The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has recently mapped the major marine capture fisheries access arrangements, with a particular emphasis on access to developing countries waters by fleets from distant water fishing nations.
The report focuses exclusively on industrial fishing activities, and includes activities by vessels of foreign origin, with foreign beneficial owners, and locally re-flagged. Much of the previous work on access arrangements tended to focus primarily on flags and distant water fishing countries. This report, however also looks at fishing firms’ strategy to secure access to resources, which conditions their relations to flag states, ‘host’ states – the coastal states-, and ‘home’ states where, often, beneficial owners reside.
The report differentiates between ‘First generation’ access arrangements, - that involve the allocation of fishing access in return for a financial payment-, and ‘Second-generation’ access arrangements, with the allocation of access in return for the vessels registering locally and/or onshore investment in processing facilities.
“The report focuses exclusively on industrial fishing activities, and includes activities by vessels of foreign origin, with foreign beneficial owners, and locally re-flagged. It also looks at fishing firms’ strategy to secure access to resources. ”
In the case of EU arrangements, this division may be a bit blurred. Broadly, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) could be described as ‘first generation’ access agreements. However, all SFPAs do contain a provision for the promotion of joint-venture enterprises, with anticipated impacts in terms of job creation, boost to exports, technology transfer. The report notes that “[h]istorically, second-generation arrangements included joint ventures with host governments (e.g. Japan in Fiji and Solomon Islands). More recent iterations tend towards private sector-led arrangements with significant State concessions (fisheries licenses, access to land, tax breaks, and other incentives), for example, Namibia and India. A regional dimension is often associated with second-generation arrangements, mainly where a DWF [i.e. Distant Water Fishing fleet, ed.] uses the access in one EEZ to benefit from South–South cooperation arrangements in another EEZ.”
The constitution of joint ventures is a key issue of concern for African artisanal fishers. In many documented cases, like Ivory Coast, Senegal, Madagascar, Ghana, the constitution of joint ventures in Africa has not lived to host countries expectations in terms of long-term investments, whilst the activities of the vessels reflagged have added fishing pressure on African fishing resources, often in competition with artisanal fishers. Both African and EU stakeholders, including, on the EU side, in the context of the LDAC - have been advocating for a regulatory framework for joint ventures, applicable to all vessels of foreign origin, and to all steps of the value chain (catching, processing and marketing) that guarantees that joint ventures operate transparently, do not compete with artisanal fishing and contribute to the development objectives of the host country.
The EU, one of the main ‘resources seekers’
The FAO report first examines access arrangements entered in by the ‘resource seekers’ – the distant water fishing fleets from Japan, the European Union, China, Taiwan, South Korea, the United States, Russia, and The Philippines. Unlike for several other Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFN), where the terms of access arrangements are often surrounded by secrecy, the chapter examining the EU “benefits from a vast amount of public information on much of its DWF” and this enables a focus on the institutional dimensions, and on the evolution over time, of EU access agreements with developing countries.
The EU is, along with other Distant Water Fishing Nations, one of the main “resource seekers”. The report examines the EU regulation for managing its external fleets (SMEFF), its implementation being still very patchy. Photo: Canva Pictures.
The report examines not only the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs), but also emphasizes the importance of the regulation for the Sustainable Management of External Fishing Fleets (SMEFF), which establishes common eligibility requirements for all EU flagged vessels, regardless of whether they fish under an SFPA or not. Under the SMEFF, an EU Member State may only issue a fishing authorisation to its vessel for fishing outside EU waters if it has received complete and accurate information about the fishing vessel that shows its operations are in line with sustainable and legal fishing.
However, the implementation of the SMEFF is still patchy, as we showed in the case of Italian vessels fishing in West Africa. Moreover, this new regulation does not address, the case of EU-based companies using third country registers, - like East European small pelagic trawlers reflagged to Cameroon and entering unsustainable, sometimes illegal, fishing operations in the whole of West Africa.
More transparency on joint ventures needed
It is worth highlighting that the EU IUU regulation provides for sanctions against nationals engaged in activities outside EU waters, including on board fishing vessels registered in third countries. However, to date, neither the EU nor the EU member States have taken meaningful systematic action against EU nationals benefitting from IUU and unsustainable operations.
