of a reference to animal welfare in the EU–Chile Association Agreement. Chile, an important meat exporter to the EU, agreed to the proposal. This became the first bilateral trade agreement to mention animal welfare in the annex on sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS). The implementation was undertaken by the EU–Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Joint Management Committee, which monitors the implementation of the agreement and provides recommendations for modifications.

The article explains that ‘equivalence for trade purposes’ has been a key notion in the work of the Joint Management Committee – something which is also put forward by the EU institutions when it comes to imported fish and aquaculture products.

The provision on animal welfare in the Chile–EU agreement triggered the institutionalisation of animal welfare in Chile, through the development and implementation of relevant new legislation. Chilean stakeholders (producers, scientists, institutions, NGOs) were involved in the process.

The article comments that although Chile originally saw the inclusion of animal welfare as an EU demand, the bilateral agreement brought benefits to both parties: “The EU and Chile worked together to build a common understanding on the application of animal welfare standards, exchange of expertise, and informal harmonisation of their position at international level. There is also strong collaboration between the EU and Chile at the institutional and academic levels through the organisation of joint seminars … The respect of animal welfare also clearly brought new economic opportunities for Chilean meat producers, which saw a growth in exports to the EU.”

Sources

ICTSD Bridges Trade BioRes Review, vol. 7, Number 1, ‘The EU–Chile association agreement: A booster for animal welfare’, March 2013 http://ictsd.org/i/news/bioresreview/158574/

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Organisation of the Markets in Fishery and Aquaculture Products – Preparation of the informal trilogue, 19 February 2013 http://cfp-reformwatch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/CFP_CMO_3-column_document_19-Feb.pdf

Comment

It is likely that in the future, under the pressure of EU fish and aquaculture producers wanting a ‘level playing field’, as well as EU civil society calling for improved environmental and social production conditions for fish consumed in the EU, there will be a stronger call by EU institutions to introduce environmental, social and ethical standards in EU preferential trade agreements,

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 3

including with ACP countries. The example of the EU–Chile agreement shows that this has to be done in a spirit of dialogue between the parties, involving all local stakeholders in a participative process, so that the importance of applying these standards can be demonstrated and new trade opportunities can be developed, bringing increased benefits to the EU trade partner.

FTA negotiations with Thailand to promote fish exports to the EU

On 6 March, the EU started negotiations for a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) with Thailand, the latest in a series with ASEAN countries. The EU is currently the third largest export market for the Thai fisheries industry: including frozen and prepared shrimps, canned tuna and tuna loins, and frozen squid. Thailand has become the primary source of canned tuna for the EU markets.

On this occasion, a public consultation has been launched by the EC, including fisheries products, “to give the EU fisheries sector the opportunity to provide information that will help the Commission establish priorities and take decisions throughout the negotiating process”. The EC questionnaire covers issues such as tariffs, rules of origin, trade facilitation, investment in the fisheries sector (including access to fishing licences) and sustainable fisheries (i.e. those participating in the regional fisheries management organisations’ [RFMOs’] fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing commitments to global fisheries’ governance).

On 15 March, the European tuna sector platform EUROTHON published its views regarding these EU–Thailand FTA negotiations. EUROTHON underlined the need to develop FTAs with countries “having a high level of compliance with sound governance, human rights and global environment protection”. To that end, “the level playing field that EUROTHON would seek is at least the level that third countries would need to achieve to become beneficiaries of GSP+ trade advantages.”

EUROTHON asks that tuna products for the EU will be treated sensitively and will accordingly be excluded from the EU liberalisation. Thailand should apply the EU standard preferential rules of origin for imports of fishery products into the EU: “No derogation must be granted.” Moreover, as Thailand is a member of ASEAN, which regroups all major competitors for the EU tuna industry, “it is therefore of vital importance that the EU does not grant regional cumulation to Thailand.”

Finally, EUROTHON would be in favour of including sustainability provisions (socially as well as environmentally) in FTAs to ensure a ‘level playing field’. EUROTHON also requires that Thailand correctly applies the hygiene–sanitary, IUU and traceability regulations.

Sources

EU–Asia Centre, ‘EU–Thailand launch FTA negotiations’, 8 March 2013 http://www.eu-asiacentre.eu/news_details.php?news_id=63

EC Trade Consultation, ‘Consultation on a free trade agreement with Thailand’, questionnaire on fisheries, February 2013, closing date 13 June 2013 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/?consul_id=172

EUROTHON position on a future FTA between the EU and Thailand, 15 March 2013 http://www.eurothon.eu/content/eurothon-position-future-free-trade-agreement-between-eu-and-thailand-15032013

Comment

Thailand processes about 25% of the world’s canned tuna, using raw materials that are sourced not only from its tuna fleet but also from a range of suppliers, including some ACP countries. Thailand has much lower production costs than ACP countries producing canned tuna, and has already become the primary supplier for the EU, without trade preferences. The successful conclusion of

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 4

this FTA would further erode ACP trade preferences to access the EU market with their tuna products. This tends to show that the current EU decision making process is increasingly influenced by supply considerations – eliminating tariff barriers while developing other requirements, such as sanitary, environmental and social standards – rather than by the protection of its own tuna industry and associated activities in ACP countries. This suggests ACP countries should increasingly look at how they can adapt to these changing circumstances.

Sustainable fishing certification too lenient and discretionary, study finds

A new study published in the scientific journal Biological Conservation, analysed the outcome of 19 formal objections launched by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) against the certification of fisheries. Such objections were heard by an MSC-appointed adjudicator. In all but one case, the adjudicator ruled in favour of the certification of the fishery.

The researchers sought to determine whether these fisheries actually met the MSC’s principles for certification: sustainability of the targeted fish stock, low impacts on the ecosystem and effective management. They found that many of these fisheries – representing 35% of MSC-labelled seafood – did not meet MSC standards.

The study highlighted the case of a swordfish fishery which has high levels of by-catch, including sharks, endangered loggerhead and critically endangered leatherback turtles: “When the MSC labels a swordfish fishery that catches more sharks than swordfish ‘sustainable’, it’s time to re-evaluate its standards,” said one of the co-authors.

