Evaluation externe finale du projet

Groupe des Etats d’Afrique des Caraïbes et du Pacifique (Groupe ACP)

African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP Group)

Avenue Georges Henri, 451 1200 Bruxelles, Belgique

Tel: +32 2 743.06.00 Fax:+32 2 735.55.73

http://www.acp.int

Email: [email protected]

[ACP/84/47/15] SEDT/PF/fk

Consolidated report of the 4th Meeting of ACP Ministers in charge of Fisheries and Aquaculture Brussels, Belgium 20-23 July 2015

1

Contents

Document presentation .......................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 5 Technical meeting ................................................................................................................. 6 1. Opening session............................................................................................................. 6 2. Session 1, Progress and roadmap for Topic 1: Fisheries management ......................... 6 Contextual introduction ................................................................................................. 6 Fishery management challenges: the IUU fishing ........................................................ 7 Experience and outcome of fisheries quota management system in Namibia .............. 7 Gabon Bleu and IUU fishing ......................................................................................... 7 Discussions .................................................................................................................... 8 3. Session 2, Progress report and Roadmap for Topic 2: Optimizing fisheries sustainability.......................................................................................................................... 8 Contextual introduction ................................................................................................. 8 Optimizing fisheries sustainability Challenges: Added value....................................... 9 Fish trade in the context of the Post-Bali work program .............................................. 9 Improving added value of processed tuna in Mauritius .............................................. 10 Discussions .................................................................................................................. 10 4. Session 3, Progress report and Roadmap for Topic 3: Food security ......................... 10 Contextual introduction ............................................................................................... 10 The role of fishery for food security ........................................................................... 11 The Madagascar experience ........................................................................................ 11 Experience of the Cook Islands ................................................................................... 11 Discussions .................................................................................................................. 11 5. Session 4, Progress report and Roadmap for Topic 4: Development of aquaculture.. 12 Contextual introduction ............................................................................................... 12 Development of aquaculture challenges: Technology transfer ................................... 12 Development of aquaculture in Nigeria ...................................................................... 13 Constraints to aquaculture development in the Caribbean region............................... 13 Discussions .................................................................................................................. 13 6. Session 5, Progress report and Roadmap for Topic 5: Protection of the marine environment ......................................................................................................................... 14 Contextual introduction ............................................................................................... 14 Protection of the marine environment Challenges: Ecosystem management ............. 14 Benefits of protected marine areas for fisheries in the West Africa ........................... 14 Discussions .................................................................................................................. 14 7. Session 6, Articulation between the various strategic plans and synergies with major projects ................................................................................................................................ 15 Contextual introduction ............................................................................................... 15 Strategic plan for tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean .................................................. 15 Strategic plan for fisheries and aquaculture in Africa, AU-IBAR .............................. 15 Strategic plan for fisheries and aquaculture in the Caribbean ..................................... 16 Strategic plan for fisheries and aquaculture in the Pacific .......................................... 16 Discussions .................................................................................................................. 16 8. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 17 9. Road map..................................................................................................................... 18 2

Ministerial meeting ............................................................................................................. 23 10. Resolution................................................................................................................. 23 11. Press release ............................................................................................................. 26 Annex 1 Background document .......................................................................................... 27 Annex 2 Agendas of the 2nd ACP meeting on fisheries ...................................................... 78 Annex 2.1 Agenda of the technical meeting ................................................................... 79 Annex 2.2 Agenda of the ministerial meeting................................................................. 84

3

Document presentation The document contains the synthesis of each session of the technical meeting. It also provides a summary of all presentations and main recommendations as well as the road map for the implementation of the ACP strategic plan of action in fisheries and aquaculture. The resolutions adopted by the Ministers in charge of Fisheries and Aquaculture are presented thereafter. Background documents of the meeting can be found in Annex 1 and the agenda of the meeting in Annex 2.

4

Acknowledgements The ACP Secretariat would like to thank all delegates who attended the second ACP ministerial meeting on fisheries and aquaculture. A special thanks is given to the speakers who provided high quality presentations and substantial technical material to fuel discussions on key issues. The Secretariat, on behalf of ACP States, thanks the cooperation partners and expresses its sincere gratitude to the Government and people of Belgium for their hospitality and the excellent facilities provided. The writing of the synthesis of the sessions, the recommendations and the resolution has benefited from the helpful support of Yao Adingra, Hachim El Ayoubi, Pierre Failler, Viwanou Gnassounou, Faith Kakiiza, Desta Nigussie and Olusola Ojo as well as all people who worked on the translation of documents.

5

Technical meeting The technical meeting was held on the 20th and the 21st of July 2015. The meeting consisted of 6 thematic sessions and one session dedicated to the drafting of the resolution discussed and approved by Ministers in charge of fisheries and aquaculture during the Ministerial meeting, held on 22nd and 23rd of July 2015. A summary of each session is presented hereafter. The key elements of presentations and discussions are highlighted.

1. Opening session The ACP Senior Officials in charge of Fisheries and Aquaculture met on 20 and 21 July 2015 to prepare the 4th Meeting of ACP Ministers in charge of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The Assistant Secretary General in charge of Sustainable Economic Development and Trade at the ACP Secretariat, Mr. Viwanou Gnassounou, welcomed participants and recalled the context of the 4th Ministerial Meeting on Fisheries and Aquaculture, which was initially scheduled to take place in Namibia in 2014. He then thanked all the delegates and technical partners for their participation. The Senior Officials’ meeting was chaired by His Excellency, Mr Hanno B. Rumpf, Ambassador of the Republic of Namibia to Brussels, and Chairman of the ACP Ambassadorial Working Group on Fisheries and Aquaculture. The Ambassador also reminded participants that the meeting could not be organised in Swakopmund, Namibia, this year due to unforeseen circumstances. In that regard, he thanked all the ACP-country representatives and technical partners for their understanding. The second day of the meeting coincided with the National Day of the Kingdom of Belgium, host country of the ACP Secretariat and the meeting. The Chair extended best wishes to the Kingdom of Belgium and the royal couple and invited the meeting’s participants to join in by applauding. He then thanked the delegates for agreeing to attend the meeting although it was being held on the Belgian National Day.

2. Session 1, Progress and roadmap for Topic 1: Fisheries management Contextual introduction

Pierre Failler, University of Portsmouth, UK and Hachim El Ayoubi, Fishery Ministry, Morocco, on behalf of the ACP Secretariat, Brussels, Belgium Promoting sustainable fisheries management is the top priority of the ACP Strategic Action Plan (SAP). The situation in the fisheries and aquaculture sector in some ACP countries, as in other regions, is poorly managed, which gives rise to fishing over-capacity, overfishing, and a tremendous loss of resources. For the first Priority Field of Results, PFR 1 National management frameworks, significant changes have come about in the improvement of fisheries management in certain ACP countries, particularly the involvement of stakeholders in the management process and institutional capacity building. For PFR 2, Addressing specific threats to sustainable management of fisheries, the level of control currently exercised in many cases does not adequately cover the entire national jurisdiction. For PFR 3, Compliance with recommendations and international agreements, national fisheries policies need to be updated in many cases. For PFR 4, Institutional cooperation and partnerships, many countries have set up mechanisms for support and 6

cooperation with economic integration organisations and regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) based on their membership in both of these categories of organisations. Fishery management challenges: the IUU fishing

Stylianos Mitolidis, DG-Mare, Brussels, Belgium COM presented the EU policy against IUU fishing highlighting the importance of IUU fishing as a global problem and the detrimental effects (environmental, economic, social) of IUU fishing to developing countries. COM explained the EU policy in this matter (IUU Regulation) and presented the basic principles of the Regulation giving emphasis on its non-discriminatory nature, fulfilment of international law rules and cooperation with third countries. The 3 steps approach (yellow – red – black listing) was also mentioned giving emphasis on dialogue and the win-win situation offering possibilities to third countries to modernize their fisheries management, ensure sustainability of resources, improve the welfare of fishing communities and achieve fair trade of fisheries products. COM presented also its coordinated approach on IUU fishing through EU Development Aid, work with likeminded countries and coordination with other donors. Finally COM placed emphasis on the challenges ahead underlining full implementation of FAO IPOA, entering into force of FAO PSAM, increased cooperation at regional level, revised sectoral policies to modernize fishing management and development of tools at international level (IMO numbers, catch certification, RFMOs works, new technologies etc). Experience and outcome of fisheries quota management system in Namibia

