1. Mareike MeynInstitute for World Economics and International Management - IWIM ICTSD Workshop Untangling Fisheries and Trade: Towards Priorities for Action Geneva, 09-10 May 2005 Bilateral access agreements and their effects on domestic fishing and management capacities Some discussion points

2. Mareike MeynInstitute for World Economics and International Management - IWIM Issues that need to be addressed to improve the social and environmental impact of bilateral fisheries access agreements and their conditions for domestic value addition 1.Charge a user fee for the use of marine resources: Financial compensation should also reflect the environmental and social costs as well as the costs of implementing the agreement 2.De-link the level of access from financial compensation: Linkage between EU access to ACP waters and additional finance has resulted in extensive access to ACP waters Secured income increases economic dependency of ACP country and biases negotiation power Competition from subsidised EU fleets can make it economically unviable for ACP countries to develop their own fisheries since “cash for access” is the easier option

3. Mareike MeynInstitute for World Economics and International Management - IWIM Issues that need to be addressed to improve the social and environmental impact of bilateral fisheries access agreements and their conditions for domestic value addition 3.Improve the conditionality of the agreements: ACP countries’ commitment to control and regulate its fishing industry and to develop a sustainable fishing policy should be linked to EU financial support for access 4.Include a strong development and capacity component : Access agreements should guarantee a minimum employment level on trawlers, contain financial and technical support to strengthen human and institutional capacities and assist with the establishment of a functioning onshore infrastructure. 5.Improve the options for domestic value addition: Minimum supply of the domestic industry with good quality catches has to be obligatory; promotion of mutual beneficial joint-ventures.

4. Mareike MeynInstitute for World Economics and International Management - IWIM Issues that need to be addressed to improve the social and environmental impact of bilateral fisheries access agreements and their conditions for domestic value addition 6.Including fisheries access agreements into EPAs? Potential advantages: Regional approach can increase bargaining power vis-à-vis the EU. Countries can share capacities for collecting data on catches and fish stock. Transparency of access agreements might be increased since the civil society is highly involved in EPA negotiations. Problems: EPAs a re rather a political construct and do hardly follow economic integration goals; no common regional strategy and different interests

5. Mareike MeynInstitute for World Economics and International Management - IWIM Issues that need to be addressed to improve the social and environmental impact of bilateral fisheries access agreements and their conditions for domestic value addition 6.Including fisheries access agreements into EPAs? Problems: Example SADC: Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania have access agreements with the EU, Namibia refuses to enter into an access agreement and Madagascar and Mauritius negotiate an EPA in an Eastern Southern Africa (ESA) framework.  FPAs lack of coordinated technical assistance and bear the risk to undermine the coherence of EU policies towards ACP countries: DG Fisheries negotiates FPA, DG Development coordinates fisheries support under the Cotonou Agreement and DG Trade negotiates EPAs, which also offer technical assistance.

6. Mareike MeynInstitute for World Economics and International Management - IWIM Issues that need to be addressed to improve the social and environmental impact of bilateral fisheries access agreements and their conditions for domestic value addition 7.Regular review of the agreement and inclusion of shortcomings into the new agreement  The main problem to guarantee fair fisheries partnership agreements is the contradictory interest between the EU and ACP countries: The EU wants to have unlimited access to ACP fishing grounds and to process the catches in the EU and ACP countries want to build-up a domestic fishing industry and to guarantee the sustainability of their fisheries resources.  A gradual phasing out of subsidies paid by EU tax payers to be replaced by private funding from EU shipowners is a central element to build-up a real fisheries partnership between the EU and ACP countries.