search
sitemap
terms of use
privacy notice
contact
Fisheries Case 3.1
Fisheries Partnership Agreements
Fisheries Partnership Agreements: An empty shell for development?
15 October 2007
More than 150 million poor people in the world depend directly on fisheries. In many poor countries, fish is a fundamental part of food security. But overexploitation is threatening the livelihoods of the poorest. The European Union, with the third largest fishing fleet in the world, has a responsibility to take. More than a billion people living in 40 developing countries risk being deprived of their main source of protein because of the overexploitation of fisheries reserves associated with an increase in export demand for animal foods and oils, to the detriment of domestic consumption.1
Development Policy Goal
The central aim of the current Development Policy of the European Union is to reduce poverty worldwide2. The European Consensus on Development (2006) states: ‘It is important that non-development policies assist developing countries’ efforts in achieving the Millennium Goals. The EU shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in all policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries’3
Since the fisheries sector could have a significant positive effect in achieving poverty reduction, fisheries are part of one of the sectoral policies of the Development Policy. The guiding principle of development cooperation in fisheries is ‘to contribute to sustainable benefits for sector stakeholders in developing countries without further degradation of the natural environment’4. Therefore, in its Development Policy the EU explicitly promises that it will ‘pay particular attention to the development objectives of the countries with which the Community has made or will make fisheries agreements’5.
European Fisheries Policy and Trade Policy
Since 1979 the European Union has concluded fisheries agreements with thirty countries, of which twenty were developing countries. These Fisheries Agreements have been fiercely criticized for various reasons ranging from overexploitation of natural resources to conflicts with local fisheries and harm to local fisheries industries. European vessels have had a detrimental effect on fish stocks in ACP countries. It is estimated that the amount of fish in West African waters has declined by 50 per cent over the past three decades6.
The legal basis of fisheries agreements lies in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This convention was signed in 1982 after global fish stocks had started to decline dramatically to stop countries from simply entering other countries’ waters after having depleted their own fish resources. Each coastal state got control over the waters within 200 sea miles of its coast, the so-called Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This effectively put 90 per cent of the global fishing grounds under the control of coastal States. UNCLOS insisted, however, that coastal states which did not have the capacity to exploit their resources fully would give other states access to their surplus7.
A key objective of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the European Union is ‘to maintain the European presence in distant fisheries and to protect European fisheries sector interests”8. Fisheries Agreements have been a crucial means to achieve this goal: they have taken up almost 30% of the CFP budget from 1993 to 2000. European vessels got access to the aquatic resources of (mostly) developing countries, in exchange for financial compensation to their governments. Fisheries Agreements have been used to provide hidden subsidies to the EU fleet, through the sale of licences to exploit fishing grounds under the agreements at below market prices9. This practice hurts local fishermen, who have to compete with richer, subsidized European rivals.
The original Fisheries Agreements have been heavily criticized for their lack of sustainability and negative impact on the development of local fisheries. A report commissioned by the EU concluded bluntly that “under current conditions, fisheries agreements and the activities related to them are not sustainable.”10 With the revised Common Fisheries Policy (2002) and the introduction of the Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs), the EU has started to go beyond the previous Fisheries Agreements. It has taken various important development issues into account by aiming to promote the sustainability of fisheries, directly assisting local fisheries and stimulating joint ventures with local processing industry. Owing to inadequate stock assessments and the enforcement of regulations, these efforts will likely prove to be an empty shell. Although some real progress has been made, these agreements still cause overexploitation of fish stocks, which jeopardizes the livelihood of current and future generations of local fishermen. And the highest added value – which lies in the processing industry – still accrues to European countries, thereby depriving ACP countries of vital development opportunities.
The EU currently has bilateral agreements with 16 ACP countries. In March 2006 the first FPA, with the
As FPAs have only recently come into force, it is impossible at this stage to evaluate their impact with any certainty. The fact remains, however, that these agreements still contain two competing goals: the implementation of sustainable fisheries and, at the same time, the protection of the interests of its distant-water fishing fleet12. These goals are hard to reconcile but the Common Fisheries Policy indicates a priority: ‘The Community should first of all defend the legitimate objectives of its own fishing industry 13‘.
Incoherence
With respect to the previous Fisheries Agreements, some real progress has been made, especially concerning illegal fishing and single-species agreements, the latter being less damaging for the environment than mixed-species agreements. However, it is likely that many of the intended improvements will fail to materialize. In the end, FPAs do not differ much from the previous FAs.14 Overexploitation of fish stocks will still occur, as reliable scientific data to determine a sustainable maximum catch are often lacking. Local fishermen do not have priority access to fishing grounds and will still be harmed by subsidized competition from European vessels. And most importantly, the local processing industry, which has the highest potential added value in the production chain, receives little support. In general only 10 per cent of the employment and added value from fisheries agreements stays in the ACP country, while 90 per cent goes to the EU distant fleet and processing industry.15 This suggests that the EU still sees Fisheries Partnership Agreements as commercial agreements rather than as a means to achieve development goals.
It should be pointed out however, that from a development perspective, in spite of their defects, FPAs are largely preferable to private arrangements between developing countries and companies. FPAs are a better deal for development than the agreements which are offered by other nations, such as
Policy Recommendations
- The EU should respect the surplus principle as concluded in the UNCLOS; the EU should not fish in countries where a surplus is not proved and the prevention of overexploitation cannot be guaranteed;
- Before an agreement is concluded or extended, there should be reliable data on the maximum sustainable amount of catch and the capacity of local fleet. No fishing should take place in the absence of scientific stock-assessment data;
- In measuring the total allowable catch (TAC), FPAs should do away with the obsolete measurement in gross registered tonnage (GRT) – the internal volume of a ship.
- The European Union has to make more of an effort to let local processing industry develop in developing countries;
- Priority access should be reserved for the national fleet of poor coastal states, especially to small scale and artisan fishermen;
- The EU should step up efforts to help ACP countries develop effective national management systems, with supporting policies and institutions, in order to prevent overexploitation. At present, effective control is often lacking in poor countries;
- The EU should raise the price of fishing licences to its fleet, in order to abort a hidden subsidy that hurts poor fishermen.
|
Notes 1 UNDP, Human Development Report 2001. Making New Technologies Work for Human Development (Washington 2001). 2 177 (ex 130U) Community policy in the sphere of development cooperation, "which shall be complementary to the policies pursued by the Member States," shall foster "the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries, and more particularly the most disadvantaged among them; the integration of the developing countries into the world economy; the campaign against poverty …” 3 "The European Consensus on Development" [Official Journal C 46/01 of 4 Fisheries cooperation with developing countries 5 "The European Consensus on Development" [Official Journal C 46/01 of 6 Wall Street Journal, Global Fishing Trade Depletes African Waters ( 7 “The coastal State shall determine its capacity to harvest the living resources of the exclusive economic zone. Where the coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, it shall (…) give other States access to the surplus of the allowable catch, having particular regard to the provisions of articles 69 and 70, especially in relation to the developing States mentioned therein.” (UNCLOS, Article 62) 8 COM (2002) 0637 final: 5 9 ADE, Evaluation of the Relationship between Country Programmes and Fisheries Agreements, Final Report (2002). 10 Ibidem. 11 MRAG, Comparative Study of the Impact of Fisheries Partnership Agreements (2007) 12 “The 13 COM (2002) 0637 final. 14 L. Bartels, L. De 15 Mwikya, S. M., Fisheries Access Agreements: trade and development issues. (ICTSD, 2006). 16 MRAG, Comparative Study of the Impact of Fisheries Partnership Agreements (2007). |
