In view of the global evaluation of the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) that will be carried out by the Commission in 2021, the author highlights the key points which will need to be assessed from the perspective of the impacts on African coastal communities. The author also suggests essential improvements to be made for the future of SFPAs so that they better respond to the needs of these communities.
On 27th April 2017, the Fisheries Transparency Initiative (FiTI) was officially launched in Bali. It was the result of two years of consultations, led by an international advisory group, composed of senior government officials, representatives from both large scale and small-scale fisheries, international organisations, including the World Bank, the African Bank for Development, as well as leading fisheries NGOs. The key outcome of the launch was the ‘FiTI Standard’ that sets out how the FiTI works and what information will need to be made available by implementing countries.
At the time of the launch, at least four countries are committed to implementing the FiTI: Mauritania, the Seychelles, Indonesia and The Republic of Guinea. Governments of several other countries have also indicated an interest. The International Board of the FiTi includes people working in governments from the four implementing countries as well as Sweden, representation from international NGOs (Greenpeace, Bread for the World, Oceana, WWF). Industry representatives on the FiTI International Board have been harder to find, and so far there is only one commitment from the industrial sector, that of the Russian fishing fleet. However, what is positive is that half of the seats available for industry representatives will be reserved for the small-scale sector, and CAOPA are now confirmed as being part of the FiTI governing board, as is a representative from Traditional Fisherfolk Union of Indonesia.
That the FiTI has got this far demonstrates widespread agreement that lack of transparency has been a problem in fisheries. This has been a key point for advocacy by many NGOs working on fisheries reforms, as well as a long standing issue raised by small-scale fishing communities. Although there has been disagreement on how far transparency should go (and what constitutes commercially sensitive information), intergovernmental organisations, such as the European Commission, as well as representatives of the industrial fisheries sector are also beginning to come out in support.
At the outset the FiTI was focused on improving transparency on who has a right to fish, what is paid for that right and what is caught. However, this was considered too narrow, and a large part of the work by the international advisory group was to re-think what type of information the FiTI should include and why. As a result of this process the FiTI Standard now includes 12 reporting elements. These are thematic areas on which countries are requested to publish information. The 12 requirements are:
1. The establishment of a public registry of national fisheries laws, regulations and official policy documents.
2. The publication of a summary of laws and decrees on fisheries tenure arrangements.
3. The disclosure of all foreign fishing access agreements, as well as related studies on the environmental, social and economic impacts of these agreements.
4. The publication of national reports on the state of fish stocks.
5. The publication of an up-to-date online registry of authorised large-scale vessels, as well as information on their payments and recorded catches (aggregated for each flag state) and studies on social, economic and environmental impacts.
6. The publication of information on the small-scale sector, including the numbers of fishers, their catches and financial transfers to the state and any studies on the social and economic impacts of this sector
7. The publication of information on the post-harvest sector and fish trade.
8. The publication of information on law enforcement efforts, including a description of efforts to ensure compliance by fishers and a record of offences and protections in the sector.
9. The publication of information on labour standards in the fisheries sector and efforts to enforce these.
10. Disclosure of information on government transfers and fisheries subsidies.
11. The publication of information on official development assistance regarding public sector projects related to fisheries and marine conservation.
12. Information on the country’s status regarding beneficial ownership transparency.
At the outset it was envisaged that implementing the FiTI would involve the production of a comprehensive national report with all the information and data required to satisfy these reporting elements. Some thematic areas would be reported on each year, others every two years. Towards the end of the conceptual phase of the FiTI, it was realised the idea of countries having to produce substantial reports each year was unattractive. Not only was this considered costly, but most importantly it could undermine other efforts to compile and publish data on the fisheries sector. Now the emphasis is for governments to publish information on their own websites, not through a FiTI report. The role of the FiTi will be primarily one of verifying this public information. The ambition of the FiTI therefore is to see public authorities improve their own approach to providing credible information, rather than producing lengthy independent technical reports.
One of the early criticisms of the FiTi was that it puts a disproportionate burden on developing countries, because many have limited capacity to collect and publish information. There was a concern that this would make the FiTI unfeasible for poorer countries, including those with substantial small-scale fisheries. The FiTI Standard therefore emphasises the idea of ‘progressive improvement’. Countries are expected to publish, in an accessible way, what information they do have. In the event that they do not have certain information requested under the FiTi Standard, they are under an obligation to develop plans and timeframes to collect and publish this information. A failure to have any of the information required by the FiTI does not exclude countries from obtaining a ‘compliant status’, as long as they are being honest about the lack of their data and agree on a timeframe and plan to improve the situation.
Transparency is widely regarded as a necessary component of responsible fisheries management, and there are three main ways in which the FiTI could make a positive impact.
Firstly, the FiTI strives to reveal data that has otherwise been obscured from public scrutiny. This is perhaps what most people think of in terms of a transparency initiative. For example, in many countries information on authorised fishing vessels, access agreements and aggregated catches has been considered confidential, or at least authorities have not considered it necessary to make this information public.
