Mauritania – European Union: Fisheries Agreement on the political menu

The Mauritania-EU fisheries partnership agreement proposal, initialed end of July by the Mauritanian authorities and the European Commission, will be on the menu when the European Parliament reconvenes on August 28th . It will also be on the table of the next EU Fisheries Ministers Council.

The EU Parliament and Council will have to agree on the content of an agreement described as the most important both in terms of the access provided to EU fleets – about 200 boats are concerned-, and levels of financial compensation, - Mauritania is to receive 86 millions euros/year.

To mark the occasion, Pêchecops (Pour une Pêche Ecologique génératrice de progrès social - Mauritania) and CFFA (Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements – EU) have published an analysis of the issues arising from this agreement, entitled: Mauritania EU Fisheries Partnership Agreement: What impacts on fisheries sustainable development in Mauritania?

This analysis shows that, for some of Mauritania’s overexploited resources, like the octopus, the EU fleets’ proposed access runs contrary to the principles of sustainable development, as enshrined in the EU fisheries Council conclusions on fisheries partnership agreements. Moreover, a large number of the EU fishing vessels operating under the agreement will use destructive and unselective fishing methods, such as trawls, which are, in the Mauritanian coastal zone, a long term threat to the eco-system.

Pêchecops and CFFA are advocating for a real partnership, where EU fleet access is based only on the available surplus of resources that cannot be caught locally. A real partnership should also include increased participation of stakeholders, particularly artisanal fishing sector and civil society.

Mauritania – European Union: Fisheries Agreement on the political menu

Common Position CONIPAS-UNPAG-FNP

Common Position concerning negotiations of the fisheries partnership agreements between the EU and Senegal, Mauritania and Guinea

Common Position CONIPAS-UNPAG-FNP

West African octopus better protected by the EU?

In order to prevent the marketing of young (undersized) octopus caught in eastern central Atlantic waters, particularly in West Africa, the European Commission put forward a proposal on October 12th 2005 to increase the minimum weight of gutted octopus caught in this area to 500 grams. This is in response to scientific advice from the Fishery Committee for the eastern central Atlantic (CECAF) indicating that octopus are being over-fished throughout the area.

The proposed regulation1 stipulates that it will be forbidden “for octopus under the minimum size of 500g (gutted) to be retained on board or be transhipped, landed, transported, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale, but shall be returned immediately to the sea”. This measure will apply to both EU and non-EU vessels and includes the marketing, including imports, of octopus from this area.

CAPE believes that adopting this measure is a positive step forward for the regeneration of octopus stocks in West African waters. In terms of marketing, it will serve to support the region’s artisanal octopus fishing sector that through selective fishing methods (e.g. pot fishing) and in compliance with the new measure, is able to select larger sized individuals while at the same time releasing live undersized octopus back into the sea.

West African octopus better protected by the EU?

Perspectives for simplifying and improving the regulatory environment of the Common Fisheries Policy

Consultation on the EU Commission communication ‘Perspectives for simplifying and improving the regulatory environment of the Common Fisheries Policy’ – CFFA Comments:

CFFA comments

Illegal fishing in Guinea: stealing fish, stealing lives

In July 2005, in Guinea, a fisheries inspector died during a nightly encounter with a trawler fishing illegally. A few months earlier, it was the whole crew of an artisanal pirogue that went down through a similar encounter. Of the 4 crew members, only one fisherman survived, clutching on to a few buoys for three days at sea, waiting for help. Illegal fishing in Guinea results not only in stolen fish, but also in lost lives.

Guinea has extensive and valuable shrimp, octopus, demersal and pelagic fisheries. Like the proverbial bees to the honey pot, this attracts all kinds of fishing vessels, including the ones involved in IUU (Illegal Unreported and Unregulated) fishing. In 2001, a Greenpeace report of at sea observations in Guinea’s EEZ highlighted that 34 of the 92 vessels (34%) observed were fishing in an prohibited zone, largely taking catch from the area designated for artisanal fisheries, and therefore illegal

These illegal activities, in particular by Korean trawlers fishing for “otholites” (type of croaker/grunter), have been denounced for many years, particularly by Guinean artisanal fishermen. Issiaga Daffe, President of the artisanal fishermen’s organization UNPAG (Union Nationale des Pêcheurs Artisans de Guinée), explains “Illegal incursions of trawlers into the Guinean coastal zone are the most damaging practice for fishing resources as well as our coastal communities. These incursions result not only in degradation of our coasts, but also, particularly as they happen mainly at night, in collisions with small scale fishing vessels, incur loss of gears and casualties. Some of our fishermen, who tried to discuss with these illegal boats crew, were often welcomed with gun fire or boiling water being poured on the pirogues”.

In May 2005, a joint field visit was organised by two European NGOs, EJF (Environmental Justice Foundation) and CFFA (Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements), with the collaboration of the Guinean association ADEPEG –CPA. Several ports and bases along the coast of Guinea were visited, where the extent of illegal fishing and the need to support for surveillance programmes were glaringly apparent.

Illegal fishing in Guinea: stealing fish, stealing lives

New financial perspectives for the period 2007-2013

In April 2005, the European Commission issued a proposal for a Council regulation ’establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea’.

The proposal will provide the necessary legal base for Community financing in the above mentioned areas of the CFP and the law of the sea, in the context of the new financial perspectives for the period 2007-2013. It will constitute the second pillar of the legal framework for the financing of the CFP alongside the proposal establishing the European Fisheries Fund (EFF).

CFFA commentary on the second financial instrument

NGOs position on the second financial instrument

CFFA commentary on the new EFF

Comparing EU Free Trade Agreements on Fisheries

This InBrief sets out to compare the European Union (EU) approaches on fisheries (including fleets and market access) in the different Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) concluded over the last decade and the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Partnership Agreement -CPA).

