Applying EU Control Rules to Spanish owned vessels fishing under a non-EU flag

Post by Anaïd Panossian, Legal expert in Law of the Sea and Fisheries.

In April 2014, the Spanish tropical tuna fisheries sector signed an agreement with the Spanish administration on 'third country vessels'. This agreement shall allow the Spanish government to apply the same requirements in terms of control, monitoring and surveillance to Spanish owned tuna companies, fishing under a non-EU flag as those applied to Spanish vessels flying an EU flag. It concerns vessels under joint ventures, including with The Seychelles.

 Such an agreement was mainly motivated by the constraints imposed by the European Union in the implementation of its IUU regulation for the import of fish products. It should help to facilitate the paperwork required by the IUU regulation to integrate the EU market, since the vessels would meet the requirements of the EU legislation.

 This agreement should allow easier tuna landings of these vessels flying non-EU flags on the EU markets. This agreement is also part of a broader initiative of Spain to demonstrate its commitment against IUU fishing and for greater transparency in global tuna fisheries.

A report by Louis Leroy-Warnier, mainly based on interviews with Spanish stakeholders, investigates the rationale for, the strengths and limitations of this agreement, and the opportunity of a transposition of such agreement at the European level.

This type of agreement raises some questions.

 It is first encouraging to see that efforts are made to monitor the activities of the fleets who are not anymore under the flag of an EU Member State but whose capital remains European.

Indeed, large gaps remain on the management of fleets of European origin now operating under joint ventures, chartering or private agreements. Such a system could help lead the way to better monitor these fleets.

Questions can be raised about the legal validity of such an agreement since it does not seem to be binding. How does the Spanish administration intend to ensure effective control of these fleets? With what means?

The report questions the administration's liability in case of non-compliance with the provisions of this agreement. But since it is not a priori a binding agreement, it should not be possible.

The role of the flag State should also be clarified in this case, because the first obligation of control and monitoring of its fleets is with the flag state. How can such an agreement be consistent with such obligations?

In any event, it is certainly a step forward, the significance of which still needs to be evaluated, but certainly is in line with a strengthening of monitoring and control of fleets with European capital that are no longer EU flagged. This initiative could be reproduced by other Members States and other EU companies, until the EU itself finalizes an appropriate framework establishing conditions for the establishment and monitoring of EU capital based fishing joint ventures in third countries, the creation of which is in particular encouraged through its bilateral fisheries agreements, and other types of access such as chartering and private agreements by its Member States.

African Fisheries, more than ever, needs visibility, say journalists from REJOPRAO at their General Assembly

This article was originally published by Assane Deme, General Secretary of the Network of Journalists for Responsible and Sustainable Fisheries in West Africa (REJOPRAO), on the APS site http://www.aps.sn/articles.php?id_article=135397

The members of the Network of Journalists for Responsible and Sustainable Fisheries in West Africa (REJOPRAO) felt that African fisheries need, more than ever, visibility in a context where ‘acth November cess to fish resources’ related issues become more numerous. "In this context, information, awareness and communication take a particular importance", they said during their General Assembly, held on in Saly-Portudal (Senegal).

The delegates noted that an important work had been achieved by the network during the past three years: the REJOPRAO was able to be at the heart of major fisheries events, including the last two editions of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) as well as the annual celebrations of the World Fisheries Day. However, delegates acknowledged that this had not met the hopes that had prompted the creation of the network in 2006. In response to this, the members individually renewed their commitment, and a new board was elected. Coming from ten countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo. NB: journalists from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea were absent due to the Ebola crisis), delegates elected a new bureau of nine members, chaired by Burkina Faso journalist Inoussa Maiga, for a period of three years. He replaces his Mauritanian colleague Jedna Deida.

The tasks assigned to the new board include the improvement of the REJOPRAO internal and external communication, the reinforcement of the leadership and of members’involvment. The new team of the REJOPRAO also has assigned itself the task of promoting excellence in fisheries journalism, with the establishment of an award for the best journalist articles and documentaries on fisheries. To achieve its objectives, the REJOPRAO will count on the support of its partners, including the African Confederation of Professional Artisanal Fishing Organisations (CAOPA), the Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements (CFFA), the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC), etc.