Secondly, the FiTI attempts to verify if information in the public domain is reliable and complete. The FiTI requires an external assessment of information by an independent consultant, as well as further verification of the findings by a national multi-stakeholder group, composed by CSOs, industry and government representatives. As such, the FiTI is not simply aimed at lifting the lid on confidentiality, but also at providing improved credibility of data held by public authorities.
Thirdly, the FiTI is designed to reveal where public authorities simply do not collate information and it requires the national multi-stakeholder group to come to an agreement on how these gaps in knowledge will be addressed. As such, the FiTI provides the opportunity for countries to take stock of existing knowledge on the fisheries sector, and develop national plans for improvements.
These three aspects to the FiTI need to be given equal recognition. In some countries the most important contribution of the FiTI will be to highlight where data already in the public domain contains errors, and in other cases the contribution will lie in exposing and addressing the limited approaches to gathering data for publication.
The FiTi has a narrow objective of increasing the availability and credibility of fisheries information. It does not attempt to engage in any further advocacy, such as commenting on the effectiveness of fisheries management or the sustainability of fishing. Nevertheless, the FiTI has been developed so that it supports several other international fisheries governance reform efforts. This includes, for example:
By requiring national authorities to publish the most recent studies on status of fish stocks, as well as information on catches and discards, the FiTI aims to contribute to national debates on the adequacy of policies and practices to achieve sustainable fishing.
The FiTI obliges implementing countries to publish information on fisheries access agreements, including disclosing any studies on the social, economic and environmental impacts of these agreements. Such step has already been taken by the EU, and is increasingly required by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, but has been resisted by most of the other main fishing nations and coastal countries involved in fishing access agreements. For the EU, the FiTI will contribute to establishing a ‘level playing field’, while more importantly it could lead to increased national debates on the foreign fishing agreements and their wider impacts, including on small-scale fisheries and food security.
The FiTI supports international efforts to address illegal fishing and unsustainable levels of legal fishing. It requires countries to disclose detailed lists of licensed vessels, as well as information on prosecutions and resources used for law enforcement. It is widely recognised that lack of transparency has facilitated frauds and corruption in the fisheries sector. This list of licensed vessels will also further contribute to the FAO’s efforts to establish a global record of fishing vessels.
The FiTI requests information on tenure arrangements to be published, including a description of how national authorities are ensuring informal fishing rights are codified and protected. In this way the FiTI supports the implementation of the International Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure.
The FiTI requires governments to collate and publish various information on the small-scale fishing sector, including information on their social, economic and food security contributions. If this information is not available, then countries have to agree on a time frame for this information to be collated and publicised. The FiTI therefore supports the implementation of the FAO’s Guidelines on Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication .
The FiTI requests implementing countries to disclose information on national efforts to collate information on the Beneficial ownership of fishing vessels. In the short term it will not mean countries will produce complete lists of beneficial owners, but it is intended to galvanise international awareness and support for beneficial ownership transparency.
The inclusion of information on labour standards in the fisheries sector supports international efforts to abolish slavery and human trafficking , and can be used to further advocate for the promotion of the ILO Work in Fishing Convention ratification.
The request to publish information on government transfers to the fisheries sector supports international efforts, including through the WTO, to increase awareness of the scale and impact of fisheries subsidies, and is intended to stimulate national debates on the contribution of capacity enhancing subsidies to unsustainable fishing, as well as the distribution of subsidies among different fisheries sectors, such as between large scale and small-scale fisheries.
The request to collate and publish information on development projects in the fisheries sector supports international efforts to increase aid effectiveness, and compliments the International Aid Transparency Initiative.
The core assumption of the FiTI is that increasing public access to information will enhance active participation in national debates on fisheries reforms, and raise the prospect of accountability by public authorities.
A key issue is whether there is the capacity and interest, at the national level, to undertake further analysis of the information produced. The FiTI could succeed in raising public information, but the lack of interest or capacity to do anything with this information will not lead to positive changes in fisheries governance. This needs to be assessed as FiTI is implemented in different countries. The risk may be overstated, as the demand for increased transparency has been prevalent for many years, including among environmental organisations and groups working on the rights of small-scale fisheries. Nevertheless, to increase the its will require support to local groups and researchers, including journalists, to do more with data being provided by governments participating in the FiTI.
Ultimately, however, the success of the FiTI helping to achieve lasting governance reforms rests on the assumption that transparency can lead to accountability. If new information supports policy recommendations or reveals instances of abuse of powers, corruption or frauds, none of this will lead to change if public authorities or the private sector face little pressure from their citizens and from the international community to reform.
In these cases, the risk for the FiTI is that is will offer governments and companies a façade of respectability, while allowing for a continuation of business as normal. This threat is particularly prevalent in countries characterised by authoritarian governments, limited means of participation in decision making processes and low levels of individual and media freedoms.