The authors of the study suggest that the MSC’s principles are too lenient, and allow for an overly generous interpretation by third-party certifiers and adjudicators, which means that the MSC label may be misleading to both consumers and conservation donors. “Unfortunately, the take-home message is that consumers can’t necessarily trust a label. They have to do a little bit of their own research, look for something that gives you more context than the label,” concluded the co-author of the study.

The MSC has objected to the paper and its conclusions in an official statement: “[The Biological Conservation paper] appears to misunderstand the intention of the objection procedure. Their paper fails to capture the wide range of benefits associated with a participatory and transparent objection process.”

Sources

Supermarkets News, ‘Study: MSC standards are too lenient’, 12 April 2013 http://supermarketnews.com/seafood/study-msc-standards-are-too-lenient#ixzz2RBkKQwbr

Takepart.com, ‘It’s official: You can’t trust a ‘certified sustainable’ seafood label’, 16 April 2013 http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/16/sustainable-seafood-not-sustainable-fishing

Comment

It is questionable whether the shortcomings identified for the MSC-certified fisheries undermine the consumer’s trust. In EU markets for MSC-labelled fish products – i.e. supermarkets, some fast food chains, etc. – consumers might be more sensitive to the price than the carrying or not of an eco-label. MSC-labelled products then become part of the retailer’s or fast food chain’s strategy for greening their image. As environmental standards gradually seep into EU legislation, the issue is whether such private standards will, or will not, be the benchmark for developing this new legislation, and how EU legislation will address shortcomings identified for private labels, such as high levels of by-catch. In any case, ACP countries’ products carrying private labels would probably be better prepared for these new challenges.

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 5

Global sourcing derogation in EPA shouldn’t be linked to access to

resources considerations, say Pacific ACP ministers

The Pacific ACP Trade Minister’s chair, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, called on the European Union “not to use global sourcing as a bargaining tool to access fisheries resources in the region”. The Pacific ACP ministers consider that, thanks to the global sourcing derogation to the rules of origin, the region will be able to attract onshore investment, and develop their local fleets through fishing joint ventures.

In the negotiations of the comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), Pacific ACP members are lobbying the EU for the extension of the global sourcing derogation to the rules of origin, to cover fresh and chilled fish fillets. In their view, this is a key component of a development-friendly EPA: “The EU needs to recognize the fact that each Pacific country has sovereign rights over territorial and archipelagic waters and we will not allow the EPA to be used to undermine these rights in any way… Our national, sub-regional and regional conservation policies are good – or better – than international measures and should not be undermined in the EPA.”

In its latest comment on this issue, the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) Fisheries Trade News disclosed more information about this issue. At the Fisheries Technical Working Group Meeting held between EU and Pacific ACP delegates, “it appeared that the EU delegation’s principal interest was to raise concerns on the PNA [Parties to the Nauru Agreement] purse seine Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) and conservation and management issues. The EU delegation argued that they would like questions on the VDS and their concerns around sustainability to be answered thoroughly first and, following internal consultation, would provide their revised proposal on global sourcing.”

Meanwhile, the EC initialled an access agreement with Kiribati, which ignores the VDS – something the European Parliament Development Committee questioned, echoing concerns raised by Pacific ACP ministers. The Committee’s draft opinion underlines that: “The fact that the protocol agreed between the EU and Kiribati does not comply with the VDS is causing important tensions, both between the EU and some Pacific island countries and between Kiribati and the other Pacific island countries, with the latter voicing concerns about the EU acting in bad faith and breaking regional solidarity.” The Committee is proposing to reject the FPA [fisheries partnership agreement] proposed, and calls on the EC to renegotiate the protocol in order to incorporate “the provisions of any regional and sub-regional agreement or arrangement binding on Kiribati”, including the VDS scheme.

Sources

PACNEWS, ‘EU should not use Global sourcing as a bargaining tool to access fisheries resources’, 17 May 2013 http://www.pina.com.fj/index.php?p=pacnews&m=read&o=179788389051954574f984c52b4d8f

FFA Fisheries Trade News, vol. 6: Issue 1, posted March 2013 http://www.ffa.int/node/722

Agritrade, ‘European Commission publishes study on global sourcing in the Pacific’, 25 March 2013 http://agritrade.cta.int/Fisheries/Topics/Market-access/European-Commission-publishes-study-on-global-sourcing-in-the-Pacific

European Parliament, Draft Opinion of the Committee on Development on the FPA between the EC and the Republic of Kiribati, 2012/0229(NLE), 30 April 2013 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/deve/pa/934/934581/934581en.pdf

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 6

Comment

The key element for attracting onshore investments in the ACP fisheries sector is the long-term availability of fish resources, and – when investors are fishing companies, as is often the case in Pacific tuna fisheries – guaranteed access for their fleets to these resources. Ensuring sustainable fisheries is crucial in that context. Therefore, close consideration should be given on how regional management arrangements – like the VDS – will promote sustainable fishing. It remains to be seen how the European Parliament Development Committee’s concerns about the EU simultaneously negotiating an access agreement with Kiribati (without a VDS clause) will be taken on board. It is worth noting that the Pacific ACP call is in line with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Art. 11.2.7) which says that states should not condition market access to resources.

Deadline for ending free EU market access for Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya,

and Namibia

The EU has given eight ACP countries – including fish exporting countries like Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Ghana, Kenya and Namibia – an “ultimatum” to sign their EPA by October 2014 or risk losing their preferences, as they are not classified as “less developed countries” and cannot therefore benefit from the ‘Everything but Arms’ (EBA) scheme for exporting fish products duty free, even in the absence of an EPA.

While Namibia and Kenya are mainly exporting white fish to the EU markets, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Fiji have an important tuna industry, with most of their exports going to the EU. Without the duty free access for canned tuna and pre-cooked loins, their industries will lose their competitiveness in the EU market.

Two years ago, the EU proposed to suspend tariff preferences if EPAs were not ratified by January 2014. The European Parliament recently voted to extend the deadline to October 2014.

In the case of Côte d’Ivoire, this comes at a time when the EU and Côte d’Ivoire have just agreed a new fisheries partnership agreement protocol, which facilitates the landing in Abidjan of important quantities of tuna caught by EU vessels, and their export to the EU. The withdrawal of Côte d’Ivoire tariffs preferences to access the EU market would affect the whole equilibrium of the EU–Côte d’Ivoire FPA.