Rudi Cloete, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Windhoek, Namibia The Namibia Fisheries Policy and Legal framework established the objectives for the fisheries and the management and enforcement approaches to be employed. Following what was stipulated in its Fisheries Policy and Legal framework, Namibia adopted a Rightbase Management System which includes the following, granting fishing rights to successful applicants, determining the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Quota Allocation to right holders, Effort Control by limiting number of the vessels to be licensed, collecting resource rent in the form of (Quota fees, Research Fund levy, License fee, Bycatch fee and Observer levy) Outcomes of the quota management System : The main outcomes of the quota management System were broad balanced participation by all Namibians in the fisheries, it promoted value addition and onshore development, improved revenue collection and the rebuilding of fish stocks. Gabon Bleu and IUU fishing

Georges Mba-Asseko, Fishery Agency, Libreville, Gabon Management of the fisheries and aquaculture sector in Gabon has been carried out on the basis of management models based more on the production monitoring and analysis. Since the beginning of 2000, the Government has been striving to implement reforms in compliance with the Policy Framework and Strategy for the Reform of Fisheries and Aquaculture in Africa adopted by the AU Summit in June 2014, with a view to improving the sector whose operating methods had become obsolete in the light of technical and technological changes of recent years. The main aspects of the reforms focus on strengthening institutional and legal frameworks. Law 015/2005 on the Gabonese Fisheries and Aquaculture Code promulgated in 2005, are 7

now being implemented on the ground through the application of a number of regulatory texts in the last five years. At the institutional level, the structures in charge of fisheries and aquaculture have been re-organised with the creation, alongside the General Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture (DGPA), which is now solely responsible for the definition of policies and programmes, of an administrative body with financial and managerial autonomy, which is now responsible for fisheries management. These reforms, which are underpinned by a policy vision called Gabon bleu – a concept for the concerted management of the maritime area, aims to derive optimum benefit from the exploitation of Gabon’s rich fisheries resources. The flagship actions of this vision spearheaded by the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Agency (ANPA), aim to improve surveillance of the Gabonese coasts to combat IUU fishing, the boosting the resource protection system by establishing a protected area encompassing 23% of the EEZ and the management of the sector by restructuring fisheries and professional entities through a comanagement approach. Discussions

During the discussions, participants welcomed the support received from the EU and stressed the need to combat IUU fishing, which represents a significant national, regional and global problem. They also called for development aid to assist in modernising of fisheries polices and management. They also explained their specific achievements so far at national or regional level and the work still to be done in the future. Pre-identified countries (like PNG and Ghana) thanked EU for the important work conducted with COM in spirit of cooperation and mutual trust. Most of the representatives who took the floor highlighted the importance on receiving financial and technical assistance, while some also focused on the need to combat IUU fishing in inland/freshwater zones. In the context of the sustainable fisheries partnership agreement (SFPA) mentioned by one of the delegations, the need to ensure that captured fish data was received in real time from vessels flying EU member State's flags was also underscored. The European Commission (EC), the ACP countries’ main partner on fisheries matters, recalled that its approach was to find satisfactory solutions for all (the EU being a major market that promoted compliance with international law and willing to help third countries improve their polices). It added that IUU fishing was not a technical barrier since the EU was not imposing its own rules but applying international rules. Furthermore, the Commission recalled that its Services (using DEVCO funds) had provided substantial aid in the past and that it has ensured that the next indicative programmes offer ways of combating IUU fishing at national and regional level. The Commission added, nonetheless, that it was up to ACP countries to benchmark fisheries as a priority area for funding.

3. Session 2, Progress report and Roadmap for Topic 2: Optimizing fisheries sustainability Contextual introduction

Pierre Failler, University of Portsmouth, UK and Hachim El Ayoubi, Fishery Ministry, Morocco, on behalf of the ACP Secretariat, Brussels, Belgium The context is one in which there is intensified global trade in fishery products and the movement of spheres of influence and attraction towards Asia. For PFR 5, Market access, progress has been made but is still highly inadequate. For PFR 6, Overcoming technical barriers, progress has been achieved, particularly through the ACP-Fish2 project which has 8

provided technical support. Nonetheless, this has not always been borne out in practice. For PFR 7, Addressing specific external causes of value losses, piracy has been stemmed in the Indian Ocean but remains active in the Gulf of Guinea. For PFR 8, Added value for ACP States, studies are still ongoing on ways to improve the value chains. Optimizing fisheries sustainability Challenges: Added value

Raymond Tavarez, UNIDO, Vienna, Austria Inclusive upgrades of food value chains contribute to the reduction of food waste, thus to food security and safety, while food exports gain access to global markets, and poor households capture more value added. Worldwide, fishing industries are being impelled by severe environmental pressures and producers, particularly small-scale, lack technology and infrastructure to meet foreign market requirements. UNIDO has a solid track record in upgrading agribusiness value chains (VCs) in the fisheries sector, by among other areas, focusing on building quality infrastructure for competitiveness, which includes quality policy, metrology, accreditation, standards, and conformity assessment services along the VC. Rejection analyses, VC analyses and partnership building, e.g. with the private sector, provide for a founded needs assessment and stakeholder engagement. Successful projects in the fisheries sector include the promotion of sustainability standards in Indonesia, enabling EU market access to Pakistani seafood, and upgrading small-scale fisheries in West Africa. In particularly West Africa project is recognized as a UNIDO best practice for strengthening economies through inclusive sustainable industrial development (ISID) approach. Moreover, this new ISID programme support has not only a unique focus on gaining and linking investors to strengthen women-led enterprises in rural areas but is also developed in the solid cooperation of multiple expertise from Trade Capacity Building (TCB), Agro-Business Development (AGR) and Business, Investment and Technology (BIT) Branches. Fish trade in the context of the Post-Bali work program

Namita Khatri, ACP Geneva Office, Geneva, Switzerland Discussions for a post-Bali Work Programme at the World Trade Organisation have been slow, with political will lacking to make concessions in the issues being treated as threshold issues, namely on agriculture, industrial products and services. This has impacted on negotiations in the Rules negotiating Group, where fisheries subsidies are discussed. Some major WTO Members have been unwilling to engage on Rules without seeing progress on agriculture in particular. Nonetheless, the ACP position on fisheries subsidies articulated in its elements paper JOB/TNC/46 has attracted positive attention and has been referenced in discussions extensively. The ACP continues to see a need for disciplining the most egregious forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, the latter which have a serious negative impact on food security, livelihoods and employment in many ACP countries. Fisheries subsidies in the WTO would in fact constitute a core issue for some of these Members. The Post-Bali Work Programme should include limited disciplines on fisheries subsidies, with a built-in agenda on expanding the scope of such disciplines in the future based on sustainability needs.

9

Improving added value of processed tuna in Mauritius

Devanand Norungee, Ministry of Fisheries, Port Louis, Mauritisu The Republic of Mauritius which includes the islands of Mauritius, Rodrigues, Agalega, St.Brandon , Chagos Archipelago and Tromelin has a vast Maritime zone of about 2.3 million Km2. The Seafood sector which is an economic pillar of Mauritius is being developed further with due respect to sustainability of the fisheries resources and social development. The turnover in the fisheries sector is around Rs 22.6 billion with export of fish and products including re-export amounting to around Rs 13.9 billion in 2014. Export of fish and fish products represents 22 % of the Mauritian export. Per capita consumption of fish is 22.9 kgs. A total of 1067 calls of fishing vessels was registered in 2014 at Port Louis. Mauritian ranked second in terms of EU canned tuna supply and third in terms of tuna loins supply to the EU markets in 2014. The tuna value added processing includes canning, filleting, packaging, loining, vacuum packing and production of ready to eat meals, omega 3 fish oil, fish meals and high graded products such as sashimi. Discussions

During the discussion, the enormous potential of fishing to increase its overall contribution to social and economic development was acknowledged. Fisheries products have become the most valuable natural resource in the framework of international trade. Exports of fish and fisheries and aquaculture products on regional and international markets represent potential source of development. Given the critical importance of the fisheries sector to meet the needs of developing countries to alleviate poverty, provide guaranteed livelihoods, and food security, in the context of Doha Development Agenda (DDA), the negotiations on rules for fishing subsidies are a key element for ACP countries. The development of value chains for fisheries products should be encouraged. For example, the tuna industry in Mauritius and the UNIDO initiatives have generated many jobs particularly for women and young people. Fisheries and aquaculture make a considerable contribution to job creation, increased revenue and food security, which are essential to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG).