It is therefore crucial that those engaged in the FiTI, including at the international level, promote further efforts to understand and confront forms of oppression, authoritarianism, lack of individual and media freedoms that undermine good governance of fisheries.
Two other issues will also affect whether the FiTI has lasting impacts on fisheries governance.
The FiTI Standard makes no attempt to encourage national authorities to legislate for access to information. Indeed, a criticism of other existing transparency initiatives is they treat freedom of information and participation as a voluntary gesture, rather than as a right. It would be far better if countries established laws guaranteeing citizens the right to access information and the right for participation in decision making. In the long term, this may be viewed as a stronger approach, otherwise the gains made by FiTI may be short lived, dependent on the good will of authorities and foreign fishing partners.
This limitation to the FiTI remains important, and arguably it should do more to promote access to information as a right. The European Union’s Aarhus Convention provides one of the strongest examples, and forms the basis for the UN’s Bali Guidelines on establishing laws and institutions on access to information, participation and access to justice. It was perhaps a missed opportunity not to link the Bali Guidelines to the launch of FiTI, which took place in the same city. Ultimately the goal of the FiTI should be to ensure implementing countries adopt similar legislation to the Aarhus Convention, otherwise their commitment to transparency may be precarious and open to doubt.
A further issue with the FiTI lies with the implications of labelling countries as ‘compliant’ with the Standard. To some, this may be seen as an attractive dimension to the FiTI. As more countries sign up, others will be forced to follow suit, with the end result being a gradual improvement to transparency across more and more countries. A similar logic is used for other international voluntary initiatives, such as eco-labelling. Those fisheries that can demonstrate environmental credentials via voluntary certification schemes, are rewarded by more secure market access, meaning those that do not are forced to engage with these voluntary eco-labelling efforts if they wish to maintain their market access share or increase it.
The worry for those countries that decide not to engage with the FiTI is that this decision may be viewed negatively by others, and it could influence decisions on access to foreign donor funding, or even the negotiation of trade agreements. There may be genuine reasons why a country does not want to be part of the FiTI, such as lack of resources or simply that the country feels it s doing wellto improve civic engagement without the need of an international initiative. Indeed, at the launch of the FiTi Standard in Bali, the head of the Fisheries Forum Agency from the Pacific expressed doubt about the demand for the FiTI among its member states.
Moreover, achieving compliant status for the FiTI does not mean a country is more transparent than another who is not part of the initiative, in the same way obtaining an eco-label does not mean a fishery is better managed than one without. This is particularly true of the FiTI, as the decision to emphasise ‘progressive improvement’ means a country can, for a time, be compliant without publishing much information. Perhaps less information than another country that is not involved in the FiTI.
The dilemma here is that transparency is important, and there must be international pressure on countries to reform. Lack of transparency in the fisheries is a well recognized and widespread problem andprogress to improve this has been very slow in many countries. Public fisheries access agreements should not be entered in to with countries that manage fisheries in a highly opaque way, and it would be justified to favour investments in countries where fisheries is managed more openly. The FiTI provides a mechanism to help countries improve and communicate their commitment to responsible fisheries. However, achieving a ‘compliant’ status with the FiTI should not be taken at face value to mean a country is necessarily more transparent than others. More importantly, nor does it mean that the country is necessarily managing its fisheries in a responsible way. The FiTI does not provide this analysis.
The status of a country in the FiTI should therefore not be used to justify trade and investment decisions. Some of the countries involved in the initiative may hope that it does. This would be a source of concern, including for those countries that may have legitimate reasons to not engage with the initiative.
The FiTI provides a practical way of improving the availability and reliability of information on fisheries. The FiTi therefore fills an important gap in international fisheries reform efforts, as no other initiative exists that tackles the issue of transparency in a concerted way.
There are opportunities to use the data stemming from the FiTI to advance fisheries reforms efforts, and where appropriate to put pressure for increased accountability of national authorities and the private sector. A lot depends on how citizens and stakeholders respond to increased information provided as a result of the FiTI, and the extent to which participating countries embrace the ideal of “progressive improvements” and multi-stakeholder participation. The success of the FiTI in many contexts will therefore be influenced by resources and capacities of civil society organisations, fishing organisations and journalists to promote and engage in public debates and decision making processes. Ultimately the impact of the FiTi will be dependent on the willingness of those in positions of authority to listen and act on the recommendations from civil society and the fisheries sector. However, a threat to the credibility of the FiTI lies in the prospect of it being implemented in countries where governments continue to limit individual and media freedoms and genuine participation in decision making. The FiTI must not be allowed to provide such governments with a status of legitimacy.
On April the 2nd 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued an advisory opinion, following a request submitted by West Africa Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), on March 28, 2013.
