Analysis of European Community and Pacific States draft fisheries partnership agreement

The waiver exempting trade chapters under the Cotonou Agreement1 on trade between African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the European Union (EU) expires at the end of 2007.2 In practice, this means that the trade preferences under the Cotonou Agreement, which allow Pacific countries access to the EU market at zero or reduced tariffs without requiring reciprocity, will expire. This could mean that tuna could attract a duty of 20.5%. It is envisaged that Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the EU and the ACP countries will come into force. The Pacific States have been in on-going negotiations since 2004 with the EU over a range of issues that are of interest in terms of trade with the EU. Included in these negotiations is a multilateral framework agreement on fisheries. A draft Agreement was proposed to the EU at the end of 2006. The intention is that individual Pacific states will still negotiate bilateral fisheries agreements with the EU under this framework to suit their individual needs but that the broader standards and sustainability considerations of the migratory tuna stocks would be embedded in this framework agreement. As the negotiation timetable is tight, and the EU, under the German presidency is aggressively pushing for the EPAs to be finalized by the end of 2007, Greenpeace wishes to provide comments to the draft Agreement and to advise the Pacific States on the legal obligations of the EU to negotiate a fair and sustainable agreement for the region, as well as bring some standards to the table on how fair fisheries agreements should look like from the Pacific point of view. This analysis studies the draft Agreement proposed by the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat on November 14th 2006 and the 2002 European Commission Communication on an Integrated Framework for Fisheries Partnership Agreements with Third Countries,1 which sets the revised guidelines of the Common Fisheries Policy on Fisheries Partnership Agreements. The US multilateral agreement is also referred to. In particularly, the following aspects are examined: 1.How well the obligations of the European Community on development are incorporated into the proposed text, in view of the proposed 20 year time frame and in view of the more traditional access agreement rather than a truly 'partnership' approach. 2.Whether the monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) provisions of the agreement are sufficient, and what improvements need to be made. 3.Whether the fisheries agreement takes into account the long-term sustainability of fisheries. 4.Whether it would be financially viable for the PICs to cut effort/catch of the fleets based on status of the stocks. In particular, whether a 50% effort reduction could be accomplished within the parameters of the agreement. 5.How the agreed pricing per tonne of fish (or other) differ from other agreements? Is it flexible in regards to market fluctuations. 6.Some legal advice on an alternative vision, and a brief look at the options for PICs if the EPA negotiations fail and the implications for fisheries. 7.Whether the umbrella EPA legal text should embed the understanding that its principles also encompasses the fisheries agreement, and vice versa.