The New Executive Board members want, during their term of office, to make the REJOPRAO ‘a reliable and credible structure with realistic ambitions for the benefit of the artisanal fishing communities’, in a spirit of constructive dialogue and consensus, as was the case throughout their General Assembly. "We are aware of the work that has been entrusted to us and of the heaviness of the tasks that await us. Without wasting time, we must work hard to be at the heart of African fisheries debates", stated Mr. Maïga, after his election. He invited the members of the network, once back in their respective countries, to play the role of Ambassador of the REJOPRAO with their local colleagues, and to help raise issues facing sustainable artisanal fisheries.

Composition of the new Executive Board of the REJOPRAO

President : Inoussa Maïga (Burkina Faso)

Vice-president : Joana Lopes (Cap-Vert)

General Secretary: Assane Dème (Sénégal)

Deputy General Secretary: Seckou Jammeh (The Gambia)

Treasurer: Adama Mbodji (Sénégal)

Deputy Treasurer : Nana Darko (Ghana)

Members :

Bégui Ogo (Côte d’Ivoire),

Sandrienne Boko (Bénin)

Babacar Guèye (Sénégal).

Senegal: Sardinella fishery should be reserved for the artisanal fishing sector

This post is from Dr Sogui Diouf, Veterinary Doctor and former Director of Fisheries

Every year, when the cold season approaches, the Senegalese think about the Russian boats targeting small pelagic resources, which is when these boats come back and ask for fishing permits. The Russian fleet, which once caught 1,500,000 tonnes annually of small pelagic species along the Northwest coast of Africa, now only catches 400,000 tonnes.

In 2010, Russia, with the complicity of our then Minister of Fisheries, was granted permission to catch our coastal pelagic resources. But in April 2012, the new government ordered this fleet to cease its activities in Senegalese waters.

In 2013, a fishing agreement was signed between Russia and Guinea Bissau, offering Russia the opportunity to operate in the common maritime area between Senegal and Guinea-Bissau – once Russian vessels were in the common area, it made it easy for them to make illegal incursions in the waters of Senegal. This is how the vessel Oleg NAYDENOV came to be arrested in late 2013 for fishing in Senegalese waters without permission.

This year, we were wondering what strategy Russia was going to use...

Then we learned that, in September 2014, a Dakar based trading company, heading up a joint venture operation, had applied for ten licenses to fish for small pelagics from the Ministry of Fisheries, as a way to revive the fish processing company Africamer.  Africamer was founded in 1979, and processed 20,000 tons of fish annually, 85% of which was exported to Europe. With a fleet of 17 freezer trawlers, it employed 2,500 people. Between 2005 and 2008, Africamer, which was the largest Senegalese company in the fishing sector, got into difficulties due to management errors. In 2011, after several short lived attempts to revive the company, Africamer was put into liquidation.

By coincidence, at end of 2013, the representative of the Russia’s Federal Agency of Fisheries had filed a request along very similar lines to the office of the President of the Republic: fishing licenses for 10 trawlers, operating 6 months per year to catch 100,000 tons of small pelagic species, for 5 years. The request also mentioned the revival of Africamer. The similarities are so striking that one wonders if the 2014 demand from the Senegalese operator did not actually come from Russia’s Federal Agency of Fisheries.

In addition to the reopening of Africamer and the 10 licenses, the request from the Senegalese operator also proposed to create a shipyard and an aquaculture site. In order to realize this ambitious programme, the operator came up with a completely unrealistic proposal to invest only 11 billion FCFA (+ - EUR 17 million). Moreover, the resumption of the activities of Africamer would require a supply of fresh products to the factory – but products caught by the Russian boats benefitting from the ten licenses are frozen on board and packed at sea….

This proposal for a resumption of the Africamer factory is merely a ruse. The promises to recruit workers for Africamer will not materialize because products already frozen and packaged are not suitable to supply such a processing factory. The only way that Russia has found to bring back its fishing vessels to Senegalese waters is to use a lie.