The request for an advisory opinion is intended to support West Africa Sub Regional Fisheries Commission Member States (MS) in order for them to benefit from the effective implementation of relevant legal instruments, and to guide them in their efforts to better tackle the challenges they face regarding the fight against IUU fishing. The answers to the questions raised are expected to allow the SRFC to obtain the necessary legal elements for the success of its activities, in particular the effective implementation of the SRFC Convention on Minimal Access Conditions (MCA). Overall, the ITLOS advisory opinion mostly takes up and clarifies the existing rules of international law.
In its paper, CFFA summarises the main elements of the ITLOS Advisory opinion, and makes the following comments:
· Generally, ITLOS advisory opinion puts the emphasis on the responsibilities of the Flag States, and rather eludes the question of the primary responsibility of Coastal States for the management and conservation of resources within their EEZs, which results in rights and obligations, particularly in terms of control, monitoring and surveillance (MCS). Shortcomings in that area have been highlighted recently in the Greenpeace report, denouncing various IUU operations entered in by vessels of foreign origin (China in this case), some of them flagged in SRFC member countries –fraud about the real tonnage of vessels, trawlers fishing in artisanal fishing zone, etc
· In ITLOS advisory opinion, SRFC members are considered only as Coastal States, not as flag states. In recent years however, several cases of vessels engaged in IUU fishing, flagged in one of SRFC members, have been recorded (including the case of a Senegalese tuna vessel, of Spanish origin, arrested for illegal fishing in the Indian Ocean/Madagascar EEZ in 2008). ITLOS recommendations to flag states should therefore also apply to SRFC members.
· ITLOS advisory opinion regarding fishing agreements focusses on the case of ‘international organization that exercises its exclusive jurisdiction in respect of fisheries’. In West Africa, that restricts the analysis to the case of EU bilateral fishing agreements with countries of the region. However, ITLOS advisory opinion should also serve as a basis to engage the liability of other foreign fishing entities that negotiate fishing agreements with SRFC coastal States, including Russia, China and Korea, whose fishing activities are generally opaque and have been denounced in recent years as IUU (Russian trawlers in Senegal, etc).
· Similarly, there is a need to broaden the debate on the basis of that advisory opinion, to non-State entities, private companies, - from EU or other foreign countries origin-, which operate through private agreements, joint ventures or chartering arrangements in West African waters. There is a need to strengthen coastal States’ legislations regarding such ventures, as well as the control of the initial flag State, - which often remains the state of beneficial ownership-, on these activities to ensure more transparency and to avoid that these vessels contribute to overfishing and compete with the local small scale sector.
· Pelagic fisheries, especially small pelagics (sardinella, sardines, horse mackerel, etc) are key resources for food security and job creation in the artisanal fishing sector in the region. ITLOS Advisory opinion should serve to reinforce the political will at regional level to manage these resources in a coordinated manner, including when negotiating fishing agreements, taking into account sustainability and food security concerns.
· In its written statement provided to ITLOS in the context of the SRFC request, the EU described the EU IUU Regulation as an efficient tool to fight against IUU fishing, highlighting in particular the trade sanctions: identified non-cooperating countries receive a ‘yellow card’ warning, followed – if the country does not take appropriate measures to fight IUU fishing-, by a ‘red card’, which means fish products from that country cannot access the EU market. However, the implementation of the IUU regulation has revealed its limits when the EU recently withdraw Korea from the list of non-cooperating, ‘yellow carded’ States, under the pretext that it had undertaken legislative reforms on paper. Indications are that vessels flying Korean flag continue to engage in dubious activities off the West African coast, in particular in Guinea. Meanwhile, Guinea, member of the SRFC, was itself listed as a non-cooperating State by the EU in 2013 although it also undertook legislative reforms ‘on paper’. This situation creates a suspicion that the EU is applying double standards when implementing the IUU regulation to Korea and Guinea.
The African Confederation of Artisanal Fisheries Professional organizations (CAOPA) proposes that the African Union should declare 2016 the African Year of artisanal fisheries. Mr. Gaoussou Gueye, Secretary General of CAOPA, explains the reasons why.
We all know that bad governance in fisheries affects most African countries. When the first Conference of African Ministers of Fisheries and Aquaculture was held, in 2011, it recommended that Member States should consider the possibility to reform their fisheries and aquaculture policies. The reform strategy that was developed subsequently, identified key objectives for the development of fisheries in Africa[1], including the conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources through the establishment of good governance. On this topic, we wish to welcome the recent commitment of the African Union, under the impetus of Mauritania, then President of the African Union, to promote transparency in African fisheries.
Another key goal of the Pan-african reform strategy is the development of sustainable artisanal fisheries, by improving and strengthening its contribution to poverty alleviation, food security, and improving the socio-economic benefits to fishing communities.
We feel, in the CAOPA, that today, the only way to achieve these goals requires both the active involvement of the African Union and its members, as well as the participation of all stakeholders, in particular the African fishing communities that depend on fishing for their livelihoods.