It first provides an overview of the international trade in fish and fishery products. This includes a review of international trade agreements and arrangements as undertaken through multilateral negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) organisations and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

A brief background is also provided on the EU’s fisheries policies for fleet access to distant water fishing grounds and for supplying its market with fish.

The InBrief then outlines the main features and common aspects of the fisheries provisions in the various FTAs concluded by the EU. The fisheries components of the particular FTAs with the MED countries, South Africa Mexico, and Chile are highlighted and discussed.

Finally it sets out to establish some common themes and trends in EU FTAs.

Comparing EU FTAs on Fisheries

The EU-Chile Association Agreement and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector in Chile

Our negotiation has delivered the most ambitious and innovative results ever for a bilateral agreement by the EU. This is a “fourth generation plus” agreement. The agreement covers all the areas of our trade relation going well beyond our respective WTO commitments. Pascal Lamy, EU Trade Commissioner, April 2002, announcing the successful end to negotiating the EU-Chile Association Agreement.

“It is important to stress that the negotiating process of the EU-Chile Association Agreement excluded the participation of Chilean civil society organisations. This effectively denied coastal communities, artisanal fishermen, fishworkers and consumers access to information on issues with a direct bearing on their fishing and aquaculture dependent livelihoods.” Juan Carlos Cardenas, Director of Ecoceanos, July 2002.

“Respect for democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law are essential elements of the agreement. The promotion of sustainable economic and social development, and the equitable distribution of the benefits of the Association Agreement are guiding principles for its implementation.” European Commission Press release, 18 November 2002.

The EU-Chile Association Agreement and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector in Chile

Letter received from the EC on IUU fishing in Guinea

Letter received from the EC on IUU fishing in Guinea

Policy Study: EU-ACP Fisheries Agreements

This document is an output from a project funded by the UK Department for International Development (DfID) for the benefit of developing countries. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DfID.

Policy Study: EU-ACP Fisheries Agreements

EU-ACP Fisheries Agreements: partners for better and for worse

In 2004, in a bid to answer widespread criticism about the ‘pay, fish and go’ access agreements it was signing with ACP (African Caribbean Pacific) countries, the EU proposed a new deal: fisheries partnerships agreements (FPAs). FPAs have now been in place for more than three years. Are they delivering the hoped for changes… and if not, why not?

Since FPAs came to life, EU fleets active in developing countries’ EEZs have been confronted with ever decreasing profitability due to over-exploitation of the target stocks, and rising costs – fuel in particular. They must face increasing competition for an ever-diminishing resource base, particularly with other long distance fleets, notably from China or Korea. Given this, it can be argued that FPAs, like the previous access agreements, serve both to diminish fleet access costs and to secure long term access to developing countries resources. But, this may still be to the detriment of sustainable development.

Article for El Anzuelo: EU-ACP Fisheries Agreements: partners for better and for worse

Fisheries Partnerships Agreements: will they be fair?

Development and Environment NGOs wish to see fair and sustainable partnerships between the EU and third countries, that promote the long-term viability of marine eco-systems and fish stocks, securing sustainable livelihoods and food security in third countries.

Therefore, NGOs welcome the communication from the Commission on new Fisheries Partnerships Agreements (FPA), in as much as it proposes to establish responsible fishing on a sustainable basis. This is an important shift from the more commercial approach applied up till now in EU-ACP fisheries relations. Of particular importance is the commitment to conduct sustainability impact assessments as an integral part of the FPAs.

However, the communication fails to take into account the conflict of interests that may exist between the two parties given the potentially contradictory objectives of these FPAs (which on the one hand wish to secure access to third countries waters, whilst on the other wish to promote sustainable fisheries). This needs to be clearly spelt out, and the political decision making process needs to establish how such conflicting interests can be resolved. Provisions also need to be put in place for public consultation both in the EU and in the third country that involve the primary stakeholders (i.e. fishing communities).

Whilst the communication advocates a change of approach, it is short on concrete, operational actions. Our welcome to the communication is therefore cautious, and we reserve judgement until FPAs are put into practice.

FPAs: will they be fair?

Adding value to Artisanal Fishing – valorising a highly perishable but highly prized commodity

Far from the miserable images often portrayed, artisanal fishing can represent a dynamic sector, capable of innovation and, if given appropriate attention and support, could represent the best option for the future as much in the North as in the South. This was the subject of the article published in Samudra 44 on the revival of the line fishery for tuna in the Bay of Biscay.

Two privileged observers of the evolution of the artisanal fishing sector, Ahmed Mahmoud Chérif1 from Mauritania and Marc Allain2 from Canada, react to the issues raised in that article, and, based on their respective experiences, discuss the opportunities offered by artisanal fisheries given the challenges of the new millennium.

Adding value to Artisanal Fishing – valorising a highly perishable but highly prized commodity

ACP-EU Fisheries Relations: Who benefits at what cost?

When David meets Goliath: EU-Mauritanian Fisheries Relations

Mauritania has been described as one of the least developed and most highly indebted countries in the world. More than 50% of the population live below the poverty line. Annual population growth is estimated at 3%, while urban migration has resulted in over half of the 2.5 million population now living in towns. Mauritania’s foreign debt is 2.5 times its GDP and 4 times its annual export earnings, with debt servicing consuming 20% of total export earnings. Fortunately for Mauritania, in a context where less than 0.2% of the land area is suitable for arable production, the abundance of fisheries resources in its EEZ has in recent years provided a significant source of both government revenue (up to 30%) and export earnings (up to 50%).

Fishy Business - ACP-EU Fisheries Relations: Who benefits at what cost?