FFA Trade News also reports that: “There is considerable anxiety among Fiji-based exporters of fish products to the EU.” Although Fiji agreed to an interim EPA, it did not implement it. Even if Fiji could export under the EU Generalised Scheme of Preferences (EU GSP), it could then only use fish caught by EU or Fijian boats, as the EU GSP would not include a “global sourcing” derogation to the rules of origin, and does not currently allow for regional cumulation.

Sources

Atuna.com, EU ultimatum for three tuna exporting African countries, 8 May 2013 http://www.atuna.com/apps/public/ViewArticle.asp?ID=12820

European Parliament, ‘MEPs extend deadline for ending free EU market access for ACP countries’, 16 April 2013 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20130416IPR07344/html/MEPs-extend-deadline-for-ending-free-EU-market-access-for-ACP-countries

FFA Fisheries Trade News, Vol. 6: Issue 2 March–April 2013 http://www.ffa.int/node/749

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 7

EC Maritime Affairs, ‘New protocol to EU – Ivory Coast fisheries partnership agreement’, 9 January 2013 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/mare/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=9429&subweb=347&lang=en

Comment

ACP countries such as Côte d’Ivoire, Namibia or Fiji are improving their access to the EU market in different ways. For Côte d’Ivoire, the signing of a bilateral FPA which supports tuna landings in Abidjan and improves compliance with EU sanitary requirements (by supporting landing and handling port infrastructures) is boosting its tuna products’ exports to the EU market. In the case of Fiji, one of its tuna fisheries was recently eco-labelled, which makes its products attractive for some EU “environmentally conscious” markets. In case such countries would lose the tariff preferences they currently enjoy, it would certainly slow down such developments. This calls for increased coherence, in the EU approach, between its development, trade and fisheries policies.

EU taking first sanctions against third country “allowing unsustainable

fishing”

In the conflict that opposes the EU to Iceland and Faroe Islands about the management of the north-east Atlantic mackerel and herring resources – resources of “shared interest” – the European Commission is ready to initiate trade sanctions against the Faroe Islands. This is in light of its unilateral setting of fishing quotas, and refusal to implement previous sharing arrangements. The Commission will continue discussions with the newly elected Icelandic government before taking any similar sanctions against Iceland.

This will be the first implementation of the EU regulation adopted last September, taking measures against “third countries allowing unsustainable fishing”. At their May meeting, the Council of EU Fisheries ministers highlighted that sanctions will include preventing Faroese fish products to enter the EU; and Faroese vessels that fish for herring from landing in the EU. Moreover, EU vessels will not be permitted to fish for herring in Faroese waters.

Sources

SeafoodSource.com, ‘EU pursuing “mackerel wars” sanctions’, 14 May 2013 http://www.seafoodsource.com/newsarticledetail.aspx?id=20670

Comment

The EU regulation detailing the trade – and other – sanctions to be taken against countries allowing unsustainable fishing applies to all stocks “of shared interest”, which may include stocks shared with ACP countries, like tuna or small pelagics. It will be interesting to see how, in practice, this regulation is implemented in the case of the Faroe Islands and Iceland, in order to draw lessons about a potential application to other fisheries, of interest to ACP countries.

ACP–EU fisheries relations; Fisheries Partnership Agreements

Russia calls on WTO after Mauritania says it must respect same conditions

as “subsidised EU fleets”

Since joining the World Trade Organization last year, Russia has threatened to file its first complaint under WTO rules about the subsidies that Russia claims are provided by the EU – under the FPA – to its fishing fleets operating in Mauritania. According to Russia’s Federal Fisheries

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 8

Agency’s deputy director Andreï Kraïni, the EU “pays Mauritania 80 million euros per year so that EU companies have the right to catch 300,000 tons of fish in its EEZ [exclusive economic zones]. This level of subsidies makes fishing by Russian and other non-EU companies unprofitable”.

Russia’s threat comes at a time when it is also negotiating an access agreement with Mauritania for its fleets, to catch small pelagics. Although no official information has publicly been made available, a Mauritanian newspaper, Le Calame, obtained the draft agreement being discussed, which proposes a 10-year access agreement for Russian vessels, against a payment of US$100 million, to be invested in storage and processing infrastructure.

However, the Mauritanian government insisted that Russian vessels should have the same technical and financial conditions as apply to EU vessels. These conditions applying to EU vessels fishing for small pelagics under the FPA include a rise in ship owner’s payments, as well as a redefinition of the fishing zone, which puts sardinella resources – deemed over-exploited – out of reach of EU vessels. This move was welcomed by local artisanal fishermen, who insisted that sardinella is key for local and regional food security.

Faced with this demand, Russian negotiators stated that unlike the EU, Russia does not grant subsidies to its ship owners. Therefore the economic indicators show that the Russian fleet cannot work under as strict technical conditions as imposed on EU vessels, which prompted Russia to announce its initiative at the WTO.

Replying to the announcement, European Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki underlined that: “Our fisheries agreements are based on transparency, sustainability and good governance. Everybody can see the terms of our agreements. This is not the case always with our international partners. Any move against our agreements [at the WTO] would serve as a catalyst for more transparency in fisheries agreements involving others.”

In recent years, West African small pelagics have become the target of various foreign fleets, including China, the EU and Russia. In 2012, Senegalese fishermen and Greenpeace denounced the illegal licensing by the former Senegalese government of giant trawlers plundering their small pelagic resources. The trawlers are mainly flagged in Russia and East European countries or hiding behind flags of convenience, including ACP countries such as Belize or Comoros.