Do you feel that African artisanal fisheries now better considered by decision makers?
Well, I think decision makers are now more aware of the sheer importance of artisanal fisheries in Africa. Latest FAO figures indicate that 10% of people on the African continent are engaged in fishing and aquaculture, making it the second largest continent after Asia, in terms of jobs in this sector. And the vast majority of these 12.3 million people living on fisheries in Africa are in the artisanal fisheries sector: at least 7.5 million African fishermen and 2.3 million women depend on artisanal fishing for their livelihood. These jobs provide income for millions of families in Africa! African artisanal fishing is by far the leading provider of sector jobs.
In Africa, for over 200 million people, fish is also a source of protein and essential nutrients (fatty acids, vitamins, minerals) at low prices: fish represents on average 22% of the protein intake in sub-Saharan Africa. In most parts of Africa, capture and trade by the artisanal fisheries sector provides a ‘food safety net 'to the poorest populations. In my country, Sénégal, a fish like sardinella is the most accessible source of animal protein in terms of price and quantity. Today, many Senegalese families can only be assured of one meal a day - lunch based on rice and sardinella.
Another aspect that is important for our decision makers is the contribution of fisheries to GDP of our countries. There, again, artisanal fisheries stand out: the contribution of fisheries to African countries GDP is reaching almost 2 billion US$, and African marine and inland artisanal fisheries account for more than half this figure.
It’s therefore only natural that the international community increasingly recognizes the growing importance of artisanal fisheries, particularly in Africa. For example, in the UN Rio + 20 Declaration, artisanal fishing is described as a "catalyst for sustainable development". This Declaration also stresses the need to protect the rights of access of artisanal fisheries to resources and coastal areas.
Similar provisions are also contained in the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. These guidelines help to establish the conditions under which artisanal fishermen will access fish resources, and put the emphasis on the sustainable management of the resource. These Guidelines are also important for us, as they provide a framework to overcome obstacles to sustainable fisheries development in African countries, such as illiteracy, health problems, deprivation of civil and political liberties, etc.
But the greater recognition of the importance of artisanal fishing has been achieved with the adoption, last year, of the FAO Voluntary Guidelines to ensure the sustainability of the artisanal fisheries in the context of food security and eradicating of poverty.
They focus on an issue which is key for African fishing communities: strengthening our contribution to food security and nutrition. The Guidelines also insist on the ‘equity’ aspect of development, so to improve the socioeconomic situation of artisanal fishing communities in a context of sustainable fisheries exploitation. They also incorporate new issues that our communities have to face, such as the impacts of climate change.
So, now, we have all these internationally agreed documents to guide our policies, but it is necessary that African governments, donor agencies, professional organizations and civil society organizations engage and invest in their implementation.
What are your priorities for the implementation of these Guidelines in Africa?
An important challenge we have to take up is the impact of climate change on our communities. This includes addressing very specific issues, such as the governance of Marine Protected Areas, or the promotion of participative surveillance. But this means also reconsidering some fundamental aspects of artisanal fisheries, like the recognition of the role of women in this sector: women are truly at the heart of African artisanal fisheries.
They are present at all stages of the value chain, whether it is the pre-financing and preparation of the fishing campaigns, from the reception of the fish at the beach to its processing and marketing. Moreover, women are also the pillar of the family in African artisanal fishing communities. Within the CAOPA, we are very conscious of this, thus, we promote parity in the representation of women and men: we have a bureau consisting of equal number of men and women representing African fishing communities. We also have a specific programme on Women in Fisheries.
Most importantly, on the occasion of the International Women's Day, on the 8th March, CAOPA organized, now for two years in a row, a meeting amongst women from the CAOPA. This year we were in Bissau. We witnessed a strong mobilization of all stakeholders, professionals and decision makers alike: at the International Women’s Day celebration, organized by CAOPA, about a thousand fishers, women in fisheries, decision makers, citizens got together in Bissau! The workshop in Bissau allowed women to meet, to exchange views. They ultimately came up with a statement which clearly demands that the African Union declares 2016 as the African Year of Artisanal fisheries. It would be for these women a priceless opportunity to gain recognition for their work and their investment in this sector.
What steps have you already taken so far?
We are still proceeding with the information of partners, asking them to support this initiative, such as AU-IBAR, NEPAD, SRFC, PRCM, UNDP, FAO, UEMOA, ECOWAS, CFFA, SSNC, Bread for the World, the EU...
We already had positive feed back from Fisheries Ministers of African States like Mauritania, Guinea Bissau, Senegal and Ivory Coast. We also intend to involve other civil society organizations and decision makers.
We will of course work with our colleagues from the West African Journalists Network for Responsible Fisheries (REJOPRAO) in order to help us set up and manage an effective communication strategy.
Our goal now is to formalize this request with various potential partners. We also need to sharpen our advocacy. In June, CAOPA will organize, for this purpose, a meeting with all of our partners to discuss and further elaborate our proposals, and establish a consultative committee specifically dedicated to the promotion of the African Year of Artisanal Fisheries.