A new EU study examined the capacity of EU Member States to effectively implement this aspect of the IUU Regulation and sanction their nationals involved in such illegal fishing operations. Their assessment shows significant weaknesses in most EU Member States in this regard, in particular the nearly non-existence of sanctioning. Another recent report from the NGO Oceana on this topic adds that “[d]ue to the current lack of public information, it is unclear how many EU nationals are possibly benefitting from IUU fishing, which has led to a situation where very little action is taken to stop this practice.”
“A new EU study examines the capacity of EU Member States to take action against nationals involved in illegal fishing operations and shows significant weaknesses in most EU Member States in this regard, in particular the nearly non-existence of sanctioning.”
Identifying EU nationals involved in fishing activities outside EU waters, collecting and publishing data about them, is, for many, the starting point for ensuring re-flagged vessels from the EU cannot act with impunity. The EU study, in its recommendations, proposes “The creation of a common registration instrument of EU citizens engaged in fishing activities, with binding obligations for Member States by virtue of EU Regulations and monitored by an EU Agency (EFCA or other)’. Oceana proposes to ‘Create a public register of EU-owned vessels that are registered under non-EU flags.”
These calls have been matched recently, at international level, by the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries committing, at their 7th Meeting of OACPS Ministers in charge of Fisheries and Aquaculture, to “taking measures either as flag states or coastal states to update and implement national legislation requiring reporting of ultimate beneficial owners of fishing vessels and companies whenever flagging or granting authorisation to fish and maintain a register of beneficial owners of fishing vessels at the national level and to reinforce the pursuing and sanctioning for non-disclosure of beneficial owners.”
This seems to indicate an interest, amongst an important number of FAO members, for creating more transparency about ‘resource seekers’ countries’ nationals that operate in developing countries fisheries under local flags, often under the guise of joint ventures, and sanction them whenever they act against the law.
China in Africa fisheries: from humble beginnings mid-80 to key fishing power
As EU is redefining its relations with China, the chapter on China of the FAO mapping exercise makes for an interesting read. It starts with an historical account of the rise of China as a distant water fishing nation, starting in 1985 when the China National Fisheries (Group) Corporation (CNFC) sent its first fleet to West Africa, targeting Gabon, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, and Sierra-Leone. Since then, China and other ‘resources seekers’, like the EU have been competing to access Africa fisheries resources.
The chapter on China also provides an insight in the various policies, fisheries policy, but also investment, aid policies, that shape the fisheries relations between China and developing countries, including African countries.
The report concludes its historical account of China DWF development: “China has rapidly moved from this small beginning to become a world fishing power, across the harvesting, processing, and trading segments of the global seafood economy. Indeed, China has been the world’s largest fishing nation in terms of volume of fish caught since the 1990s.”
Africa gets short changed in access arrangements, and sees its resources and communities threatened
A further section of the FAO report examines access arrangements by world regions of ‘resources holders’, looking at case studies like the distant water trawl fleets targeting small pelagic species, or demersal species in African waters. The report notes that, in most cases, “foreign trawl vessels operate throughout the region through firm-to-government access agreements with predetermined flat prices for licenses based on the type of vessel/fishery or second-generation arrangements, which are often based on joint ventures […]” The report explains that foreign trawlers activities have had negative environmental and social impacts in the waters of West African countries. These vessels often do not comply with coastal countries regulations. Many of the case studies “suggest that these arrangements have been economically suboptimal for coastal States.”
The case study on distant trawlers accessing West African waters shows that these arrangements have been suboptimal for coastal States, as they cause damage to the environment, they indiscriminately catch all types of species and compete with small-scale fisheries. Photo: local source, in Bissau.
This chapter also emphasizes the damages caused by distant water coastal trawlers fleets to artisanal fishers: “trawling in resource rich, but fragile, tropical coastal waters causes harm to SSF [small-scale fisheries, ed.] fisheries and to the marine environment by indiscriminately catching all types of marine creatures, including juvenile fish, and damaging the seabed.” It concludes that West African countries have been short changed by these access arrangements: they were expecting to gain revenue from licensing, develop domestic fishing capacity, and/or supply local processing facilities, but much of these expectations have not been fully met. Moreover, “the negative impacts of these industrial fleets’ operations on the local artisanal fisheries development prospects have been under-estimated in fishing access arrangements.”