4. Session 3, Progress report and Roadmap for Topic 3: Food security Contextual introduction

Pierre Failler, University of Portsmouth, UK and Hachim El Ayoubi, Fishery Ministry, Morocco, on behalf of the ACP Secretariat, Brussels, Belgium According to the FAO, in the next decade, fish consumption per capita will increase across all the continents except for Africa (10% decrease due to an increase in population that is higher than the increase in fish supplies), with the highest rate increase coming from Asia (+14 %). In the ACP countries, fish consumption per capita will continue to be significant although it will vary from one country to the other. For PFR 9, Planning for food security, the collection and evaluation of data relating to the availability /supplies in terms of quality, price of fish and fishery products (derived from fishing and aquaculture/marine culture) on local markets in ACP countries, are carried out in a partial manner and do not cover all the aspects required for planning. For the PFR 10, Artisanal fishing, countries have very little interest in continental fishing and aquaculture. For PFR 11, Developing local business to support food security, efforts are on-going to support the development of infrastructures for storage, transport and processing. 10

The role of fishery for food security

Mark Prein, GIZ, Bonn, Germany Fisheries providing significant amounts of animal protein, fatty acids and essential micronutrients to consumers in ACP countries, notably the population living along coastal areas and inland water bodies who are accustomed to consuming fish and other seafood products. Capture fisheries, either artisanal or commercial-industrial provide the majority of fish for consumers in developing countries, and will continue to do so in the future. To an increasing extent aquaculture is contributing to global fish supply, with significant contributions to food-fish security in many developing countries. This presentation gives an overview of the issues, presents some examples of successful initiatives from development cooperation in fisheries and aquaculture, and provides an outlook for future developments in the sector. The Madagascar experience

Sambany Ruffin, Partnership & Sustainable development, Ministry of Marine Resources and Fisheries, Antananarivo, Madagascar The Rome Declaration on World Food Security, the 2012-2016 strategic action plan for ACP countries and the African Union’s commitment to “Eliminate/reduce hunger by 2025” all serve as a basis for our country’s actions. Protecting marine ecosystems and improving the management of continental water bodies by setting up fisheries reserves, locally managed by the fishing communities, have all been achieved. The farming of Tilapia, rice, fish, seaweed and sea cucumbers, as well as management of the associated breeding activities, has been promoted. People have been trained through capacity-building exercises to reduce post-harvest losses and to help to conserve products, and regional players have received technical analysis training. Finally, in addition to the requirement to offload by-catch, there is a need to build infrastructure with high economic and social potential, such as wharfs, to improve food safety. Experience of the Cook Islands

Ben Ponia, Secretary for Marine Resources, Avarua, Cook Islands Presentation not given. Discussions

As the fisheries sector is fast becoming an important contributor to food security in ACP countries, more attention should be paid to the development of the sector. Due to the adverse impact of climate change on fisheries development, consideration should be given to “smart fisheries” management as is the case of “smart agriculture” in ACP countries to enhance sustainable production in the fisheries sector. Similarly, sustainable management of the resource is vital for the fisheries sector to upscale its contribution to food security. In that regard, capacity building assistance and technical assistance need to be provided to the ACP countries. There is the need to address the challenges of pollution in terms of effluent discharge and chemical use. In other respects, the co-management approach of fisheries resources is key to enhancing productivity, and Government at various levels should provide support to fisheries in terms of inputs and financial assistance. 11

A major challenge to the fisheries sector is the importation of cheaper fisheries products which is a threat to local production. A few ACP countries have taken steps to curb this phenomenon and others were urged to learn from their lessons.

5. Session 4, Progress report and Roadmap for Topic 4: Development of aquaculture Contextual introduction

Pierre Failler, University of Portsmouth, UK and Hachim El Ayoubi, Fishery Ministry, Morocco, on behalf of the ACP Secretariat, Brussels, Belgium Total production for the ACP Region, as a whole, represents less than 1% of global aquaculture production while Asian countries are the ones that have experienced the most pronounced change in production. All the same, ACP countries have made significant progress in promoting aquaculture but with varying levels of development depending on investments and the capacities of each country and institution from the commercial stage of development to the initial stage of growth. For PFR 12, Planning aquaculture, several ACP countries have made progress in the development of commercial aquaculture (especially fish farming) and other countries can capitalise on their success. For PFR 13, Infrastructure and technical support, it is worth noting that the infrastructure for access routes to aquaculture production zones in rural areas is very poor. For PFR 14, Developing markets, the sector is relatively under-developed in ACP institutions. Development of aquaculture challenges: Technology transfer

Jiansan Jia, Fisheries and Aquaculture Resources Use and Conservation Division, FAO, Rome, Italy Aquaculture sector has been continuously to be the fastest growing food producing sector in the world since 1990s. Aquaculture now accounts for half of the world’s food fish production and is set to overtake capture fisheries as a source of food fish supply. It is poised to meet the growing global demand for nutritious food fish and to contribute to the growth of national economies, while supporting to sustainable livelihoods of many communities. However, the growth patterns in aquaculture production are not uniform among the regions. More attention should be given to the aquaculturally less developed countries through technology transfer to make the sector growing more evenly in geographical terms and this would require more support, both human and financial resources wise, in particular, to the ACP group countries. The continuity of the fast growing of the sector will only be possible if the sector's socio-economic benefits accrue to a larger social spectrum, making this a real challenge for the politicians and policy makers. FAO has been working with its members through south-south cooperation in capacity development in developing countries in the field of fisheries and aquaculture. The programme has worked with more than 20 countries, of which, many are in the ACP group, and provided technical assistance in fisheries and aquaculture development. In aquaculture alone, nearly 200 experts have been fielded and more than 2000 personnel attended aquaculture capacity development trainings in other aquaculture advanced countries under the programme. FAO is committed to assist and willing to continue its efforts in promoting technology transfers and provides technical support in capacity building through its S-S cooperation programme.

12

Development of aquaculture in Nigeria

Abiodun O. Cheke, Federal Department of Fisheries, Abuja, Nigeria Nigeria meets only 30% of Domestic demand for fish, with aquaculture contributing less than 30% of the domestic production. By providing opportunities for import substitution and export of fish and other aquatic products, aquaculture development can also improve Nigeria’s balance of trade, likewise, the generation of employment along the value chain; on-farm and in service industries such as processing, marketing and input supplies, can provide employment opportunities increase income and reduce poverty. Notable achievement in the Nigeria aquaculture sector include the establishment of 64 Fish Farm Estate, creation of over 36,000 direct jobs and 183,615 indirect jobs; intensification of the fish value – chains, creation of more model markets amongst others. Constraints to aquaculture development in the Caribbean region

Milton Haughton, Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism, Belize City, Belize The aquaculture and fisheries sector makes important contributions to the economic and social development of CARIFORUM States in terms of food supply and food and nutrition security, employment generation, foreign currency earnings. This presentation provides an overview of aquaculture development in the Caribbean ACP States (CARIFORUM) with a view towards promoting the expansion of sustainable aquaculture. It considers the current state and trends in aquaculture production, the legal and policy frameworks and the main constraints to aquaculture development. It also provides an overview of the opportunities and investments required for sustainable development of the sector Discussions

During the discussion, the issue of finance and risk insurance was identified as essential in supporting aquaculture development. Technical assistance in terms of capacity building will be required by most ACP countries to facilitate aquaculture development. Although technology transfer is crucial to aquaculture, it usually takes a while for technology to be adopted. Sharing experiences and good practices among ACP member states will complement technology transfer. South-south cooperation is equally imperative for aquaculture development. Within the framework of the ACP-EU partnership, priority should be accorded institutional and national capacity building in aquaculture. The ACP Secretariat should assist in mobilising resources, sharing of information and articulating priority areas for intervention regarding fisheries and aquaculture. Mobilisation of youth and women should be encouraged to play a role in aquaculture development. Strengthening and support of regional aquaculture networks such as the Aquaculture Network for Africa will enhance capacity and the sharing of best practices in aquaculture development.

13

6. Session 5, Progress report and Roadmap for Topic 5: Protection of the marine environment Contextual introduction

Pierre Failler, University of Portsmouth, UK and Hachim El Ayoubi, Fishery Ministry, Morocco, on behalf of the ACP Secretariat, Brussels, Belgium The Context relates to a coastal and marine environment that is continuing to deteriorate (land-sea pollution for island states, overfishing, etc). Nonetheless, there are a few noteworthy regional initiatives designed to improve the health of coastal and marine ecosystems. For PFR 15, Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries management, is at an initial stage despite some attempts. For PFR 16, Management of coastal areas, the problem of resolving land-sea interactions persists. For PFR 17, Analysis of the environmental impact, there has been hardly any change owing to the lack of technical capacities. For PFR 18, Global environmental changes, at this point in time, the effects of the climate on fisheries are only and partially taken into account in national plans for climate change adjustments and the mitigation of the effects. Protection of the marine environment Challenges: Ecosystem management

Mohamed Seisay, Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), Nairobi, Kenya Presentation not given. Benefits of protected marine areas for fisheries in the West Africa