Sources

The Voice of Russia, ‘Russia complains over unfair competition in fishing industry’, 22 April 2013 http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm334120.htm

La Voix de la Russie, ‘Les pêcheurs russes défavorisés portent plainte contre l’UE’, 23 April 2013 http://french.ruvr.ru/2013_04_23/Les-pecheurs-russes-seront-proteges-dans-le-cadre-de-l-OMC/

Undercurrent News, ‘EU responds to Russia WTO complaint over Mauritania deal’, 26 April 2013 http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2013/04/26/eu-responds-to-russia-wto-complaint-over-mauritania-deal/#.UZDLTbUVMms

Cridem.org, ‘Pêche: Vers l’accord de trop?’, 1 May 2013 http://176.31.236.186/C_Info.php?article=642556

Noorinfo.com, ‘Accords de Pêche : Ce que la Mauritanie a dit aux Russes et aux Chinois’, 3 May 2013 http://www.noorinfo.com/Accords-de-Peche-Ce-que-la-Mauritanie-a-dit-aux-Russes-et-aux-Chinois_a9079.html

Comment

There are two main variables regarding the access of foreign fleets to ACP fish resources: technical conditions and financial conditions of access. The question raised by Russia about the financial conditions in the EU–Mauritania access agreement – so that financial conditions offered

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 9

to Russia “compensate” for what it considers “competition distorting subsidies” – highlights that technical conditions of access – the other variable of access agreements – should not change. Technical conditions negotiated by Mauritania with the EU for access to small pelagics were based on the need, expressed by Mauritania, to conserve these resources and protect its local artisanal fishing sector. It seems logical that, to achieve this objective, Mauritania should insist that the same technical conditions apply to all other foreign fleets.

If Russia’s threat translates into a formal complaint under WTO rules, then it will be a test case on fisheries’ subsidies and access agreements. During the long litigation process at WTO, including the consultations that will take place between the parties, it is likely that information will be made public about Russia and other non-EU fleet agreements, and how they compare with EU agreements. Until now, most access agreements have been rather opaque, and such disclosure in itself would be a step toward more transparency in distant water fishing nations’ access to ACP resources.

Mauritania to renew its national trawler fleet: Will EU vessels move back in?

According to a decree from the Mauritanian Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Economy, the national trawler fleet will have to come back to port for total or partial renewal before 31 December 2013.

The trawler owners are expected to take appropriate steps to submit their renewal applications to “meet the eligibility criteria” before this deadline. The owners are expected to make their vessels fully compliant with health regulations and hygiene standards – allowing exports to international markets such as the EU – or, where appropriate, to replace their vessels. About 80 trawlers are concerned. A local newspaper commented that the average price of a new fishing vessel varies between US$4 million and 6 million, and that the period between the placing of the order for boatbuilding and the actual delivery is about 2 years, making the replacement of old vessels by new ones almost impossible.

This decree comes when EU (Spanish) trawlers have been stopped from fishing octopus in Mauritanian waters under the FPA. The EU–FPA Scientific Committee held at the beginning of April confirmed the situation of over-exploitation of octopus and that “Mauritanian fleets only would today have the capacity to catch all of the average production potential of this stock”. There is, therefore, no surplus of octopus and, on this basis, it is not possible to negotiate an access for EU fleets, in line with the Convention of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea.

Spanish trawlers, mainly coming from Galicia, have no alternative fishing grounds to turn to, and the Galician Regional Ministry of Fisheries announced €9.5 million will be allocated in 2013 for scrapping Galician offshore vessels that are over 10-years old. The announcement mentions that “the restrictions imposed on the fleet by the non-renewal of fishing opportunities under FPAs” are one reason for setting this up. Such is the case of the Galician cephalopod vessels that were expelled from Mauritania last year, will have priority access for the scrapping funds.

However, with the Mauritanian decree for renewal of the local trawler fleet, some observers think that the newest (less than 10-years old) of these Spanish trawlers may find their way back to Mauritanian waters through reflagging or the setting up of joint ventures. This was an option already proposed last February by Mauritania’s President during a meeting with the Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister.

Sources

Financial Afrik, ‘Pêche en Mauritanie: L’ultimatum du 31 decembre 2013’, 7 May 2013 http://www.financialafrik.com/peche-en-mauritanie-lultimatum-du-31-decembre-2013/

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 10

ReformWatch.eu, EU–Mauritania FPA Joint Scientific Committee, report, April 2013 http://cfp-reformwatch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Report-on-6th-Joint-Scientific-Committee-EU-Mauritania-2-5-April-2013_FR.pdf

Fish Information & Services, ‘Mauritania intends to boost fisheries agreement with the EU’, 26 February 2013 http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&country=0&special=&monthyear=&day=&id=59116&ndb=1&df=0

Fish Information & Services, ‘Galicia allocates EUR9.5 million for high sea ship scrapping’, 14 May 2013 http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&country=0&special=&monthyear=&day=&id=60771&ndb=1&df=0

Comment

The EU–Mauritania FPA scientific committee highlighted that octopus resources are still in a state of over-exploitation. At last, it seems that the Galician authorities are acknowledging this, having put in place a scheme that gives priority to vessels previously fishing under the Mauritania FPA. What may seem an easy solution – transferring the newest EU vessels to Mauritania to renew the local trawler fleet – may face various obstacles. Without an appropriate financing mechanism, buying the vessels will remain difficult for Mauritanian licence holders. Second, an analysis of the impact of such an initiative on the state of exploitation of the resources should be made prior to the transfer of any EU vessel, to ensure that the transfer does not contribute to unsustainable fishing. Finally, in Mauritania, there is a local fleet of artisanal and coastal vessels (PAC – pêche artisanale et côtière) exporting to the international markets, which may quickly fill the space made available by the progressive demise of local trawlers.

Measuring fishing capacity in the Indian Ocean: “An essential step for sound

management”, says Greenpeace

Meeting in Mauritius in May, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) members – including several ACP countries and the EU – agreed to the principle of introducing fishing limits based on the precautionary approach. The management scheme required to put this in practice will be negotiated next year. Measures were also agreed to protect oceanic white tip sharks from high seas fisheries as well as cetaceans and whale sharks from being accidentally caught in purse seine fisheries, although a proposed ban on shark finning was not adopted.

Greenpeace considers that IOTC members have failed to halt the decline of the albacore tuna – the region’s most vulnerable tuna species – as it did not adopt a proposal to cut catches by 30%. Another key issue raised by the NGO is that the region currently lacks the data needed to properly manage its fishing capacity and effort.

In a paper prepared for the IOTC meeting, Greenpeace insisted that to enable the management of fishing capacity, and to determine whether and where excess capacity exists, all fishing vessels active in the IOTC fisheries must be identified, together with their characteristics. For example, increasing numbers of fish aggregating devices (FADs), which act as a capacity multiplier, may have kept fishing efforts high even where the number of purse seiners has decreased. Measuring capacity, therefore, requires much more than just checking the number of vessels.