At stake are our food security and our jobs.  In fact, fleets of foreign super trawlers fishing in the region compete directly with the artisanal fishing sector over access to the sardinella; a single stock that migrates between Morocco and Guinea Bissau passing through Mauritania and Senegal.

Sardinella occupies a very important place in Senegal fisheries, whether looked at from the landings, local consumption, jobs or exports. Some 60% of the 400,000 tons of the Senegalese artisanal fishery landings are made of sardinella. Nearly 12,000 Senegalese artisanal fishermen live only from the sardinella fishery. In addition, many related activities (artisanal processing and distribution) associated with the sardinella fishery are characterized by low barriers to entry in terms of capital, qualification and know-how and employ thousands of people. The importance of women in the artisanal processing sector is a favorable factor for poverty-reduction policies.

In terms of food security, 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.

Currently, the state of the sardinella resources is worrying. The FAO/CECAF working group held in June 2013, in Nouadhibou (Mauritania), found that, as in previous years, sardinella stocks are overexploited; fishing effort must be substantially reduced.

Senegalese artisanal fishers, aware of the overexploitation of sardinella, have already introduced restrictions including measures to prohibit the fishing, the marketing and the processing of juveniles sardinella, as well as temporary fishing closures.

Given this situation, we must, today, reserve sardinella for the artisanal fishing sector, while developing the measures already adopted for the regulation of the fishing effort on this resource.

It is a question of food security and social stability. 

Dr. Sogui Diouf

Veterinary Doctor

soguidiouf@gmail.com

EU Tuna and small pelagic fleets obliged to land 'discards' - issues for developing countries

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.

Corporatised NGOs say maximum profit saves fisheries

A recent report sets out a global vision for ‘transitioning to sustainable fisheries’. It is an important publication, being the outcome of collaboration among many of the world’s most influential environmental organisations; the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), WWF, Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Other contributors to this report are the World Bank and the Prince of Wales International Sustainability Unit. All of these organisations are now part of a new initiative called 50in10 (also listed as a co-publisher of the report), a Washington based organisation that describes itself as:

“A collaborative initiative among NGOs, businesses, public and private investors, philanthropies, and governments. Driven by their respective mandates and capabilities, these organizations coordinate their activities and share tools and expertise to accelerate fisheries restoration so that communities can prosper”. (emphasis added)

50in10 is a name chosen because the World Bank’s president demanded in 2012 that in 10 years 50% of the world’s fisheries should be restored, thereby increasing the global contribution made by fisheries to between 20 and $30 billion. On its new website, replete with inspiring photos of small-scale fishers in developing countries, 50in10 describe this new report as ground breaking – for the first time all these organisations have put their heads together to come up with a new framework to increase investments for sustainable fisheries.

But what they are saying in this report is neither new nor ground breaking. It represents the latest in a line of publications by a group of people determined to resolve a host of problems related to fisheries through privatisation and profit maximisation, - what the World Bank celebrates as the ‘Wealth Based Approach’.  These corporatized NGOs believe that capitalism has the power to achieve a triple win scenario – good for the environment, good for communities and good for the “bottom line” of businesses.

The new report describes that through careful research from around the world they have discovered three vital ingredients to ensure fisheries produces maximum wealth, a concept used confusingly as a proxy for sustainable fisheries.

One of these is that fishing should not involve overfishing. This is described as being very important for any investors wanting to get involved in the sector – they must appreciate that taking too many fish from the sea is not good for making profits.

The second ingredient to maximising wealth in fisheries is to make sure fishing companies have secure tenure rights, which means giving companies long term tradable rights for owning fish and parts of the sea. This is a longstanding recommendation made by some fisheries economists and includes implementing ‘catch shares’ or “Individual Transferable Quotas” – something that EDF has been advocating for years. The logic here is bound up with the famous ‘tragedy of the commons’ essay by Garrett Hardin (duly referenced in the report), used to explain the root cause of overfishing; under open access everyone is fighting for their share without any security for the long term. Once companies have long-term ownership over their resource, they become careful stewards of nature and will not want to spoil their cash cow (“secure tenure ties current behaviour to future outcomes and incentivises fishers to invest in long term sustainability…the immediate economic impact of establishing secure tenure can be dramatic”). This is the mantra of self regulating free markets writ large.

