Transcript Session 1: State of play in IEPA/EPA/WTO negotiations and

Comments from the plenary:
Emerging Issues during the
ICSTD Meeting at Nyali Beach
Hotel, Mombasa, Kenya on 9th &
10th Feb. 2010.
Participants supported the need for signing EU-ACP EPA :
Issues identified:
•Problem on capacity building:
National fleet capacity & development plan including
subsidies hence competitive advantage of EU fleets.
MCS
Stakeholders awareness on EPA
Weaknesses of negotiators (technical capacity,
inadequacy in numbers; affect equivalency in
standards)
•Overfishing in the context of subsidies; need to invest in
aquaculture.
•Regional integration: issues of sovereignty &
overlap of organizations.
•Global recession & climate change issues.
Re-writing of policies
enhancing competitiveness & change in
institutions; could have bearing on EPAs.
•Many products not allowed in EU market with
no scientific evidence.
•Piracy in Indian ocean.
•Need to harmonize standards for local/regional
& export markets.
Value chains and value-addition in ACP-EU trade
in fisheries
• Market determines resources & targets certain
assets more than others since we are in the
situation of overexploitation.
•Fish quality determines pricing of products.
•Analyses need to bring about balance in actors of
fishing industry & give value addition.
•Purpose in Africa: enrich local people especially
with socio-economic benefits of fishers.
• Policies in EU-ACP should focus on difficulties
of problems of value-additions.
•Satisfactions of the consumers need to be
considered, but not only for fish & fish products:
need for better distribution of benefits.
•Need to win battle of durability & quality in the
practice to have a win in the market.
 initial value of product could change depending
on stages of the product.
 Need for improving public-private sector dialogue
considering
 market rules, e.g. at a local level what could be the
expectations in relation to target markets?
 sustainable use of resources,
 profits and environmental factors.
 Need to highlight food safety in relation to value or
quality
 Value of fish is increasing while quantity is decreasing!
Importance of SPS measures to fisheries
negotiations in EPAs
 EPA meant to achieve economic development, poverty
reduction & trade development.
 Problem is EU requirements are becoming stricter with
increase in technology; & ACP countries lack resources.
 Impact of requirements then falls onto public & private
sector relationships in terms of:
 sanitary issues & food safety on fish that are mandatory,
 despite EU being a competitor under same rules
(equivalency).
 need to value the question of food barriers since standards
of same product varies among participants; proper
database on inspections for ACP countries.
 hence need for more research & infrastructure.
 and establishment of sustainable funding and
management mechanism for fisheries sector.
 Need for development annex that could develop a
platform for negotiations of EPAs such as infrastructure
development & capacity building.
Rules of Origin for Fish and Fish Products
 No incentives for local investment for IEPA in the RoO.
 Challenge: Concern or opportunity for renegotiation of
RoO e.g. for Value-added based methodology, legal
uncertainty etc.
 UNCLOS, FAO, Tuna Commission fundamental bodies in
RoO; Determinant of RoO is an issue.
 Competency of organizations in the EAC in terms of the
procedure is wanting.
 Signing of the common market in EAC would enrich RoO
of even products from within.
 Different criteria depending on the country basing on
definition of RoO depending on market programs.
 Of concern is conservation and Value-addition.
 Recommendation is how we can act, at what level to
harmonize the criteria.
 Some factors in ACP include low temperatures for
conserving tuna and time; no facilities in most countries
hence affecting RoO in most countries.
 Meaning the RoO appears to be a barrier other than a
developmental agenda.
 RoO skewed towards the EU; why can’t ACP governments
sell fish originating from their EEZ? It seems EU, USA etc
are only concerned with obtaining the raw materials of fish
for secondary processing!
 Hence need for review/revist of the RoO since there was
no full negotiations on RoO.
Access Agreements on Fisheries
 Importance of agreements varies depending on countries
e.g. financial compensation, research etc.
 It would be better if financial agreements be after
development of fisheries sector and create accessibility to
resources.
 Agreements depend on how good in negotiating you are,
sustainability of stocks, local-value addition-based
negotiations, market access & local crew capacity building.
 Clarity on regulations & mechanisms on by-catch, discards
& licensing on TAC & Environmental Impact Assessment
from long distant fleets could be explored; need to assess
transboundary stocks.