As a consequence, several Indian Ocean coastal countries, including ACP countries, planning for an expansion of their tuna fleets, are doing so without knowing how much fishing capacity is currently deployed in the region. Moreover, “countries such as India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Oman refuse to apply management measures to their smaller scale fleets. This is detrimental to

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 11

the sustainability of those fleets and to the people who depend on them,” commented a Greenpeace spokesperson. “Such a situation jeopardises the long-term sustainability and profitability of fisheries in the IOTC area and therefore the aspirations of developing coastal states to better benefit from the exploitation of tuna resources,” she concluded.

Sources

IOTC meetings schedule, links to 17th session of the Commission, May 2013 http://www.iotc.org/English/meetings.php

Scoop, ‘IOTC fails to protect vulnerable Indian Ocean albacore tuna’, 11 May 2013 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1305/S00271/iotc-fails-to-protect-vulnerable-indian-ocean-albacore-tuna.htm

Greenpeace, ‘Measuring fishing capacity in the Indian Ocean: An essential step for sound management’, paper, May 2013 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/oceans/2013/IOTC-2013-Capacity-Report.pdf

Comment

The rights and obligations of developing countries – such as IOTC ACP members – to develop their own high seas (tuna) fisheries are recognised under international law. The FAO International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity further highlights that developing states must be assisted to ensure that their rights are respected and that they are in a position to fulfil their obligations. This includes flag states documenting and sharing data on their vessels’ operations and implies strong coordination among interested states to ensure sustainability. However, several flag states currently operating in the Indian Ocean tuna fisheries do not properly document or share data on their fleets’ activities and coordination to ensure sustainability is not followed. This hampers the capacity of other IOTC developing countries’ members to assert their rights to sustainably develop their own tuna fisheries, as well as holding back the sustainable development of these countries’ small-scale fleets. Because they are not being documented, these fleets’ activities are largely unreported, unregulated and inappropriately supported. A constructive dialogue should be pursued with these flag states by Indian Ocean ACP members and by the EU, at a bilateral level, through cooperation and development and trade relations and negotiations.

ITLOS opinion on IUU fishing requested by West African sub-regional

fisheries committee

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) received a request from the West African Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) – whose members are Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal and Sierra-Leone – to give an Advisory Opinion (AO) on the respective obligations of flag states and coastal states in the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

The SRFC took the decision to send this request at its 14th Extraordinary Session, where it adopted a Resolution under the “Convention on the Determination of the Minimal Conditions for Access and Exploitation of Marine Resources within the Maritime Areas under Jurisdiction of the Member States of the SRFC” – i.e. the EEZs and territorial waters.

SRFC’s request to ITLOS includes questions of particular interest for the EU and EU member states (as flag states), and West African coastal states fisheries relations, including:

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 12

To what extent shall the flag state be held liable for IUU fishing activities conducted by vessels sailing under its flag, including vessels operating in the framework of international agreements?

What are the rights and obligations of the coastal State in ensuring the sustainable management of shared stocks and stocks of common interest, especially the small pelagic species and tuna?

Experts commented in an article that a number of developments concerning fisheries off the coast of West Africa may have been triggering this request, “including the conclusion of FPAs between countries of the region and the EU”.

The article comments on what aspects could be looked into in the ITLOS AO. “First, the question of the responsibility of the flag state in the EEZ needs to be explored.” The Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) provides that flag states shall have due regard of the right and duties of the coastal state: “this obligation probably forms an adequate legal basis so as to engage the responsibility of the flag state.” The article underlines that the obligations undertaken in the EU FPAs could serve as a legal basis for articulating the responsibility of the flag state. Already, the EU includes in its FPAs a provision to ensure its vessels comply with the fisheries legislation of the other party. “Nevertheless, these obligations are framed in a rather general way and the phrasing employed is vague. Assuming that the ITLOS has jurisdiction over the case, it could seize the opportunity to clarify these obligations.”

Finally, experts underline that it would be interesting to see how ITLOS handles the opportunity to examine obligations and responsibilities of coastal states, when it comes to the management of shared stocks such as small pelagics, and stocks of common interest such as tuna: “the collective failure of the coastal states to sustainably regulate fisheries may also lead to shared responsibility.”

Sources

SRFC letter to ITLOS, request for advisory opinion, 27 March 2013 http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.21/Request_eng.pdf

Sharesproject.nl, ‘The Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission submits a request for an Advisory Opinion to ITLOS’, 19 April 2013 http://www.sharesproject.nl/the-sub-regional-fisheries-commission-submits-a-request-for-an-advisory-opinion-to-itlos/

Comment

It will be important for ITLOS to ensure that clarifying flag state and coastal state responsibilities goes beyond examining EU–West African countries’ FPAs. The EU is only one of the distant water fishing nations targeting tuna and small pelagics in the region, and only part of the EU fleets’ activities takes place under FPAs. In its communication on the future external dimension, the EC emphasised that the fight against IUU fishing will be strengthened in the future Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) external dimension, including, but not limited to, specific initiatives developed in the FPAs. The main EU tool to fight against IUU fishing remains the EU IUU regulation which foresees that all stages should discharge their duties incumbent upon them under international law as flag, port, coastal or market states . In any case, the SRFC’s request to ITLOS shows that the fight against IUU fishing is considered a key concern by SRFC members, including Guinea, which is currently in dialogue with the EU after having been notified, on the basis of this EU IUU regulation, of the possibility of being identified as a non-cooperating country in the fight against IUU fishing.

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 13

MEPs approve Commission’s proposal on IUU regulation on technical

alignment and urge EC to take action against South Korea on the fight

against IUU.

The European Parliament’s fisheries’ committee approved a report on a European Commission proposal, to align the EU IUU regulation with the new procedural rules introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. This alignment process is of a technical nature and has not touched upon the substance of the IUU regulation provisions such as pre-identification, identification and listing of countries not cooperating in line with international law rules, in the fight against IUU fishing.

The rapporteur said that the Commission should use its powers to add South Korea to the list. “With repeated allegations of illegal fishing and related human rights abuses, notably in West African waters, the European Commission must add South Korea to the blacklist,” he said. “If the countries on the list do not make swift improvements, the Commission must propose sanctions, including – but not limited to – trade sanctions.”

The report highlights that: “It is easy to be against illegal fishing in principle. But when opposition to illegal fishing can lead to interruptions in supply of fish to the EU market, or reduce profits, or interfere with trade with important trading partners of the EU, then illegal fishing becomes much more difficult to fight.”