We intend to launch officially our proposal during the celebration of the World Fisheries Day in November 21st, 2015, which will be organized in Morocco this year.
In October 2015, we would appreciate, on the occasion of the FAO meeting for the 20th anniversary of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, to meet with the DG of FAO.
Our goal is to launch a process. What is essential for us is that it raises awareness and mobilizes all the stakeholders in African fisheries. And we call all interested organizations to support us in this initiative!
[1] http://www.africanfisheries.org/knowledge-output/policy-framework-and-reform-strategy-fisheries-and-aquaculture-africa
The new EU Common Fisheries Policy has introduced a 'discard ban', to be implemented through the introduction of a 'landing obligation' of all catches.
The landing obligation will be introduced in 2015 for external fleets targetting tropical tuna and small pelagics. Details have to be precised, in a European Commission (EC) 'delegated act'.
For developing countries, important risks exist, in terms of sustainability and food safety, as well as associated costs for the implementation of the landing obligation.
In its position, CFFA demands the EC to provide clear answers, and to develop strategies, in consultation with third countries stakeholders, to address environmental sustainability and food safety issues arising from the implementation of the landing obligation.
Masifundise explain the new policy in South Africa for securing community rights to fisheries, which they describe as promoting human rights and the well being of small-scale fisheries in ways that will undo the harms of the previous 'rights based approach', based on individual transferable quotas. The new policy for small-scale fisheries is however yet to be fully implemented.
CAOPA answered a questionnaire on an assessment of the fishery sector in the ECOWAS region, proposed by AU regarding the process of a definition of a common fisheries policy, the subject of which being “Contribution of the African confederation of artisanal fishing organizations”, on the 24th of August 2012.
The questionnaire identifies the main strategic issues for capture fisheries and aquaculture in the region and the main challenges and opportunities for these sectors, such as maintaining coastal communities livelihoods, food security and concerted management of the coastal area/fisheries co-management.
The lack of transparency in policies is a key issue, since it threatens the exploitation of resources. Indeed, “transparency in this regard must become the rule and must be the basis for an informed participation of the stakeholders, in particular artisanal fishing communities. Greater transparency is also an important tool in the fight against IUU fishing, which is thriving when the opacity and corruption reign”.
Besides, an analysis on the current human and institutional capacities in the region is proposed. The strengths and weaknesses, challenges and opportunities for the sectors, namely marine fisheries, inland fisheries and aquaculture in the region are highlighted: “Strategies and policies should also be developed to enable artisanal fisheries, which currently target mainly coastal resources, often overfished, to develop offshore artisanal fisheries, for example for tuna species, so that our countries can derive more benefits from offshore fisheries”.
An examination of the level of the existing cooperation between the regional economic communities and regional fisheries organizations in the region is provided and some propositions to strengthen cooperation and collaboration are made.
Moreover, “Artisanal fisheries professionals must be recognized as primary stakeholder by decision makers”. The role of civil society and media is also stressed to be important in the management process.
The fact that there are weaknesses in the implementation of the Code of conduct of the FAO for responsible fishing and other relevant documents in the region or the country is also emphasized.
And finally, some cross border issues in the management of fisheries and the environment in the region are indicated.
Contribution by Brian O’Riordan, ICSF Belgium Office Secretary
Over 60 participants from 16 African countries and from 4 countries in the European Union gathered in Mbour, Senegal’s second most important fishing town, to attend a 3 day Conference on Transparency in the Maritime Fisheries Sector in Africa. The event was hosted and organized by the African Confederation of Professional Artisanal Fisheries Organizations (CAOPA) in collaboration with TransparentSea, the Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements (CFFA) and the West Africa Rural Foundation (WARF). This Conference followed the celebration of the World Fisheries Day, also organised by CAOPA, where the FAO Voluntary guidelines for sustainable small scale fisheries were discussed.
Participants to the Conference included fishermen leaders, leaders from the post-harvest sector including women fish processors and traders, civil society organizations, and local authorities. Also present were members of the West African Journalists’ Network for Responsible Fisheries (REJOPRAO), Seafood Choices Alliance Seafood Champion award winners in 2010.
Participants shared and learned about how massive investments being made in aid projects for the development of artisanal fisheries are not benefitting fishing communities, and where transparency is lacking on where the aid monies end up. So too massive flows of speculative transnational capital are being invested in industrial fishing operations in African waters.
The conference underlined how transparency is an emerging issue in fisheries, an issue highlighted by the FAO in its State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture Report for 2010, and being taken account of by the World Bank and other major donors which are beginning to adopt transparency programmes.
Amongst other issues, Conference participants called for Standards and Principles for transparency in fisheries to be developed and adopted. These would include making information available in local languages using simplified terminology; setting time limits for processing and responding to requests for information; making information readily accessible in the form that best suits the country where it is disseminated; and ensuring proper participation and prior informed consent in policy making and implementation.