Paul Silaï Tendeng, RAMPAO, Dakar, Senegal The West Africa ecoregion is characterized by considerable fisheries due to the presence of upwelling ecosystems, of mangrove estuaries and rocky coast. But resources are today heavily fished by artisanal fisheries industrial and INN. Faced this vulnerability, Marine Protected Areas in West Africa offer solutions that promote an increase in exploitable biomass, greater stability of recruitment related to the protection reproductive or export of larvae, eggs and juveniles that promote regeneration of fishing grounds, the establishment of a security biomass, species protection of fragile fishing interests (low fertility), but also to protect the rights of traditional use and cultural practices. The National Park Banc d'Arguin (Mauritania), is an example of success in the Regional Network of Marine Protected Areas in West Africa and a model for other protected areas of resource management network fisheries and protection of the rights of traditional uses of Inmagen. Also, Kawawana Aboriginal community of protected area (Senegal) and Uruk community marine protected area (Guinea-Bissau) are examples of co-management offers many benefits to fishing communities. Discussions

Protected marine areas (PMA) play an important role in the management of fishery resources through monitoring, co-management, inclusion of traditional practices, protecting habitats and species and monitoring fishery resources. Allowing local populations to be involved in managing MPAs through co-management provides enhanced protection for fishery resources as their involvement makes the management process more effective. It should be noted that traditional knowledge, cultural practices and sacred sites are all involved in the management of the MPAs as local populations often respect the traditional rules that they apply. 14

Monitoring is essential to protecting fishery resources. When managed in close collaboration with State authorities and local populations, it helps to reduce the pressure of small-scale and industrial fishing. The system helps to increase the protection of key habitats [coral reefs, seagrass beds, estuaries, seamounts and endangered species (groupers, sharks, etc.)] against bottom trawling. Preserving the marine ecosystem is therefore vital for the survival of species. The effective implementation of this experiment requires close collaboration between the primary stakeholders. Its sustainability and extension to other ACP regions requires continuous support through the setting-up of a sustainable financing mechanism. It opens up opportunities for research and monitoring of fishery resources.

7. Session 6, Articulation between the various strategic plans and synergies with major projects Contextual introduction

Pierre Failler, University of Portsmouth, UK and Hachim El Ayoubi, Fishery Ministry, Morocco, on behalf of the ACP Secretariat, Brussels, Belgium The context is one in which regional action plans are developed, each incorporating the specific features of the countries concerned, but with very few linkages between regions. Nonetheless, all the regional plans reflect the main ideas of the ACP Strategic Action Plan (ACP-SAP). Strategic plan for tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean

Rondolph Payet, IOTC, Victoria, Seychelles The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission is an FAO (UN) autonomous regional fisheries management body, comprised of 31 members and four non-Contracting Parties, of which 14 are from the ACP group. The IOTC is mandated to management the tuna and tuna-likes species of the Indian Ocean. The Strategic objectives of the IOTC are enshrined in the establishing Agreement and focuses on four core areas, management, conservation, optimum utilization and sustainable development of the Indian Ocean tuna resources. The strategic focus are discussed along the lines of science and stocks assessment, compliance, management measures, biodiversity, and precautionary approach. The presentation also considers the challenges ahead in the implementation of the strategic objectives and how to ensure an effective organisation. Strategic plan for fisheries and aquaculture in Africa, AU-IBAR

Simplice Nouala, Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), Nairobi, Kenya The Policy Framework and the Reform Strategy for fisheries and aquaculture in Africa is the product of a broad and inclusive, participatory and transparent, interactive process that identified the following seven policy objectives as critical to Africa’s fisheries development: Enhancing conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources ; development of sustainable small-scale fisheries; realizing the full potential of the aquaculture sector ;Promoting responsible and equitable fish trade and marketing ;Strengthening regional cooperation, and coordination; creating awareness on the potential and importance of the sector, based on current and emerging trends, increasing and consolidating the “African Voice” in the governance and management of high seas fisheries The Policy Framework lays down the guiding principles for effecting appropriate 15

reforms whilst the Reform Strategy suggests action steps that could be applied in the sector. It offers Africa the opportunity to transition its fisheries to productivity, sustainability and profitability with options for enhanced regional collaborative management of shared resources. it will enable African governments to develop appropriate fisheries-exploitation arrangements and aquaculture, with accompanied fiscal reforms that should result in the sustainable generation of benefits at the community level as well as creating wealth throughout the value chain. Strategic plan for fisheries and aquaculture in the Caribbean

Milton Haughton, Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM), Belize City, Belize This presentation provides an overview of the CRFM Strategic Plan, 2013 -2021, which sets out the objectives, principles and priority programmes being pursued by the 17 Member States and partners of the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism to transform and ensure proper management and sustainable development of the fisheries and aquaculture potential of the Caribbean region. The Plan was approved by the Seventh Meeting of the CRFM Ministerial Council in May 2013. The three strategic goals are: 1)Sustainable management and utilization of fisheries and aquaculture resources in the Caribbean region for the benefit of future generations; 2) Improve the welfare and sustainable livelihoods of fishing and aquaculture communities in the Caribbean region, by providing income and employment opportunities in fisheries and aquaculture sectors; and 3)Ensure the Caribbean population has, at all time, sufficient safe and nutritious fish that meets the dietary requirements and is needed for an active and healthy life. This Strategic Plan is being implementation though biennial work plans of CRFM during the period, 2014-2021. Strategic plan for fisheries and aquaculture in the Pacific

Mike Batty, Fishery Forum Agency (FFA), Honiara, Salomon Islands The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency exists to drive regional cooperation so as to maximize economic and social benefits from the sustainable use of offshore (tuna) fisheries resources. Its membership comprises 17 coastal states in the Western and Central Pacific, including 14 of the 15 P- ACP states. FFA works closely with other agencies involved in fisheries issues. FFA Fisheries Ministers recently approved a new ‘Regional Roadmap for Sustainable Pacific Fisheries’ which establishes clear and measurable goals for both oceanic and coastal fisheries for the next ten years. These are in the areas of: sustainability; value; employment; food security; empowerment; resilience and livelihoods. Eleven strategic actions are identified to strengthen the control of coastal states over the management and development of offshore fisheries and to build systems of communitybased management for coastal resources. Discussions

The discussions suggested the organisation of meetings to exchange views, synchronize and consolidate the various existing plans for the sake of coherence and ease of implementation. Collaboration with international organisations such as the FAO and CTA could assist in the coordination process for the implementation of the ACP Strategic Action Plan. Some coherence was observed between the ACP strategic plan and the regional plans. On the implementation of the plans, there was consensus on the need for a follow-up programme to the ACP Fish II programme, possibly an ACP Fish III which could assist 16

ACP member states in the implementation of the strategic plan. Area of intervention in this regard could include aquaculture and capacity building on fisheries management issues. Such programme should be structured for implementation at regional levels for better coordination and effectiveness. On resources mobilisation, the representative of the European Commission’s DG Mare informed participants that the Directorate was trying to ensure that all ACP regions include fisheries in their Regional Indicative Programmes (RIPs) of the 11th EDF. Three regions were currently moving in that direction, namely West Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The regions were also advised to explore other European Union instruments to finance their fisheries plans, since DG Mare resources are limited.

8. Recommendations I.

Technical and financial assistance should be mobilised by development partners to assist ACP Members to fight IUU fishing at national, regional and global levels and to support institutional (adoption of international instruments, review of the fish or marine laws) and technical aspects (equipment, Vessel Monitoring System, capacity building for fishery observers).

II.

Strengthen South-South and Triangular cooperation in terms of sharing experiences and strengthening capacity building and jointly work with agencies such as FAO in South-South cooperation programmes in ACP countries.

III.

ACP countries should encourage value addition to fisheries products in order to generate employment and improve livelihoods by involving private sector and NGO’s.

IV.

There is a need to strengthen rules on fisheries subsidies including prohibition of certain forms of subsidies that contribute to overcapacities and overfishing.

V.

Co-management approaches should be adopted in the management of fisheries resources with the aim of enhancing productivity in the sector.

VI.

The ACP Group should adopt adequate measures that will minimize the importation of fisheries products which represent a threat to local production.

VII.

Incorporate into national development plans and fisheries policies and programmes, in particular, measures to combat the adverse effects of climate change and climate variability in order to contribute to ensuring food security in ACP countries.

VIII. Finance and risk insurance should be adequately taken into consideration while formulating fisheries and aquaculture policies in ACP countries. IX.

Within the framework of the ACP-EU partnership, priority should be accorded to the development of aquaculture.

X.

Strengthening and supporting regional aquaculture networks, such as the Aquaculture Network for Africa, should be encouraged.

XI.

Collaboration with international organisations such as the FAO, CTA and UNIDO could assist in the coordination process for the implementation of the strategic plan.

17

9. Road map Assessment of the progress achieved since 2012 on the implementation of the various actions of the 2012-2016 Strategic Plan of Action for fisheries and aquaculture has led to the proposal of the following road map with an extension of the timeframe for actions considered priorities.