It insists that the free trade agenda of the Commission and many member states “still appears to weigh more heavily in the political balance than the need to end what a former Commissioner once called the ‘scourge of the oceans’.” It is this factor that probably has prevented serious consideration of South Korea, with which the EU has recently signed a free trade agreement.

Sources

European Parliament report proposal adopted for a regulation of the EP and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a community system to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE496.302

European Voice, ‘MEPs approve fisheries blacklist’, 23 April 2013 http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/april/meps-approve-fisheries-blacklist/77043.aspx

Comment

The fight against IUU fishing should be considered an important element in the relations of the EU with third countries. As is currently the case in some economic partnership agreement (EPA) negotiations – e.g. the Pacific, where the fight against IUU fishing is being discussed as part of the elements to ensure sustainable free fish trade – the fight against illegal fishing should also be considered when discussing free trade agreements with key players in ACP fisheries, such as Asian partners.

EU Common Fisheries Policy and its implications

EU anti-discards policy

Based on a discussion paper prepared by the Irish Presidency, the April Fisheries Council of Ministers will hold an orientation debate on how to move forward on outstanding issues, in the context of the current negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council, such as the scope and detail of the landing obligation, otherwise referred to as the ‘anti-discards’ policy.

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 14

Many observers feel that fisheries ministers – under pressure from France, Spain and some other member states who want to protect their fleets from sudden changes – might try to dilute plans for a total ban on the practice of discarding fish at sea, even though an outright discards ban was backed by the European Parliament. Ministers will consider a compromise text, which a European Commission source described as “quite unacceptable”, as it would further delay the implementation of the discard ban and allow up to 7% of fish to be discarded.

The Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, urged ministers to stay strong: “The public does not want fish to be just thrown away.” She said all caught fish should be landed; if they were of low value, they should be turned into fish meal.

In a review of global discarding, the UN noted that the north-east Atlantic had the highest discard level in the world, estimated at 1.3 million tonnes – the majority attributed to the EU. The Commission estimates that 23% of all fish caught by EU vessels are discarded.

Sources

Council of the European Union, ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy’, report, 12 April 2013 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st07/st07959.en13.pdf

The Fish Site, ‘Fisheries Council to discuss CFP reform and seabird protection’, 22 April 2013 http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/20021/fisheries-council-to-discuss-cfp-reform-and-seabird-protection

BBC News, ‘Fish discards ban “may be diluted”’, 26 February 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21584863

Comment

It will be important for ACP countries where EU fleets are active to gain clarification on whether, when and how the discard ban will apply to EU fleets fishing in their waters, as this measure is supposed to cover all EU fleets. In case the discard ban applies to EU fleets fishing in ACP waters, and in order to avoid potential local ACP market disruptions that could be caused by landing poor quality discards, such matters should be dealt with appropriately within the framework of fisheries agreements when they exist, or in the private agreements, giving access to these fleets.

WTO and international developments

EU decision on fish subsidies may pose risk to global negotiations

During a meeting with European Parliamentarians and EU member state representatives, James Brown, the first secretary to New Zealand’s mission to the WTO, who is also a leading negotiator on international fisheries subsidies, commented that: “The EU has committed in the UN to end capacity-enhancing subsidies, yet MEPs are discussing vessel construction aid.”

The first secretary also claimed that the future EU fisheries subsidies policy – the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), which is currently being discussed in the European Parliament – will affect the approach on fleet subsidies in the rest of the world, particularly in the WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies, where the EU’s role can be critical in determining the outcome. “Tipping the scale towards allowing more subsidies would open the gates for more fishing subsidies in Asia and other parts of the world too.” He pointed out that “reintroducing vessel construction money, which was eliminated in the last reform, would violate the commitments made by the EU at UN level,” where the EU agreed at the Rio+20 Conference to phase out capacity-enhancing subsidies.

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 15

The Council of Fisheries Ministers concluded last October that they wanted to reintroduce modernisation subsidies. In the European Parliament, subsidies for vessel construction and for changing engines on board small-scale fishing vessels, under conditions including reduction of engine power and improved selectivity of the gear, are currently being proposed by the EU Parliament rapporteur on EMFF.

Sources

CFP Reform Watch, ‘New EU fishing subsidy scheme will have global repercussions’, 22 March 2013 http://cfp-reformwatch.eu/2013/03/new-eu-fishing-subsidy-scheme-will-have-global-repercussions/

European Parliament/Legislative Observatory procedure files on EMFF 2014–2020 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0380(COD)&l=en

Comment

It will be important for ACP countries to monitor the internal EU debate about the future EU fisheries subsidies policy, as indeed, the results may affect the position taken by the EU in international forums like the UN or the WTO on the matter. Discussions in WTO showed that the kinds of subsidies currently discussed in the EU – vessel construction, replacing old engines with more fuel efficient ones – are capacity enhancing. The fact that they could be reserved for small-scale fishing may fit with what WTO discussed as special and differential treatment, provided the EU clarifies its definition of EU small-scale fishing. This is also a matter for discussion in the context of the fisheries policy reform.

China reporting only 10% of its distant-water catches, says new study

A new study highlights that China has now become a major distant-water fishing nation. At first, China lacked the specialised vessels and infrastructure required for distant-water fishing, simply exporting its coastal fleet, mainly bottom trawlers, to foreign countries’ waters. Recently, however, China has developed a fleet of specialised vessels (bottom trawlers, purse seiners, longliners). These are linked to mother ships that deliver their catch to freezing and processing facilities, supplying local and international as well as its domestic markets.

“Unfortunately,” comment the authors, “what did not improve in the transition to the 21st century is the tendency towards secrecy in fisheries data and the near complete disregard for public accountability of the use of public resources.” Access agreements between China or Chinese companies and third countries are not publicly available, and therefore the catches of the Chinese distant-water fleets go almost completely unreported.

On the basis of non-official sources, the authors have ‘reconstructed’ the catch data, to obtain a more accurate estimate of the Chinese distant-water fleets’ catches.