The third ingredient is for states to ensure that fisheries have robust monitoring and enforcement. There is an obvious paradox here given that fisheries are supposed to be self regulating if companies have secure tenure – so why the need for state regulation? The answer is that the real problem is with outsiders, including illegal vessels and communities who are not educated about responsible fishing. So regulation is more about providing a secure environment for investments, and policing the private property of companies that may be made less valuable by ignorant outsiders and pirates (“ensuring robust monitoring and enforcement will significantly reduce the risk of investment in the transition, as it either reduces or eliminates existing IUU [illegal, unreported, unregulated] activity and discourages any new IUU activity from starting.”)

These three ingredients to maximising wealth are described as irrefutable based on “research and evidence”.  Yet experiments in transferable quotas have produced widely differing outcomes, and the fable of overfishing being caused by ‘open access’ and the tragedy of the commons is misleading – there are few fisheries that have ever been characterised as open access, and there are countless examples to show that fishing companies with quite secure interests in parts of the sea have plundered this resource with disregard for sustainable ecosystems, making great returns on investments in the process. Corporations do not become good environmental stewards through secure property rights. Where ITQs have coincided with improved fishing practices, this has always relied on a great deal of regulation, which fishing companies tend to fight vigorously against. We expect green NGOs to fight back against this and tackle the major challenge of ‘regulatory capture’ in fisheries – but not 50in10, who prefer instead to depict NGOs as strategic business partners: “NGOs have played and can continue to play an important role in providing investment, education and technical assistance that support industry in increasing their market value” (emphasis added). 

Another point of contention with ‘secure tenure’ is the well-known problem with transferable quota systems – they open the way to financial speculation by investors and concentration of wealth. This is why so many smaller companies and fisher communities dislike them. This may be a policy to maximise economic rents from fisheries, but it can drive inequalities and create the classic winner takes all scenario. EDF knows all about this as it has been subject to fierce criticisms from fishers in the US and Canada where these experiments with investor friendly fisheries have been pushed forward. One hopes the organisations involved in 50in10 read the “The Global Ocean Grab” by another group of organisations more interested in social justice for fishing communities than lining the pockets of big business.

“Today we are witnessing a major process of enclosure of the world’s oceans and fisheries resources, including marine, coastal and inland fisheries. Ocean grabbing is occurring mainly through policies, laws, and practices that are (re)defining and (re)allocating access, use and control of fisheries resources away from small-scale fishers and their communities, and often with little concern for the adverse environmental consequences”

The ground breaking report by the world’s largest green NGOs on how to harness private investments to achieve sustainable fisheries disregards these counter arguments emanating from fisher communities. It is also remarkable for not actually being concerned with fishing communities at all. The basic question of how all this extra wealth that is on offer will trickle down to workers and fishers is left out of the equation. Why aren't these organisations questioning the environmental and social impacts of a global economic model dependent on growth and profit maximisation?     

The report continues from the three ingredients for profit maximisation to list the factors that can help increase value for investors in fisheries (although why investors need to be told all this by green NGOs is distinctly odd). This includes reducing “operational inefficiencies” and ensuring "business flexibility", familiar signifiers for reduced pay to workers and labour security ("improving the operational efficiency of a fishery includes any activity that reduces the cost of fishing or delivering seafood through the supply chain. Increasing efficiency and overall profit margins will improve the return on investment"). Then it champions the merits of voluntary certification for fish products such as that provided by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), although again failing to reflect on the full range of debates on eco-labelling, including its ambiguous contribution to sustainable fisheries and potentially negative impact for small-scale fisheries.  Daniel Pauly - one of the most recognised marine biologists in the world criticised the MSC as merely "doing the business for the business community". 

The report then drifts off into several pages of advice on how to build new investment strategies and why it is important that investors consider risks carefully - “a multi-species fishery in a developing country with jurisdictional complexity, limited rule of law and limited access to market" is a particularly risky investment prospect. Investors are also instructed on the pros and cons of “mezzanine”, “anchor equity” or “concessional loan” investments and so on. At this point the report reveals itself for what it is – not a ground breaking report on social and ecological sustainability in fisheries, but a proposal by many large organisations involved in fisheries to get more investors interested in funding their work (“to encourage investors towards this sector, a pipeline of projects needs to be developed”). A wealth based approach indeed. 