More information:
Read the Conference report
Historic day for Small scale fisheries, VG SSF Guidelines and Civil Society news article.
Read the full text of the VGSSF.
The Benefits and Limits of Transparency, by Andre Standing.
On October 5th 2011, CFFA organised, with some of its partners, a workshop in the European Parliament, on good governance issues in the reform of the CFP external dimension. The workshop was attended by about 60 participants, including representatives from the European Commission, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and staff, members of the African parliamentary network APPEL, representatives from EU and ACP Member States, from EU and African fishing organisations platforms , trade unions, fish traders, and NGOs.
The summary report highlights the main points of agreement emerging from the debate, which included:
• The EU’s objectives must be to ensure all its fleets fishing outside EU waters, whether under access agreements, private licensing schemes or joint ventures, operate sustainably, from an environmental, social and economic point of view.
• The EU should also promote the establishment of a level playing field for all fishing operators from distant water fishing nations and coastal countries, whilst recognising the rights of developing countries and their coastal fishing communities to have priority access to their resources.
• The EU needs to develop stronger measures to promote transparency in the CFP, and should also take a leading role in mainstreaming transparency in fisheries, which requires supporting other governments and fisheries organisations to implement transparency measures.
• EU fisheries agreements should be reformed so that they provide a framework to control all EU fisheries-related activities in developing countries fisheries, whilst providing the necessary support to ensure all private investments made in these fisheries are transparent, and environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. The reform of the CFP external dimension must ensure that the means and mechanisms to achieve those objectives are developed and implemented.
Following the meeting, CFFA drafted a list of proposed amendments to the CFP basic regulation, related to good governance issues.
The first Stakeholder Consultation Meeting jointly organised by NEPAD (The New Partnership for Africa’s Development) and the FAO in support of the implementation of the FAO Strategy for Fisheries and Aquaculture in Africa will take place on 10-12 May 2011 in Midrand, South Africa. It will bring together participants from regional fisheries organisations, regional economic communities, donors as well as civil society. The three-day event will consist of a one-day plenary session and two days of consultation in working groups.
The aim is to strengthen and accelerate the fisheries and aquaculture sector in terms of their governance, management and adaptability to climate change. By doing this, the participants will address the rising importance of fisheries in meeting the MDG objectives; and the sector’s crucial role in economic development and poverty alleviation in Africa, in line with the CAADP targets.
The CAOPA (The African Confederation of Small-scale Fisheries Professional Organizations) will participate to the event, and has drafted a series of recommendations for African governments and for international, regional and national institutions. These include that:
Access to resources should be conditional to sustainability criteria;
Priority should be given to local fleets, especially small-scale fisheries;
Fisheries agreements should be concluded on a scientific basis while respecting the precautionary approach;
Priority should be given to fishing for human consumption;
Effective participation of local actors in co-management plans should be promoted by policy frameworks;
Decision-makers should be engaged in an integrated coastal planning strategy;
Parties of fisheries agreements should reinforce their actions towards a real partnership in order to develop efficient management systems and to avoid overexploitation;
Value-adding activities should be promoted by structural actions in order to give SSF priority access to markets;
International fish trade should be fair and equitable;
Standards and regulations should be introduced in a way that allows producers to comply with them;
A permanent participation mechanism should be established in order to inform and involve small-scale fisheries professionals.
The CAOPA also stresses that small-scale fisheries professional organizations should be strengthened by:
Setting up an appropriate deliberative process in order to confront ideas and interests and take coherent and legitimate decisions;
Defining ways to formally identify and integrate actors;
Establishing an appropriate information sharing system;
Building capacity by education and awareness raising;
Making fishing communities aware of climate change impacts and how to mitigate related risks.
Read the full contribution (in French):
The European Union is currently reforming its Common Fisheries Policy. Initial discussions suggest the issue of improving transparency and accountability in EU fisheries will be taken seriously, with specific recommendations being made on introducing transparency and anti-corruption clauses in EU Fisheries Partnership Agreements signed with third countries. Such recommendations come at a time when calls for improving transparency and accountability in fisheries are gaining momentum, not only from civil society, but also from the fishing industry. The CFP therefore represents an opportunity to advance the notion of access to information and accountability in international fisheries, not only within the EU. Yet this call for improving transparency that has accompanied the CFP reform process has yet to be elaborated on, and recommendations remain vague. This paper aims at deepening the debates on how transparency can be achieved through the CFP reforms, considering both the benefits and the limitations to transparency reforms. The paper puts forward some key discussion points that could be used as the basis for the development of a coherent and thorough strategy on transparency in fisheries, driven by the EU in collaboration with partner organisations, including the fishing authorities of developing countries.