According to the researchers, China’s distant-water fleet comprises 3,400 vessels fishing in 37 countries. Chinese fleets catch an estimated 4.6 million tonnes per year outside their domestic waters, which is roughly ten times what is reported by China to the FAO. The Chinese distant-water fleets extract their largest catches from African waters – approximately 3.1 million tonnes per year, caught by about 400 trawlers.

The authors recommend that the FAO should insist on proper reporting of catches from China, both domestic and distant water. “Because this may not be achievable quickly,” the EU should encourage research on China’s oceanic affairs with emphasis on fisheries. “However, such studies would have to be conducted as part of broader international studies, because the practices of the Chinese distant-water fleets do not differ much from those of other countries in East Asia and Europe that also deploy distant-water fleets... Otherwise, the necessary dialogue with Chinese

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 16

authorities and with Chinese scientists would be burdened by the suspicion that China is being singled out for practices that are, unfortunately, widespread in distant-water fisheries.”

Sources

Wiley Online Library, ‘Fish and fisheries: China’s distant-water fisheries in the 21st century, scientific article, 23 March 2013 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12032/full

Stockholm Resilience Centre, ‘Overfishing: We know what you have been up to’, Stockholm University interview, 9 April 2013 http://www.stockholmresilience.org/5.7aded12513d7b0a1c2c456d.html#.UWPf62tKGcw.twitter

Comment

Making all access agreements between distant-water fishing countries – or companies – and coastal countries publicly available, and generally better documenting the activities and catches of distant-water fleets, is something that would greatly benefit ACP countries where these fleets operate. It would help them analyse the costs and benefits of these operations, and provide the necessary information to move towards the harmonisation of access conditions for the distant-water fleets, in line with sustainable fisheries requirements. At the last FAO Committee on Fisheries, a proposal was made to the FAO by the EU to undertake a global study on fisheries agreements. This proposal – which was not supported by other FAO members at the time – should be given due consideration by ACP countries in the context of this discussion.

Interview: Points of view from ACP–EU stakeholders

“If we achieve increased domestication of foreign longline fleets, we won’t

need global sourcing derogation”

An interview with Maurice Brownjohn, OBE

Maurice Brownjohn is the Commercial Advisor to the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) based in Majuro, Marshall Islands, and is also the Commercial Director of Pacifical, which markets MSC sustainable skipjack tuna products from the Pacific for PNA nations. He was previously Chair of the Papua New Guinea Fishing Industry Association for 2 decades, is a director of the National Fisheries Authority of Papua New Guinea since 1995 and previously a major player in the domestic tuna longline industry of Papua New Guinea.

Q: The Pacific ACP and the EU are still negotiating an EPA, in which the extension of global sourcing for fresh and frozen tuna products is a major focus of attention. What’s at stake for Pacific ACP?

Fish products – particularly tuna – are the only shared resources of value that the Pacific trades with the EU. In my view, there may be few benefits in extending global sourcing, as proposed under a comprehensive EPA. But very big costs, in as

much as discussion topics now also include access to fisheries resources. Pacific ACP countries may end up with a trade agreement that provides extended global sourcing for fisheries products, but where

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 17

we lose control as well as our rights, over our tuna resources.

In terms of the benefits that can be drawn from extended global sourcing, we have to remind ourselves that the EU has an increasing array of requirements and what are in effect “non-tariff barriers”, and the costs to comply with them are disproportionate for many Pacific ACP countries. For many islands, these compliance costs typically exceed the country’s GDP – they have small fleets yet, individually, lack the capacity to meet and maintain EU recognition of competence.

For example, most Pacific Islands do not have a national competent authority, or EU recognition for IUU measures with their ships’ registry, and therefore local vessels and processing factories are not eligible to supply the EU, nor benefit from any potential tariff concessions. So while we may negotiate improved market access through the extension of global sourcing, and trade-offs under a comprehensive EPA, we may be unable to access the EU market anyway

because of such constraints. This does not mean our standards are inferior, but rather they are not EU acknowledged.

Such non-tariff barriers are not going to be lowered just because of global sourcing. Indeed, from what we hear concerning the reform of the EU fisheries regulations, they are likely to become even more stringent, and increasingly cross-linked to other EU sectoral policies. To the layman this looks like a return to our colonial past.

What is key for us is to diversify our trade partners and markets. It is true that the European market potentially offers higher prices – provided you can comply with SPS, IUU, etc. standards – but other markets like Japan, USA, China and Australia, which are closer to the region, are more accessible. Considering also airfreight costs to Europe, the benefits of accessing these other regional markets are considerable: flying Pacific fish products to Europe costs us double vis-à-vis flying it to Japan.

It is the net return that is important to domestic trade.

Q: You mention Pacific ACP countries may lose control over their resources through the signing of the EPA, which is a trade agreement. How is that?

The interim EPA negotiations didn’t include any discussions about giving fisheries access. However, it seems that to get the extended global sourcing concession, under a comprehensive EPA, we must now include obligations to deliver access rights on request, and on how the region manages access to tuna resources. Previously there had even been mention of allocating a 5% share of the region’s tuna fishing rights to the EU.

It is a development we are much worried about. This is the same EU that, at the same time, refuses to apply Pacific ACP fisheries management arrangements to EU vessels fishing in our waters through bilateral FPAs.

In both their EPA negotiations and bilateral agreements, the EU challenges national laws, regional fishery agreements, such as the Palau Arrangement and the Nauru Agreement under which VDS (Vessel Day Scheme) and other minimum terms and conditions have been agreed upon. We even see that the competence of the Western and Central Pacific Fishery Commission and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community as the science providers are challenged. Yet it is clear our region remains the best managed. Where would we be if we defer our governance to the EU oversight? Sadly the Mediterranean is not a model we wish to accede to.

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 18

Q: This issue, that the access negotiated by the EU doesn’t respect the VDS put in place by the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), is being raised by the European Parliament in their current discussion about the EU–Kiribati FPA…

Clearly I cannot speak on behalf of any country.

The VDS objective is an effort-control regime aimed at ensuring the sustainable exploitation of our tuna resource. In this regard we are working towards setting reference points and other measures to ensure sustainability. Additionally, by restricting effort, it strengthens income derived from fishing access for PNA members.

PNA regional income generated from VDS access now stands at about US$200 million, for purse seiners alone, and is expected to rise, as fishing day price goes from US$5,000 to US$6,000 a day.