These observations concur with those made by many artisanal fishers in the world, including the African Confederation of Artisanal Fishing Organisations (CAOPA) who, in their call to action, ask for the coastal zones to be protected against industrial vessels, particularly trawlers, incursions by granting artisanal fishers exclusive access rights to coastal fisheries.
“Countries should look at establishing a fairer system of allocation of access to the Indian Ocean region tuna fisheries that prioritise those fishers who fish most sustainably and bring the most social and economic benefits to the region.”
On the other hand, the FAO report examines tuna access arrangements in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO). The tuna purse seine fishery in the region is dominated by the Spanish and French fleets, fishing through a network of SFPAs with the region independent SIDS,- Mauritius, The Seychelles, Madagascar. The report highlights that “some of the EU firms also flag boats locally under local business entities, especially using the Mauritius and Seychelles registries’. Madagascar, Seychelles, and Mauritius also ‘have onshore tuna processing facilities which are both dependent on the EU market and on the EU DWF for raw material.”
This tends to show that these SIDS fisheries dynamics are highly influenced by their access relations with the EU. The FAO report describes the efforts over time of these SIDS “to assert greater control over these access relations using South-South cooperation.” These efforts include Guidelines on Minimum Terms and Conditions for Foreign Fisheries Access adopted in 2019 by the countries of the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC). Another path that these countries could explore is how to establish a fairer system of allocation of access to the region tuna fisheries that prioritise those fishers who fish most sustainably and bring the most social and economic benefits to the region SIDS.
Access relations, “a fundamental element of fisheries around the world”
In its final reflections, the FAO report underlines that “access relations are a fundamental element of fisheries around the world: they shape, and are shaped by, policies and practices of fisheries management and the national and global markets and trade that, together, transform fish from a managed resource into a vital component of food systems around the world.”
The impacts of access arrangements are also very much context-specific: “the potential for onshore investments related to access or the potential for conflict between DWFs and SSFs will be distinct for demersal and pelagic fisheries and also influenced by factors such as the presence or absence of civil society or organised labour, […].” Consequently, the report then rightly suggests that “while movements towards ‘best practices’ in access agreements are essential, the nature and outcomes of access agreements and proposals will ultimately be an empirical question that is specific to each case.”
This is why, in order to reinforce developing countries capacity to negotiate access arrangements on a fair and sustainable basis, - i.e. maximising the social and economic benefits and preventing adverse impact on eco-systems and on coastal communities-, a dialogue between national authorities engaged in negotiating these arrangements and the local stakeholders is essential.
When negotiating access arrangements with DWF Nations, coastal states should make sure they engage with local stakeholders, such as small-scale fishers, in particular regarding how the terms of these access arrangements might impact coastal fishing communities. Photo: Carmen Abd Ali.
Local stakeholders, in particular fishers, have important knowledge to share with authorities about how the terms of an access arrangement will impact local fisheries development prospects, and wider society issues, like food security. Increasingly, civil society preoccupied by the future of fisheries is increasingly organizing – both within the fishing sector, like the CAOPA in Africa, or grouping civil society stakeholders, like the country-level, regional and pan African platforms of fisheries non-state actors (Afrifish-net). Informing and consulting such organisations prior and during access arrangements negotiations would, in the long run, ensure better returns for African countries of the signing of access arrangements.
For several years now, the UN, in its annual resolution on sustainable fisheries, has requested that distant-water fishing nations, when negotiating access arrangements with developing coastal States, to do so “on an equitable and sustainable basis” and take into account “their legitimate expectation to fully benefit from the sustainable use of the natural resources of their exclusive economic zones” (§237, 238).
The FAO mapping report, presented as a first step towards facilitating “the identification of opportunities to enhance the trade of fisheries-related services, particularly for developing countries,” will certainly help the international debate on the issue of access arrangements. This is also very timely, as the last FAO COFI has decided to maintain a special focus on fisheries management through the establishment of a sub-committee on fisheries management, which could choose to pursue the discussion on making access arrangements fair and sustainable.
Banner photo: Illustrative photo, from Canva Pro.
In a position paper, APRAPAM questions the government's proposal to support the production of fish feed and insists instead on the importance of a management plan for small pelagics and the prioritisation of human consumption.