20 February 2008
The European Union has concluded fishing agreements with African countries since 1979. These agreements have been fiercely criticized for various reasons ranging from overexploitation of natural resources to conflicts with local fisheries and harm to local fisheries industries. It is estimated that the amount of fish in West African waters has declined by 50 per cent over the past three decades. Worldwide, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 75 percent of fish stocks are overfished or fished to their maximum, and in a poor region like northwest Africa, the consequences are particularly stark. Fishing efforts of European vessels have contributed to this decline of fish stocks in ACP countries.
In a written question MEP Dorette Corbey (PSE) asks the Commission if it can assure that in recent and future agreements with African countries the management of fish stocks is a joint responsibility. She also questions the tenability of European commercial fishing interests. European vessels, according to international law, should only be fishing in case of surplus stocks and should not obstruct the sustainability of fisheries in African waters.
Fair Politics EU underlines that by implementing the Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs) in recent years some real progress has been made in comparison to the previous Fisheries Agreements. However, we remain concerned that many of the intended improvements will fail to materialize. Overexploitation of fish stocks will still occur, as reliable and independent scientific data to determine a sustainable maximum catch often lack. Local fishermen do not have priority access to their own fishing grounds and will still be harmed by subsidized competition from European vessels. And most importantly, the local processing industry, which has the highest potential added value in the production chain, receives little support.
Furthermore, MEP Dorette Corbey asks the Commission if it is willing to consider transferring responsibility for fisheries agreements from the DG for Fisheries to the DG for Development, thus dissociating itself from the commercial interests of the European fisheries sector when concluding fisheries agreements.
We, Fair Politics EU, applaud this appeal from MEP Corbey since the guiding principle of development cooperation in fisheries is ‘to contribute to sustainable benefits for sector stakeholders in developing countries without further degradation of the natural environment’[i]. Yet we are concerned that the EU still sees Fisheries Partnership Agreements as commercial agreements rather than as a means to achieve development goals. The huge economic benefits that come from processing and exporting the catch remain firmly in European hands.
Fair Politics EU monitors the efforts made by MEPs to address Policy Coherence for Development in their daily work. By pointing to possible negative effects of the EU policy on fisheries partnership agreements, MEP Dorette Corbey effectively takes action to address the lack of coherence between development and fisheries policies. She urges the Commission to be more coherent in its actions. By doing so, MEP Corbey holds the Commission to its commitments in terms of policy coherence for development. For this action, MEP Dorette Corbey was awarded a coherence star.
Full question of Mrs. Dorette Corbey can be found below.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0670/08
by Dorette Corbey (PSE)
to the Commission
Subject: Fisheries Agreements
Date: 1 February 2008
Through fisheries agreements the European Union obtains the right for European fishers to fish in a large number of waters outside Europe. Since 1979 agreements have been concluded with African countries. These fisheries agreements are controversial from the point of view of sustainability: fish stocks in African waters have drastically declined. In response to this criticism greater account of sustainability has been taken in fishing agreements in recent years (‘responsible fisheries’). Part of the proceeds from fishing rights must benefit the development of local fisheries and the promotion of local know-how. The monitoring and management of fish stocks are regarded as a task for the African government that signs the agreement. But the criticism continues (see New York Times article, 14 January 2008).
1. Can the Commission confirm that a fisheries agreement has been concluded with Guinea Bissau although that country’s government was known not to have a single patrol boat available for its use?
2. Senegalese and Mauritanian fish stocks have declined so greatly that local people no longer have any fish to eat and local fishers can no longer use their boats for fishing. Can the Commission confirm that in recent and future agreements with African countries the management of fish stocks is a joint responsibility? Can the Commission also guarantee that the share of the proceeds from fisheries agreements that is required to benefit the local community is spent correctly in the case of the African countries?
3. Fisheries agreements are based on the notion that the commercial interests of European fishermen need not obstruct the sustainability of fisheries in African waters because the fishing is for surplus stocks. Is that notion still tenable? If so, can the Commission confirm that the surplus is established by an independent institute?
4. Is the Commission prepared to consider (1) transferring responsibility for fisheries agreements from the DG for Fisheries to the DG for Development, (2) basing such agreements solely on the support of sustainable fisheries and strengthening of local or regional fishing communities, and (3) thus dissociating itself from the commercial interests of the European fisheries sector when concluding agreements?
So far the Commission has not replied
More information?
Visit the website of the European Parliament
Visit the website of MEP Dorette Corbey
Click here to read the New York Times article, 14 january 2008
| Greens/EFA | |
| S&D | |
| EPP |
03-09-2009 EP Development Committee concerned about FPA with the Republic of Guinea »
29-04-2008 Rebranding of DG PECH into DG MARE: step up to a more coherent policy? »
Wall Street Journal 23 July 2007
Commission Communication FPA's 2002
ADE evaluation Fisheries Agreements
MRAG comparative study FPAs
Bartels and De la Fayette PCD fisheries study
ICTSD Fisheries Access Agreements
European Consensus on Development 2006
UNDP Human Development Report 2001
News archive FPAs case 2005-2006