When we look at what is being offered under EU bilateral FPAs globally, if you take out the

aid component, the price per day actually paid by the EU, is significantly less than what is being paid by other distant-water fishing nations under the VDS.

Under the VDS, currently one fishing day at US$5,000 allows a 50–80m length vessel to catch on average 30 tonnes of tuna, which would fetch a total market value of around US$60,000. Some larger EU vessels can catch double this.

Access fees, therefore, represent about 10% of the value of the fish, which serves to pay our fisheries management costs and to support our vulnerable economies. Such income does provide substantial financing to the national treasury of our members, but still, the bulk of the profits go to foreign fishing companies and governments.

Q: Is that why PNA has also emphasised the need to domesticate foreign tuna fleets?

Currently, the overwhelming majority of the 270 tuna purse seiners in PNA waters are foreign. Almost 85% of our tuna is caught by fleets from USA, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Philippines, China and Spain, but increasingly we see these vessels based locally in the islands where jobs are created. Yet only a small amount of our tuna remains in the region for processing – unlike in other tuna-rich regions, processing capacity doesn’t match the availability of tuna resources in the Pacific. It is clear that Asian – Thailand, Philippines, Korea, China – and Latin American canneries are heavily reliant upon our resources. Thailand takes over 90% of its supply from our region.

Therefore, beyond organising the sale of access rights through the VDS scheme, PNA’s objective is also to look at how the value of the tuna products can be improved, and how the local people might benefit. We need more foreign partners’ participation in onshore job creation and manufacturing. We would also like to see more joint fishing

ventures between local and foreign fishing companies, including from the EU, whose investment is currently conspicuous by its absence in our region.

PNA should control where the tuna caught in their waters ends up – it should be landed and processed in the region – and our employment options increased, rather than acting as a donor of raw materials to industrialised economies.

In that context, keeping raw material prices high through the VDS scheme helps to ensure PNA industries are competitive. It also maintains healthy access fees relative to the fish prices, puts value to tariff concessions and sees enhanced industry profits.

If we can achieve increased domestication of fleets in Pacific ACP countries that also has a bearing on the trade agreement with the EU. If, for example, the foreign longline fleets were domesticated and flew local flags they could provide fish for the EU market without

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 19

needing global sourcing. But this will take time, and meanwhile most fishing effort will remain foreign owned.

In this context it must be noted that most Pacific island nations while resource rich, cannot support canneries, so they must look to smaller-scale processing of fresh and frozen fish – typically from longliners – to participate.

As to be expected, such moves in the region, especially for purse seine and canning, have been strongly opposed by those operators, including EU operators, who have already invested and formed joint fishing ventures elsewhere– like in Ecuador – but still expect to be able to source their raw materials cheaply from our region.

Q: Is the recent eco-labelling of PNA skipjack tuna also part of the strategy to increase local benefits?

Indeed. There are clear signs in the EU, the USA and in Asia that consumers are becoming more aware of sustainability issues, and the MSC has been setting the highest global standard for eco-labels – MSC is the only certification that meets FAO standards for eco-labelling wild catches. The retailers are increasingly aware of this, and put pressure for a sustainable tuna supply – guaranteed sustainably sourced tuna is increasingly a prerequisite for international trade.

MSC eco-labelled skipjack tuna provided by PNA is ready to supply the global markets for sustainably harvested canned tuna, after attaining the long awaited MSC Chain of Custody certification for the catch, processing and supply of sustainable PNA free school skipjack tuna.

As I mentioned earlier, we feel it is important to reward those fleets who are fishing free school tuna sustainably, and who land their catch locally for domestic processing. That’s

why PNA has set up Pacifical, an initiative that helps such fleets market their MSC-certified skipjack products at a premium price, promote PNA globally through Pacifical Co branded products, and offer traceability from the tuna can back to the net.

A further PNA initiative is that our processors are working towards SA8000 social accountability certification. This will be yet another first for our region, and highlights the high social standards we already follow (no child labour is used, etc)

The development of domestic landing and processing has a significant multiplier effect for local economies – direct, but also indirect jobs (including can making and cold storage). Revenues from direct and indirect taxes are increased, and food security is improved. We get none of these benefits if we only sell access rights to foreign nations to take our fish away.

Q: How is this initiative progressing?

Already, major US tuna companies have begun to join the global demand to source MSC skipjack from PNA. One issue they have to deal with is the ‘dolphin safe’ label, which is provided for canned tuna by the Earth Island Institute. PNA does not work with that labelling programme, since there are no dolphin mortalities in relation to our MSC-free school skipjack fisheries. Moreover, the MSC logo carried by our skipjack goes further than claiming to protect a single species like

dolphin. MSC standards include 100% observer coverage and verification of ecosystem-wide sustainability.

PNA governments are very supportive and proud of attaining the only purse seine skipjack tuna certification globally through MSC. In March this year, PNA ministers issued a formal statement to encourage all fleets operating in the PNA waters to start fishing for free school MSC-certified skipjack.

http://agritrade.cta.int Fisheries Newsletter: July 2013 | 20

Papua New Guinea has since gone a step further, and requires, from July 2013, that all vessels fishing in their EEZ should start landing MSC-free school skipjack to be processed in their, or other, canneries

working with Pacifical. That is an important step forward. Our region takes pride in its tuna governance and continues to champion sustainability and the participation of its people!

Launched by CTA (Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP–EU) in 2001, the Agritrade website http://agritrade.cta.int is devoted to agricultural trade issues in the context of ACP (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific) – EU (European Union) relations. Its main objective is to better equip ACP stakeholders to deal with multilateral (World Trade Organization – WTO) and bilateral (Economic Partnership Agreement – EPA) negotiations. Thus it provides regular and updated information and analysis on technical aspects of the trade negotiations, developments in the CAP and their implications on ACP–EU trade, as well as on major commodities (banana, cereals, sugar, fisheries, etc.).

The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) is a joint ACP—EU institution active in agricultural and rural development in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Its mission is to advance food and nutritional security, increase prosperity and encourage sound natural resource management. It does this by providing access to information and knowledge, facilitating policy dialogue and strengthening the capacity of agricultural and rural development institutions and communities in ACP countries.

Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (ACP—EU)

PO Box 380

6700 AJ Wageningen

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 (0) 317 467 100

E-mail: cta@cta.int – www.cta.int