18

Road map for the implementation of the ACP Strategic Action Plan for Fisheries and Aquaculture Note:

1. ACP countries have primary responsibility for the implementation of all actions outlined in the Road Map. 2. The ACP Secretariat will coordinate the implementation of the road map and submit a yearly report to the ACP Fisheries Mechanism in addition to other specific tasks assigned in the framework of priority actions. 3. Indicators defined in the ACP Strategic Action Plan for Fisheries and Aquaculture remain applicable for the proposed road map.

Priority fields of results (PFR)

Progress and achievements

Priority actions

Timeline

Partners for implementation

Strategic priority 1: Effective management for sustainable fisheries PFR 1: National management frameworks

Some management frameworks have been updated since 2012

PFR 2: Coping with the main threats to sustainable management of fisheries

Very few countries have adequate controls on fishing activities and capacity. The majority of ACP countries remain challenged by IUU fishing.

PFR 3: Complying with international recommendations, agreements and guidelines

Most countries have legal frameworks compliant with international agreements and guidelines

Update the management frameworks for all ACP countries To involve fishing communities, fishermen and processors in sustainable fisheries management through sustained public education, sensitization, meetings, etc. Develop as necessary and Implement national monitoring, control and surveillance plans in all ACP countries

Harmonise the legal and policy frameworks of the remaining countries

2015-2017

FAO , EU

2015-17

RFOs/ RFMOs FAO, EU, development partners

2015-2017

FAO, EU

19

Priority fields of results (PFR) PFR 4: Regional cooperation and partnerships

Progress and achievements The regional integration mechanisms should be strengthened and supported

Priority actions

Timeline

Enhance regional cooperation through inter alia South-South cooperation, notably in relation to the success achieved, and create synergies among the various strategic frameworks.

2016-2018

Partners for implementation REIOs, RFOs and, AU IBAR, EU

Strategic priority 2: Promoting optimal return on trade in fishery products PFR 5: Market Access

Signing of the EPAs guarantees access to the EU market for ACP fishery products. Negotiations at the WTO are ongoing.

Enhance the competitiveness of ACP countries.

2016-2018

ACP Sec., UNIDO, Development partners

2016

FAO, EU, UNIDO

Ongoing action

AU - IBAR EU

2016-2019

ACP Sec RFO, FAO, UNIDO

Defend the ACP position at the WTO negotiations. Improve market access for ACP processed fish products by introducing, among others, more flexible rules of origin

PFR 6: Overcoming technical barriers

Generally, compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary measures and anti-IUU fishing measures is improving

PFR 7: Coping with the main external causes of value losses

Piracy has been stemmed in the Indian Ocean but remains a treat in the Gulf of Guinea

PFR 8: Adding value for ACP countries

Very little value added for both export goods and those consumed locally

Formulate and implement national plans and build capacities to combat IUU fishing Build capacities regarding SPS measures and develop regional centres of expertise (laboratories) Combat piracy in ACP countries

Improve the value of fish and fish product storage and processing methods.

20

Priority fields of results (PFR)

Progress and achievements

Priority actions

Timeline

Partners for implementation

Strategic priority 3: Supporting food security PFR 9: Planning for food security

Fisheries and aquaculture are sometimes not adequately taken into account in national food security strategies

PFR 10: Small-scale fishing

Small-scale fishing seems to have developed to the point where there is a need to better organise the sector

Formulate food and nutrition security policies that take into account the future needs of populations and the contribution of the fisheries sector to the national economy Guarantee sustainable access rights for small-scale fishermen to resources and markets and better organise the sector to rationalize the use of resources

Progress and achievements

Empower women in the post-harvest subsector of fisheries and aquaculture through improved technologies and loans for value-addition, with a view to generating employment and income. Priority actions

Priority fields of results (PFR)

PFR 11: Developing local businesses

Too few states have developed transport and communications infrastructure and their business environment

Develop a favourable business environment to attract national and international investment

2015-2016

FAO development partners

2016-2018

FAO, EU development partners

Timeline

Partners for implementation

2016-2019

EU, development partners

2016

FAO, RFOs, EU

Strategic priority 4: Developing aquaculture PFR 12: Planning of aquaculture

Only a few states have an aquaculture development plan

Create aquaculture development plans for all ACP countries

21

Priority fields of results (PFR) PFR 13: Infrastructure and technical support

PFR 14: Developing markets

Progress and achievements

Priority actions

States are still not sufficiently committed to developing structural support for the development of aquaculture (training, research, infrastructure, communications, loans, insurance, etc.)

Strengthen South-South synergies among countries and highlight sustainable successes

Aquaculture in ACP countries essentially targets domestic markets and a few niche export markets

Develop regional and international niche markets by promoting product quality (especially pollution-free)

Timeline

Partners for implementation

2016-2020

FAO, development partners

2016-20

Regional Economic Organisations UNIDO, development partners

Build regional capacities in training and research

Strategic priority 5: Safeguarding the environment PFR 15: Approach to fishery management based on ecosystems

The ecosystem approach has not yet been implemented in most countries

Build capacities and implement pilot projects

2018-2020

RFO FAO, EU

PFR 16: Management of coastal areas

Management of coastal areas and of biodiversity, in particular, is done by setting up marine protected areas, but land pollution is hardly taken into account Too few holistic environmental studies conducted (except in the case of oil discoveries)

Develop the management of coastal areas using a catchment area as a frame of reference

2017-2020

UNEP FAO, development partners

Develop holistic approaches to assess ecosystem services provided by coastal and marine ecosystems

2015-2018

UNEP, development partners

Climate change is barely taken into account with regard to the future of fisheries and aquaculture

Create a frame of reference to ensure that climate change is taken into account as well as other factors such as alien and invasive species.

2016-2020

RFO, FAO, UNEP, UNIDO UNFCCC, UNDP and other development partners

PFR 17: Environmental impact analysis

PFR 18: Environmental changes on a global scale

22

Ministerial meeting The opening session has been introduced by welcome remarks by ACP Secretary General, H.E. Dr. Patrick I. Gomes followed by the opening statement by the Chair of the Ministerial Meeting, S. E. M. Hanno B. Rumpf, Ambassador of the Republic of Namibia at Brussels. A panel discussions with invited guests followed the opening session. Introductory speech was given by Mr. Fernando Frutuoso de Melo, Director-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO), European Commission followed by a keynote speech by Mr. Stefaan Depypere, Director of International affairs and markets, DirectorateGeneral for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the European Commission (DG MARE), European Commission. Exchange of views with Ministers accompanied the presentations.

10.

Resolution RESOLUTION OF THE 4th MEETING OF ACP MINISTERS IN CHARGE OF FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE

The ACP Ministers in charge of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Meeting in Brussels, Belgium, from 22 to 23 July 2015, A. reaffirming their commitment to the provisions of the Georgetown Agreement, in particular to the objectives of coordinating the activities of the ACP Group, and promoting and strengthening unity and solidarity among ACP States; B. considering the Cotonou Agreement, specifically Article 23A (as amended in June 2010), which recognizes the key role that fisheries and aquaculture play in the social and economic development of ACP States, through their current and potential contribution to job creation, revenue generation, and food and nutrition security which are all crucial to the attainment of the forthcoming Sustainable Development Goals, specifically the proposed goal 14 on conservation and sustainable use of the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development; C. reaffirming the recommendations of the 3rd Meeting of ACP Ministers Responsible for Fisheries, held in Fiji in 2012; D. noting that many of the key threats to fisheries, such as piracy and Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing remain unresolved; E. noting that despite the increasing effort to address IUU fishing, it remains a major problem that undermines good governance and sustainability and causes considerable loss of socio-economic benefits to ACP countries; F. acknowledging that adequate governance is an essential prerequisite for the sustainability of fish stocks, the protection of the ecosystems and to guaranteeing the benefits derived from both fisheries and aquaculture ;

G. aware that there is increasing pressure on fish stocks due to a range of factors including population growth, market demands, inadequate governance and management of fisheries, the impact of climate change, and IUU fishing; H. stressing the need for accurate and reliable information on fish stocks with a view to ensuring better management, conservation and sustainability of such resources; I. aware that there a r e opportunities for value addition in ACP fishery and aquaculture sectors b y focusing on local industry development, and decent job creation, specifically for women and youth; J. highlighting that ACP countries share common interests with respect to fisheries and aquaculture, which could benefit from intra-ACP coordination and shared approaches to fisheries and aquaculture development and market access; K. supporting the work of ACP regional integration organizations and regional fisheries bodies in advancing the sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture; L. recognizing the need for effective partnerships and networks to achieve development objectives for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors; M. seeking to enhance the ACP Fisheries Mechanism so that it works effectively in support of the ACP fisheries and aquaculture sectors ; N. highlighting the major role of the ACP Secretariat in the operationalisation of the ACP Fisheries Mechanism as well as the conservation and development of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in the ACP countries; Have agreed to: 1. Adopt the Roadmap (attached) for the continued implementation of the ACP Fisheries Mechanism's Strategic Plan of Action for Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012 – 2016 adopted in Nadi, Fiji in 2012; 2. Mandate the ACP Fisheries Mechanism, in the wider context of sustainable management of oceans, seas, fishery and aquaculture to: i. ii. iii. iv.