 Hence need for fisheries subsidies in IEPA context that are
reflected in agreements.
 Capacity of people leading discussions on agreements
could be limited; hence need for training of people who
negotiate.
 Need for consciousness on the fishing capacity that is
compatible with stock, e.g. Tuna mainly fished by distant
fishing nations hence it appears difficult to talk about
country agreement but rather regional.
 Use our efforts to develop industries through partnership
that will harness technology & capital for the ACP
countries.
 Need to come with National Fleets Development Plans for
ACP countries.
Opportunities and Challenges for intra-ACP trade
in fish and fishery products
 Good governance required to aid in management of fishery
sector, hence enabling legislation for sustainable fisheries
management.
 “Open access” to be replaced with “controlled access”
coupled with community participation in the management
of fishery for sustainability of raw materials.
 Postharvest losses reduced through legislation.
 Need for good flow chain or processes under regional trade
of the fish products to maintain nutritional value in
conjunction with sanitary standards.
 Need for capacity building for technical knowhow.
 Poor infrastructure, communication & non-tariff barriers.
 Need for trade negotiations & trade-making.
 Need for appropriate financial systems & uprooting of
corruption.
 Need for development banks for funding coupled with
access to credit facilities e.g. for aquaculture development.
 Reliable data & access to information required.
 Need to seek good models for resource management, e.g.
Namibia, Singapore, Mauritius, Korea & Japan models.
 Investment in co-operation & partnership to utilize our
masses/market in ACP together with reduction of
beaurocracy.
Strengthening regional and sub-regional mechanisms for
sustainability in the fishery sector
 Fisheries not prioritized in national planning.
 Co-management attempt in place (BMUs).
 Need for a proper-right system to be in place.
 Need for sustainable funding for research for data to
inform management, i.e. stock assessment.
 Capture fisheries is declining in addition to the
degradation of the environment.
 Illegal fishing is taking place hence a threat; need for
centralized MCS.
 Corruption in fisheries need to be addressed.
 Employment of locals required.
 Eco-labeling to be addressed
•Need for appropriate legal framework and change
objective of resource partnership to sustainability,
coupled with UNCLOS requirements.
•Need to renegotiate on fisheries agreements.
•Piracy concerns.
•Overcapacity.
•Policy issues to be put in pace e.g. for subsidies,
pollution etc.
•EIA applicability for complimentary industries to fish
such as oil and gas production.
•Issues of climate change to be also addressed.
•Need to share our information & experiences
with other countries.
•Need for regional co-ordination framework.
•Push for recommendation of review of RoO
and other frameworks
•Lobbying for fisheries organizations/bodies to
deliver.
•Need for by-catch mitigation; need for a legal
framework.
Recommendations and suggestions towards EPA
negotiations
 Revisit the issue of fish caught in the EEZ under UNCLOS.
 Further processing to be an initiative in tuna processing
plants.
 Focus on the change of rules of origin as they are in chapter
16.
 Current irrigation to be reviewed and mechanism
increased annually to allow for local processors and also to
focus on temporary irrigation.
 Certification of the rules for leasing and if the current
ones are applied, we need to be given a time line.
 Leasing of commercial fishing vessels allowed but under
notification.
 Need for Eco-labeling.
 Renegotiate the rules of origin.
 Put our house in order ourselves as ACP.
 Develop consistent policies for management.
 Market management to be addressed.
 Develop a good business environment
 Increase value addition of food produced.
 Capacity building.
 Take stock of what is available.
 New suggestions on trade-imbalance.
 Liberalization of trade rules reinforced through financial
assistance, education awareness among members.
 Fishing licenses given based on scientific evidence. Since
sustainability is not a destination, but it is a process.
 Umbrella bodies to be formed inter-regionally and solve









problems through bottom-up approach.
Start exporting also to African markets to offer competitive
scenarios.
Inspection and training services to be offered at a regional/ subregional basis.
Have early warning systems for climate change and other
international monitoring systems.
Improve on safety and work on harmonization of the same.
Developing an African fisheries policy.
Develop communication strategy through the African Union
website.
Regional minimum terms and conditions during the regional
meetings.
Need for actual implementation rather than talking.
Need for prioritize the requests like technical assistance.
END