Interview with His Excellency Mr Barry Faure, Seychelles' Ambassador to Brussels and Chairman of the ACP Working Group on Fisheries

Q: At the beginning of June, the first meeting of ACP fisheries ministers was held in Brussels. What is the rationale for such an initiative?

A: Fisheries are crucial for ACP countries: as a source of food, as a source of jobs, and as a source of foreign exchange revenue. More than 60 ACP countries are engaged in fish trade to regional and international markets; in some small island ACP states, like in the Pacific, the sector can account for up to 30% of the national economic revenue!

The fact that ACP fisheries ministers came together to discuss how to make the most of our fisheries resources whilst ensuring the protection of eco-systems, shows that there is a recognition of the importance of fisheries for our people and for our economies.

Q: What are, from your point of view, the most pressing issues facing ACP fisheries today?

A: ACP countries are facing issues that all countries involved in fisheries have to face, including the EU: how to manage our resources and our fishing capacity, how to secure sustainable fishing communities, how to increase the value of our products, etc, both in marine and inland fisheries, including aquaculture.

One of the issues where I feel there is currently a will to act, and which was emphasised by the ACP fisheries ministers meeting is the fight to eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing – what people refer to as ‘IUU fishing’- in our waters. I saw a recent report which stated that IUU catches represented, worldwide, each year, about 20% of the value of the catches. This is a net loss, particularly for developing countries such as ACP countries, where IUU operators tend to take advantage of insufficient control in our waters. We lose the fish, we lose the revenue from the fish and, in some cases, like in West Africa, coastal fishermen even lose their lives in encounters with IUU fishing trawlers. This is the reason why ACP fisheries ministers appealed to the ACP countries to develop and implement a plan of action as a guide to addressing IUU fishing at national and regional levels.

Q: What do you think of the way the EU is planning to fight IUU fishing from 1 January 2010?

As I said, I think all ACP countries share the EU’s concern about the need to combat IUU fishing, including through trade – fish is the most traded product in the world, and fighting IUU fishing will require the implementation of fair measures to prevent trading in illegally caught fishery products. This being said, we have some concerns that ACP countries will face technical difficulties to implement the IUU regulation, in particular the catch-certification scheme, and that some of our products may have difficulties in accessing EU markets simply because producers will not have the means to comply with the certification requirements. There is also the issue of who will bear the added costs of this certification scheme. In the existing scheme it has been shown that the producers - the fishermen, the fish farmers - have often to bear most of the costs. If this is the case with the IUU certification scheme, it may create a barrier for many of our producers to access EU markets ... We have three months left before the regulation enters into force, and we are eagerly waiting for the publication of the IUU-regulation implementation guidelines – these will certainly help ACP countries assess their exact needs and the support needed. Time is running out fast and in my view the EC may have to exercise flexibility in implementing the regulation beginning 2010.

Q: ACP products already have to comply with other types of EU regulations, such as the hygiene package or the rules of origin. Have these been obstacles in accessing the EU market?

ACP-EU fisheries relations are complex: on the one side, our fish products are granted preferential access to EU markets, but on the other, stringent export conditions and requirements, such as the one cited - rules of origin, the hygiene package - make it difficult for our producers to take full advantage of such preferential access.

Several courses of action can be taken by ACP countries. In Papua New Guinea, from what I hear, the relaxation of the rules of origin obtained in the EPA, which now enables the country to source its fish globally, regardless of its origin, is already having a positive impact on local investments in the fisheries sector. At another level, I think there is scope to develop partnerships, including with the EU, to promote investments in ACP countries in order to improve landing facilities, high quality on-shore processing, etc., which will help us meet the EU hygiene and other quality requirements. We have also to find solutions to the fact that there is increased competition from non-ACP fish and fishery products, leading to the erosion of our preferences on EU markets. All these factors point to the need for a general relaxation of the rules of origin or the granting of increased quantities under the relevant provisions for derogation.

Q: What you just cited, the promotion of investments, was one of the objectives of the FPAs. Did it work?

Stimulating private investment in ACP countries is a challenge. To attract investment in our fisheries sector, our access to markets in general, and for value-added products in particular, should be improved. We need also to address other issues that may constrain investments: the poor infrastructure and the legal framework in particular. But what is crucial is that fisheries investments should be made in a framework that allows for socially and environmentally sustainable development. In the case of the EU, it could have been the framework of FPAs, but, unfortunately, - and this has been confirmed by a recent EU report on coherence - European investments in ACP fisheries are stagnating, including in countries where an agreement has been signed. Maybe, apart from the challenges I already mentioned, one problem is that the focus of investments promoted through FPAs was on fishing joint ventures, particularly with boats that fish in ACP coastal zones, where there are already many fishing vessels and where an increased fishing capacity is not always desirable?

Q: The FPAs, as well as the other aspects of the EU CFP, are today up for reform. Are ACP countries taking an interest in this process?

The ACP fisheries ministers meeting in June called on ACP countries to contribute to the EC consultation on the ‘green paper’ for the reform of the EU fisheries policy. This is because we are EU partners, and because EU fisheries policy does have a direct impact on our fisheries. In line with our international commitments - which are also commitments taken by the EU - we want to see environmental sustainability, social and economic benefits and good governance at the heart of our fisheries relations with the EU.

I must say that the main issues highlighted in the ‘green paper’ echo the concerns we have about our partnerships with the EU: the need to adjust fishing capacity with resources available, the need to apply a differentiated treatment for ACP artisanal fisheries sector, which is at the core of our priorities for poverty reduction, the need to invest more, in terms of human and financial resources, in regional fisheries bodies, etc. I would like to insist that the regional dimension is very important for improving the governance in our fisheries relations with the EU. The idea put forward in the ‘green paper’ to introduce ‘regional forms of cooperation’ in FPAs, and possibly even substitute bilateral agreements by regional ones is definitely something many of us are ready to explore. In fact, the idea of regionalising our fisheries relations with the EU was something some ACP groups did put on the table in the past, for example in the context of the ESA negotiations for an EPA. Unfortunately, in those days, the EU didn’t have the mandate to respond to such initiative.

Another important aspect of the reform, from our point of view, is the need to ensure coherence. At one level, we would like to see coherence between the various EU policies that have an impact on our fisheries - FPAs, trade, development, hygiene, etc - and at another level, between EU policies and ACP priorities for sustainability and good governance.

Q: Is there any initiative taken by ACP countries to improve this policy coherence for ACP sustainable fisheries development?

Policy coherence is something that we wish to address first through the establishment of a ‘ministerial mechanism for ACP coordination and cooperation on fisheries issues’. The proposal to put in place such a mechanism has been taken by the ACP fisheries ministers in June, which is expected to be approved by the ACP council of ministers in November. I’m personally convinced this will greatly improve coherence amongst ACP national fisheries sectors, with regard to sustainable management of the resources, food security, poverty alleviation and trade development. But ACP countries are also convinced that structured and continued dialogue with ACP development partners, especially the EU, has to be improved if we want to improve coherence.