renew the Strategic Plan of Action for the period 2016-2020; develop and implement a communication strategy to enhance its effectiveness and visibility; develop sustainable financing options and mechanisms to implement the Roadmap of the Strategic Plan of Action 2016-2020; and identify and facilitate programmes and projects aligned with the priorities and actions identified in the Roadmap;

3. Urge ACP States to implement the Roadmap of the Strategic Plan of Actions in accordance with their capacity and circumstances; 4. Welcome new opportunities for funding and technical cooperation through partners such as the EU, the World Bank, FAO, UNIDO, IFAD and the Global Environment Facility; 24

5. Urge ACP States to provide an enabling environment to realize the potential for increased aquaculture production; 6. Encourage ACP States to: i. ii.

strengthen South-South cooperation partnerships to support fisheries and aquaculture to supplement the work of traditional development partners; and to implement efficient fish stock assessment process and monitoring, control and surveillance systems, and to facilitate capacity-building programmes;

7. Urge the ACP Mechanism on Fisheries and Aquaculture to consolidate its partnership with existing mechanisms on fisheries and aquaculture, with a view to strengthening the coordination and coherence of the interventions within the Blue Economy Framework for the sustainable development of the fisheries and aquaculture sector in ACP States; 8. Support the need for a follow-up to the ACP Fish-II programme in order to address aquaculture development and improve fishery management in ACP countries; 9. Commends the ACP Secretariat for its support to the ACP Fisheries Mechanism and calls on it to closely monitor the execution of the ACP Roadmap for the implementation of the Strategic Plan of Action for Fisheries and Aquaculture. Done in Brussels, 23 July 2015

25

11.

Press release

4th Meeting of Ministers in charge of Fisheries and Aquaculture of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States Press release The 4th meeting of ACP Ministers in charge of Fisheries and Aquaculture was held at ACP House in Brussels (Belgium), from 20 to 23 July 2015. It provided an opportunity for the Ministers to take stock of progress made in implementing the Strategic Action Plan for Fisheries and Aquaculture, which was adopted in Nadi, Fiji in 2012, and to agree on the way forward to ensure the sustainability of aquatic resources with a view to wealth creation and development. In that regard, the Ministers adopted a roadmap for the implementation of the strategic action plan. They called for close collaboration with the technical partners, as well as adequate financial resources to ensure effective implementation. Given the negative impact of climate change on the fisheries sector, the Ministers called specifically on the international community to agree to outline concrete, ambitious actions during the 21st United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21), which is scheduled to take place in Paris from 30 November to 11 December 2015. Given the persistence of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and piracy, the ACP Ministers called on the international community to provide financial and technical support for the efforts made at the national and regional level, to curb and eradicate these two extremely serious problems. The Ministers recommended developing aquaculture, the economic development of the fisheries sector and the preservation of aquatic biodiversity. They agreed to implement plans for the development of aquaculture and appropriate fisheries management measures in compliance with international agreements. The Ministers also stressed the need for coherence and appropriate policies among subregional and regional organisations. Support will be required from regional economic integration organisations and subregional fisheries organisations to achieve this aim. The Ministers directed the ACP Secretariat to obtain technical assistance and financial support from the European Union and other development partners to strengthen ACP fisheries sectors and their national health and food security agencies to enable them to comply with increasingly stringent health requirements. The Ministers also agreed that the European Union should accompany the ACP fisheries and aquaculture sector, through appropriate measures, to cope with the erosion of preferential tariffs, and to support the ACP Position in the WTO negotiations. At the end of their deliberations, the Ministers thanked the technical partners for their support for the actions undertaken in the fisheries and aquaculture sector in ACP countries, and expressed their sincere gratitude to the ACP Secretariat for the calibre of the meeting.

26

Annex 1 Background document

27

Groupe des États d’Afrique des Caraïbes et du Pacifique (Groupe ACP)

African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP Group)

Avenue Georges Henri, 451

Tel: +32 2 743.06.00

1200 Bruxelles, Belgique

Fax:+32 2 735.55.73

http://www.acp.int

Email: [email protected]

Brussels, 4 July 2014

ACP/84/031/12 Rev. 5 DDEDC/PF/fk

Presentation of the fishery and aquaculture context in the ACP countries regarding the 5 priorities of the ACP Strategic Plan for Actions for fishing and aquaculture, adopted at the ministerial meeting in Nadi in June 2012

Final version

Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Session 1: Effective management for sustainable fishing (Strategic priority 1) ........................................ 5 Session 2: Promoting an optimal return for trade in fishing and aquaculture products (Strategic priority 2) .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Session 3: Promoting food security (Strategic Priority 3) ....................................................................... 15 Session 4: Developing aquaculture (Strategic Priority 4) ....................................................................... 18 Session 5: Safeguarding the environment (Strategic Priority 5)............................................................. 22 Session 6: Synergies and cooperation .................................................................................................. 27 Assessment of progress made in implementing the ACP Strategic Plan for Actions in fishing and aquaculture, adopted at the ministerial meeting in Nadi in June 2012 ...................................... 33

Context - 2

Introduction According to FAO forecasts, world consumption of fish, which today stands at about 140,000,000 million tonnes should be roughly 200,000,000 tonnes on the 2030 horizon. Industrialized countries whose households have high purchasing power will pull demand upwards, whereas developing and emerging countries will support supply by increasing agricultural production on one hand and, on the other, by catching fish for export. Full exploitation of all stocks of fish and the limited possibilities for expanding aquaculture in Europe, North America and North Asia mean that only countries in South Asia, the Pacific, South America and Africa will be in a position to supply the international market with additional marine products 1. For the States in the ACP Group, the limited development of aquaculture means that demand from international markets will be met by increasing exports of fish from fishing activities, with the following main effects: in the first place, a decrease in domestic supply of fish due to the greater attractiveness of the markets in industrialized countries. Secondly, a decrease in consumption of fish per capita in the ACP Group of States, as a result of the decrease in national supply and the increase in price due to product scarcity. Thirdly, food safety will worsen in many countries whose proteins of animal origin are taken to a large extent from products of the sea. Finally, pressure on fishing will intensify to satisfy demand from export markets. Trade barriers consisting of technical, sanitary and plant health measures or rules of origin, slow down the ambient commercial process without changing the trends. The succession of trade rules create new demands for countries in the ACP Group which have trouble meeting them, while creating distortions of international trade in favour of countries disposing of high technologies to the detriment of those in the industrialization process. The current trend for the erosion of tariff preferences strengthens the competition from Asian countries with regard to West African nations. From the standpoint of fishing activities, IUU is an endemic scourge for small-scale and industrial fisheries in all regions, and particularly in Africa. Illegal small-scale fishing is characterized by the use of non-complying fishing boats and fishing without a permit in the waters of neighbouring countries (particularly Senegal and Ghana). Illegal industrial fishing is characterized by the activity of foreign vessels operating without fishing permits. They catch very large quantities of fish without heeding national regulations (zoning, mesh of nets, etc.). The economic losses caused by illegal industrial fishing are estimated at $1 billion for all the coastal countries in the ACP Group. The initiatives to fight IUU fishing and improve MCS capacities have increased in the last 20 years and are currently intensifying in all ACP regions. The purpose of this document is to take stock of the progress made with regard to the 5 orientations of the ACP Group Strategic Plan for Action for fisheries and aquaculture. An additional chapter is devoted to synergies between SPAs and major support programmes that could considerably improve the situation of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in the ACP States.