Read our publication:
NEPAD and African Union Fisheries Summit: Livelihoods should come first urge small-scale fishers and NGOs
Banjul, Gambia, 22 September 2010. Artisanal and small scale fishers and associated civil society representatives from seventeen African countries met in Banjul, Gambia on 21 September, 2010, in advance of the first NEPAD Conference of African Ministers on Fisheries and Aquaculture (CAMFA) to be held on 23 September 2010. The meeting was organized by the Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements, the African Confederation of Artisanal Fishery Professional Organizations and the Commonwealth Foundation, under the banner of "Our Fish, Our Future".
Following the meeting, participants issued the Banjul Civil Society Declaration on Sustainable Livelihoods in African Fisheries (http://www.camfa-cso.org). The declaration highlights key issues in African fisheries and provides recommendations on how the 2005 NEPAD Action Plan for Development of Fisheries and Aquaculture should be taken forward.
The declaration warns that a purely economic approach represents a threat to the sustainable development of fisheries resources and livelihoods of poor marginalized artisanal and small scale fishing communities. It emphasizes the importance and value of small-scale and artisanal fisheries in the African context towards providing food security for 200 million Africans and jobs for more than 10 million people engaged in fish production, processing and trade. It further highlights the negative impacts of climate change, industrial fishing and illegal unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU), including dwindling catches, displacement of communities and the destruction of fishing grounds. In turn this affects the social stability of entire regions, the Declaration states.
The significance of IUU fishing in African waters was echoed by Tim Bostock, Fisheries advisor to United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) in the opening session of the CAMFA on Monday 20th September, who noted that illegal fishing alone accounts for removing fish valued at some $1billion from the waters of Sub-Saharan Africa every year.
The CAMFA is a follow-up to the 2005 Abuja "Fish for All" summit, and African fisheries ministers are expected to assess and validate a fisheries plan of action for the region.
The meeting of small scale and artisanal fishers and civil society organizations is also part of an ongoing process, which since 2006 has included a growing network of West African journalists for responsible fisheries (REJOPRAO). From 15-23 September, the REJOPRAO organized training workshop for journalists, with the objective of focusing on responsible fisheries and related topics and issues in West Africa. Following the training, the journalists from sub region will carry out the media coverage, as observers, of CAMFA.
Since 2005, organizations representing the professionals (fishers, traders, processors and fishmongers) from the artisanal fishing sector have worked to establish a regional body to represent their interests. Earlier this year, this initiative led to the founding of CAOPA - the African Confederation of Professional Artisanal Fishery Sector Organizations.
More information:
In the framework of the Green Economy Initiative, launched in October 2008, UNEP started working on a global Green Economy Report, together with over 70 research institutes around the world. This report targets decision-makers and aims to identify the key “enabling conditions” required to achieve a transition to a green economy globally, as defined in the report preview published in May 2010.
CFFA’s first input in this process took place during the ICTSD/UNEP meeting on “Fisheries, Trade and Development”, held in Geneva on the 16th of June. Comments were made on the “Aid for Trade” aspects of developing countries fisheries. This discussion and the contacts made with UNEP led us to this official multi-stakeholder consultation on the GER.
According to the agenda, the purpose of this two days workshop was for the authors of the GER to share initial results/key messages and respond to questions and comments from a broad range of stakeholders. The issues discussed at the workshop, together with comments from a technical peer review process (to take place in late 2010), will be assembled for guiding the final revisions of the various chapters: renewable energy, industry, transport, cities, buildings, waste management and recycling, fisheries, water, forests, agriculture, tourism, finance, modeling, and enabling conditions.
CFFA-EED’s contribution to this workshop focuses on the "Fisheries" chapter of the GER and especially on the four proposals made for "greening the fisheries": "Reforming fisheries subsidies and other economic distortions", "Adjustment costs", "Building effective national, regional and international institutions" and "Strengthening regulatory reforms and fisheries management".
More information:
Preliminary comments on UNEP draft GER by CFFA and EED
CFFA’s workshop report
Regional Workshop, December 2008, In Conakry (Guinea)
Preparatory national workshops were held in November 2008 in the eight participating countries, during which the following elements were recalled to give an outline of the international context in which this meeting of the professionals was taking place.
In October 2008, men and women coming from the small scale fishing communities all over the world met in Bangkok, at the time of the Conference of FAO on small scale fisheries, and at the workshop of the civil society which preceded it, to discuss the issues for sustainable small scale fisheries. This world event made it possible to raise awareness with many decision makers and stakeholders, including from West Africa.
Read the report of the workshop:
West African artisanal fishing communities: Facing up to the future
2 october 2006. Following the proposal of the SRFC (West Africa Sub Regional Fisheries Committee) permanent secretary and the request by artisanal fishing professional organisations from Guinea (UNPAG), Mauritania (FNP-section artisanale) and Senegal (CONIPAS), these organisations were invited to participate to the SRFC meeting on artisanal fisheries management, held in Praia from 26th till 29th september 2006.