Senegal Faces Russian Pressures For Access To Fish: Vigilance Is Required

Since 2010, Senegal is under pressure from Russian pelagic trawlers to access Senegal small pelagic fish. These trawlers are allowed to fish in the Morocco, Mauritania and Guinea Bissau but not in Senegal’s EEZ.

Confronted with the reluctance of the Senegalese authorities to negotiate a fisheries agreement with the Russian Federation, Russian shipowners have found the alternative: use a local co-signatory, and sign private protocols with the Ministry granting them fishing rights.

These protocols between Senegal and foreign private companies do not conform to the legislation in force in Senegal, which States that foreign flagged fishing vessels are allowed to operate in the waters under Senegalese jurisdiction either under a fisheries agreement linking Senegal to the flag State, or the organization that represents this State, or when they are chartered by people of Senegalese nationality.

In other words, the law does not authorize the signature of protocols between Senegal and private companies, as was done with Russian trawlers. In addition, none of these protocols has been ratified by the National Assembly and promulgated by the President of the Republic, let alone published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Senegal.

Illegally, the Minister of Maritime economy in function in 2010 therefore granted abusive benefits to Russian pelagic trawlers, including: the non-obligation to embark Senegalese crew, the non-payment of fees dues in respect of the fishing licenses allocated. The shortfall for the State in this regard, for 29 trawlers involved, was almost 9 million CFA francs on basis of annual licenses.

In addition, at a time when the fight against IUU fishing is a priority for many, some of these vessels arrested for fishing in a prohibited area or for having disguised their markings in order not to be identifiable, saw their fines cancelled by the Minister, although the infractions they committed were most serious.

That was the situation prevailing when the new president of the Republic, Mr Macky Sall, was elected, on 25 March 2012. In line with a commitment made during his electoral campaign, he cancelled all licenses issued on an illegal basis to foreign pelagic trawlers.

But the new Minister in charge of fisheries himself never expressed the wish to put an end to the activities of Russian trawlers in Senegalese waters. Already, end April 2012, he stated that fishing authorisations would continue to be given but taking into account the resources and the interests of the State: ' with experts, we will study the number of fishing authorisations to be granted’.

The issue also invited itself at the Council of Ministers’ table in December 2012, during which the President of the Republic 'decided to extend the biological rest for our maritime spaces, by freezing the granting of fishing licenses to foreign vessels, for a period of at least one year’.

In June 2013, at the end of an inter-Ministerial Council on fisheries, the following recommendation was adopted: ‘To maintain the discontinuation of licensing pelagic trawlers until an evaluation of this operation is conducted. In particular, this assessment should identify the impacts of these operations on the biological state of resources and on the budget, as well as on the social climate in the fisheries sector'.

The question arises: is an illegal operation something ‘to assess’ in this way?

Currently, the small pelagic fishing season is beginning. To lift the obstacles for obtaining licenses, the representative of the Federal Russian Agency for Fisheries in Senegal, recalled on a local television program that Russia ‘was waiting for the results of the evaluation announced at the occasion of the Inter-ministerial Council on Fisheries held in June 2013'.

Another question arises: for shared resources like small pelagic, what is the pertinence of an evaluation made on Senegal alone, when scientific assessments concerning the entire stocks of these shared resources are available through the FAO/CECAF working group, which since more than 12 years is following the development of the small pelagic resources at the regional level?

We must remain vigilant and hope that the new Minister appointed last September will take into account the recommendations of this FAO/CECAF working group, composed of the most eminent fisheries biologists from the coastal countries and the countries that fish along the northwest coast of Africa. This working group is constantly reminding, over the last years, that coastal pelagic resources are overexploited and recommends that fishing effort should be reduced by at least 50%.

There is no 'surplus', which can be given and the Russians must be gently but firmly invited to go fish elsewhere.

Dr. Sogui DIOUF

Veterinary

soguidiouf@gmail.com