The contribution of developing and emerging countries today is respectively 90% for aquaculture and 70% for fishing, as compared to 70% and 50% in 1990. 1

Context - 3

We recall that the six sessions scheduled are: 

Effective management for sustainable fishing (Strategic priority 1)



Session 2: Promoting optimal return to trade in fishing and aquaculture products (Strategic priority 2)



Session 3: Promoting food security (Strategic priority 3)



Session 4: Developing aquaculture (Strategic priority 4)



Session 5: Safeguarding the environment (Strategic priority 5)



Session 6: Synergies and cooperation

Context - 4

Session 1: Effective management for sustainable fishing (Strategic priority 1) The fisheries and aquaculture sector is a source of income and means of subsistence for millions of people in the world. The most recent estimates indicate that 58.3 million people worked in the primary sector of capture fishing and aquaculture in 2012 2. In the ACP countries, fishing activities contributed significantly to creating jobs, generating income and ensuring food security, which are all essential elements for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The ACP States acknowledge in the ACPSPA 3 that there are considerable possibilities for improving the overall contribution of fisheries to social and economic development. Thus, in its action plan, the Group of ACP States has reaffirmed its determination to reinforce the essential role of fishing and aquaculture in their social and economic development. To meet this challenge, the ACP States have set effective management for sustainable fishing as Strategic Priority No.1. The main actions consist of: Giving priority to preserving stocks;  Reinforcing management and governance of fisheries; Coping with the main threats; Cooperation and coordination; International guidelines. Management systems used in ACP countries are mainly based on two types of measures: measures to determine the capacity for fishing and measures to ensure protection of endangered species. Provisions given less importance at the level of ACP countries are those to ensure that the level of fishing is proportional to fish resources and those pertaining to the activity of fishing vessels and safeguarding the marine and coastal ecosystems. Moreover, an analysis of the answers to questionnaires received indicates that the quota management system is applied little by ACP countries given the difficulty of setting it up because of technical and institutional constraints, particularly: conflicts between small-scale and industrial fisheries, allocation of the quota, monitoring, the absence of an adequate management framework. However, certain countries, Namibia and Angola in this case, are making progress by implementing management systems based on quotas for the main commercial stocks. On the whole, and although fishery management systems have been adopted by the ACP countries, in many cases, the level of control in force does not provide cover for the entire national jurisdiction. In fact, for more than half (55%) of respondents, the control measures in force are disproportionate given the amplitude of illegal fishing practices. The monitoring and surveillance equipment, which requires a significant investment in resources and training, constitutes a constraint for many ACP countries. On this issue, the efforts made by Gabon are significant and concern both a global policy specifically for fisheries called Blue-Gabon and the implementation of operational resources for surveillance covering the entire jurisdiction (surveillance centre, VMS system, patrols, etc.).

Report of the 31st session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries on the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture and the progress made in implementing the code of conduct for responsible fishing and related instruments. June 2014 2

3 The ACP Strategic Plan of Action for fisheries and aquaculture (SPA-ACP) adopted in Nadi (Fiji) in 2012 at the 3rd ACP Conference of Ministers responsible for fisheries and aquaculture. 3

Context - 5

As concerns national management frameworks, the assessment of their performance is an important action to be able to propose an effective management system that reflects the real situation and the level of development of the country. According to the World Bank, the situation in the world fishery sector is characterized by poor governance, resulting in fishery overcapacity, overfishing and an enormous loss of wealth. This assessment targets access to knowledge and fundamental data concerning fish stocks and activities, an aptitude to analyze data and to use them in a management system, clear understanding of rights in the fishery field, means to monitor catches and ships, and setting up adequate support systems in the essential field of compliance with regulations (supervision, monitoring and surveillance). The analysis pinpoints two cases, (i) countries that did an assessment of the management framework at the time of the review of the fishing regulations system (case of Benin); (ii) the other countries which have not yet done an assessment because of: on-going implementation of the management plan preventing an evaluation at this point, or because of technical and financial constraints. On the whole, this action is still hampered by technical and financial constraints. In addition, the adoption of effective measures is still broadly thwarted by the difficulty of reviewing the framework of regulations on managing fisheries, as well as the weakness of a low-performance data collection system. As a result, its implementation is limited. As concerns participation of stakeholders in management systems, this is largely the case in ACP countries. Indeed, the countries recognize the advantages of participation of a growing number of players in management systems. However, setting up fishing rights and accountability of all stakeholders still constitutes a long, complex process. Moreover, lack of information and awareness hinder the implementation of this action. Although certain countries have created co-management mechanisms involving professionals, the operation of these structures and the definition of roles are still limited. Important progress has been made in improving governance of fisheries in certain ACP States, and an analysis of the answers received shows considerable generalization of involvement of stakeholders in the management process. The ACP Fish II project which was completed in 2013 had the objective of accompanying the development of rational fishery management measures to ensure a virtuous, efficient economy of the sea. The countries benefiting from this project were able to foster management plans, reinforce management measures and/or develop research and management programmes as well as to draft texts for the application of the framework law on maritime and continental fishing 4. Other initiatives like the Pêche régional en Afrique de l’Ouest (West African Regional Fishing) (PRAO) financed by the World Bank for the benefit of countries in the Sub-Regional Fishing Committee (SRFC) 5 supported actions for participation and accountability of players in the fishery management process. In Senegal, local fishing committees (LFC) actively take part in implementing management measures adopted on a national scale and particularly in promoting actions to reduce overfishing. From the institutional standpoint, government structures responsible for managing fisheries and aquaculture exist in most ACP countries. However, their competence and their capacity or resources are still limited or insufficient, or are attached to a ministerial department with several portfolios (the environment, agriculture, trade). Fishing is then in competition with other sectors, and resources are insufficient to implement efficient fishery management. Efforts made on this issue concern both reinforcement of structures responsible for fisheries and the allocation of human and financial resources to them. Namibia has a governmental structure for this purpose with significant resources and broad competence. 4

For further information http://acpfish2-eu.org

5

http://www.spcsrp.org/

Context - 6

Moreover, and despite membership in regional fishing organizations (ICCAT, IOTC, FFA, CSRP, etc.), the capacities for effective management of shared stocks are not sufficient, that are treated like the stocks of small pelagics in West Africa. Management capacity of shared stocks is still very weak. However, the case of tuna is an exception for many countries which have taken steps to implement specific measures for stocks. As concerns science and data/information, research must cope both with technical and financial institutional problems that most often arise from the lack of capacity to collect the necessary information and develop scientific opinions on the state of stocks and the level of fishery efforts. The measures do not sufficiently integrate small-scale fishing and the various crafts used, nor do they make it possible to control all of the waters in the jurisdiction. In other cases, management plans do not sufficiently correspond to fishing activities in the continental environment. Several countries in the ACP Group have begun to set up an ecosystem approach to fishing (EAP) and particularly have defined monitoring and assessment mechanisms with this in mind. However, implementation of the system continues to suffer from the problem of collecting information and updating national regulations. As concerns compliance with recommendations and international agreements, the Code of Conduct 6 represents the international reference as a tool for formulating fishing policy. Its principles are universal and very largely adopted; the strategic plans of these organizations (CSRP, COREP, CRFM, WECAFC) testify to this – they all base their actions on the Code of Conduct principles. A certain number of key principles of the Code like, for example, managing fisheries based on management plans, the precautionary approach, research on the state of stocks and limiting fishing efforts, are partially implemented in ACP countries, save a few exceptions. The same observation can be made for the international action plans associated with the Code of Conduct, like those pertaining to shark management, fishing capacity, by-catches of seabirds or the fight against IUU fishing. In all, few national action plans have been drafted or implemented. A series of treaties have just been added to the Code including those of the United Nations and FAO on marine fishing. These are notably:  the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 (LOSC);  the 1993 FAO agreement to promote compliance by fishing boats on the high seas with international safeguard and management measures (FAOCA) ;  the 1995 Agreement on relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA), and;  the 2009 FAO agreement on Port State Measures (APSM). The LOSC has been broadly ratified by ACP countries. On the other hand, few ratifications and accessions to the last three treaties can be reported. Some countries, Senegal and Namibia in this case, have ratified the FAOCA and the UNFSA. However, practically all countries are targeted directly by these treaties, either because they operate from industrial ships flying the national flag fishing beyond national waters (Belize, Ghana, Nigeria, Angola, Namibia for example), or because they open their national waters to foreign ships often fishing shared resources managed by RFO such as ICCAT, SEAFO, or IOTC for example, or finally because they have industrial fishing ports where strict control measures are necessary. With regard to the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures of 2009 (APSM) only two countries 7 (Gabon and the Seychelles) in the ACP Group had ratified, approved and accepted it on 13 March 2014. 6

The Code of Conduct was adopted by the FAO Council in 1995 as a voluntary instrument.

7

At that time, only ten Members had adhered to the Port State Agreement. They were: Chili, the European Union, Gabon,

Myanmar, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Seychelles, Sri Lanka and Uruguay.

Context - 7

Despite the importance of fishery potential in ACP countries, management of marine and continental resources is still a challenge to be met. Indeed, fishing activity is threatened by the decline of resources, destructive fishing practices, the difficulty of setting up an effective management system, fishing overcapacity, deterioration of ecosystems, conflicts between various types of fisheries, the difficulty of ensuring control of fishing activities in all waters in the jurisdiction and finally illegal, unregulated and undeclared fishing (IUU). In the field of the fight against IUU, the efforts made are growing. Considered as the main obstacle to rational management, sustainable exploitation and conservation of world fishing 8, it constitutes an endemic scourge particularly in West Africa for small-scale and industrial fisheries. According to expert estimates made in 54 coastal countries and on the high seas, the total value of losses due to illegal, undeclared fishing is between 10 and 23.5 billion dollars per year, which represents between 11 and 26 million tonnes. Illegal small-scale fishing is characterized by the use of non-complying fishing boats and fishing without a license in waters of neighbouring countries. Illegal industrial fishing is characterized by the activity of foreign ships operating without fishing licenses. They catch very large quantities of fish without taking account of national regulations (zoning, mesh of nets, etc.). The economic losses caused by illegal industrial fishing are estimated at $1 billion for all the coastal countries in the ACP Group. So several ACP countries have set up or updated legal and institutional schemes to implement the requirements of the regulation for fighting IUU. 12 ACP countries among those that answered have developed and implemented a SPA-IUU as a guide on the fight of IUU fishing in national and regional plans. On the whole, the international community has been trying to eradicate IUU fishing by means of various measures since this became a major issue on the world agenda about 15 years ago. IUU can be countered technically at four major levels. These are at the coastal State level, the port State level, the flag State level, and the market State level. The last of these is increasingly important, as shown by the new EC IUU regulation that uses potential commercial sanctions to encourage States particularly interested in being recognized as compliant. These levels – coast, port, flag and market – are all covered in the FAO SPA – IUU (2001). The FAO Agreement on Port State Measures (that came into force in 2009) is an attempt to prevent, counter and eliminate IUU fishing. It constitutes a means for ACP countries to give material force to the international actions trying to reduce IUU fishing while contributing to reinforcing management and governance of fisheries at all levels. These two instruments encourage countries to implement measures that prevent IUU fishing vessels from gaining access to ports; to take measures to reinforce MCS in real time and improve awareness of the public of the long-term impacts of IUU. Recently, the 31st meeting of the FAO Fisheries Committee that took place in Rome from 9 to 13 June 2014 adopted voluntary guidelines on improving security of sustainable small-scale fishing, and voluntary guidelines on performance criteria of the flag State. To be effective, however, the countries must develop an implementation strategy for these guidelines, supported by frameworks for public action and judicial and institutional frameworks as well as by operational mechanisms with sufficient human and financial resources. Regulation (EC) No.1005/2008 of 29 September 2008, establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, constitutes an essential component of the scheme of trade between the European Union, the biggest importer of fish in the world, and third countries, particularly the ACP States. 9. A new study entitled "Traceability, Legal Provenance and the EU IUU Regulation", 8

Several studies done in ACP countries underline the risk of this fishing practice. Cf. www.stopillegalfishing.com

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing of 29 September 2008,

9

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:286:0001:0032:FR:PDF

Context - 8

supported by the Stop Illegal Fishing Programme recommends that the EU IUU regulation continue to be the main instrument determining the legal provenance of fish. The implementation of the provisions of Regulation 1005/2008 constitute a challenge for the ACP countries 10 whose institutional, human and material capacities are limited, particularly with regard to safeguard measures and management, the specificity of small-scale fishing and the constraints as concerns the extension of powers (sanction, injunction, declaration of non-cooperating States, establishment of a list of IUU vessels …) to third countries which are not parties to an Agreement 11. The obligations of the Commission with regard to non-cooperating third countries are set down mainly in chapters VI and VII of the IUU Regulation. Article 31 (1) requires the Commission to identify third countries that it considers as non-cooperating in the fight against IUU. A third country can be identified as such if it does not succeed in ensuring its functions as flag State, port State, or market State, and in taking measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. To do so, the Commission services do a risk analysis on third countries based on questions such as alert messages sent by Member States to identify problems with catch certificates from the flag State, failure to comply with RFO rules, volumes of trade flow and the size of the fishing fleet. If a third country 12 is identified as constituting a risk, a letter and a questionnaire are sent to the country concerned so as to start a dialogue to improve common actions in the fight against IUU. If improvements are insufficient or nonexistent, the Commission can decide to initiate a pre-identification process under Article 32 of the IUU Regulation based on notification of the country in question, indicating that it is faced with the possibility of being formally identified as a non-cooperating third state. The IUU Regulation then becomes an instrument for ACP countries that wish to export fishing products in the EU, so that they put appropriate national schemes in place for the implementation, control and application of law on fisheries with regard to their fishing vessels, including the creation of an appropriate mechanism to allow for the issue of Certificates in the format specified in Annex II of the IUU Regulation. In November 2013, the European Commission adopted two decisions 13 against illegal fishing. It identified Belize, Cambodia and Guinea as non-cooperating countries in the fight against illegal fishing, and announced a second series of "yellow cards" addressed to South Korea, Ghana and Curacao. Alongside these important announcements, the Commission also added five countries (Fiji, Panama, Sri Lanka, Togo and Vanuatu) that had received yellow cards in November 2012. Several ACP countries, particularly Zambia, Cameroon, Benin, Djibouti, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritania, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & Grenadines, the Seychelles, Surinam, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago have developed and adopted a national action plan to fight IUU fishing (NAP-IUU). On the whole, the implementation of this NAP-IUU is still partial or not yet effective due to technical and financial constraints. In other cases, the implementation will take a longer time, as is the case in Angola or Belize. Other countries like the Ivory Coast have not yet developed a NAP-IUU or are in the process of developing it like the Dominican Republic. Namibia and the Seychelles have already implemented their action plans. In certain cases like in the Fiji Islands, national legislation did not have the means to fight IUU by national or foreign fleets, but it has now modified its legislation to enable it to improve governance and traceability. Fiji and Vanuatu, two success stories in the fight 10

60 ACP countries export fishing product, whether they come from maritime and continental fishing or from aquaculture

11

FAO reference to IAP – IUU

In December 2012, the EU notified to eight countries, including 4 ACP Members (Belize, Fiji, Guinea and Togo), that they were at risk of being identified as non-cooperating countries in the fight against IUU fishing. The situation has evolved positively for Fiji and Togo.

12

13

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1162_en.htm.

Context - 9

against IUU, illustrate the problem of small territories in managing their EEZ and their fishing fleet (which also includes vessels flying flags of convenience and the need for greater assistance from development partners in supervising their very large exclusive economic zone. (EEZ). Without prejudice to the flag State's role, the voluntary guidelines 14 developed in 2013 in the context of this Agreement for the flag State's conduct, provide a precious tool that enable flag States to better fulfil their obligations and international duties concerning the attribution of their flag to fishing vessels and the control of those vessels. The States can also impose commercial measures, such as prohibition of imports, subject to the condition that the measures in question comply with the obligations of the WTO and adopt laws under which the sale of catches from vessels practicing IUU fishing constitutes an offense. The review of the regulatory framework, particularly to put legislation in compliance, must generally be continued beyond the achievements of the ACP-FISH2 project. Efforts should thus continue to harmonize international approaches in combating IUU fishing by supporting this harmonization and ascertaining that it takes account of specificities. This is particularly true in the case of the proposal supported by the EU to promote an international catch certification system to prove that a fishing product was caught legally – particularly considering the serious capacity constraints encountered by certain island ACP countries to provide this catch certification. The FAO guidelines on the responsibilities of flag States have considerable potential value for ACP countries, whose national authorities often lack the capacity to supervise and control fishing vessels flying the flag. The adoption of these guidelines provides both recommendations and support to all ACP countries in dealing with this problem. On the question of reinforcing research and data collection actions, little progress has been made by ACP countries in recent years. Reinforcement of fish research actions and data collection systems constitute indispensable elements, however, for setting up efficient management systems given the state of fishing resources and capacities. The constraints encountered by ACP countries would require reinforcement of capacities from the institutional, technical and financial standpoints. This necessarily entails reinforcing institutional capacities of research institutes, regular assessments of stocks to support plans to outfit fisheries and finally the development of global strategies integrating all the aspects needed for efficient management, including research on the effects of climate change on fishing and the development of mitigation and resilience programmes. Applying the precautionary approach, as is done in Angola, means for example that catch limits can be established for important fish stocks. Finally, on the issue of reinforcing the RFO, cooperation is needed as a means of support for achieving the objectives of the SPA-ACP. In this light, South-South cooperation appears to be an effective means to be encouraged, given the advantages of the exchange of experience between countries having common problems and complementarities to be realized. The effective implementation of the port State measures, reinforced by the standards and requirements agreed at regional level, can reduce or perturb trade in fishing products caught illegally, which makes it extremely difficult for these operations to remain economically viable.

14 These Guidelines are voluntary. However, certain elements are based on the pertinent rules of international law, particularly those taken from the United Nations Convention of 10 December 1982 on the Law of the Sea. The purpose of these Guidelines is to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, undeclared and unreglemented fishing or related activities supporting this fishing practice thanks to the effective exercise of the flag State's responsibilities and to thus ensure the longterm preservation and exploitation of biological marine resources and marine ecosystems..

Context - 10

Session 2: Promoting an optimal return for trade in fishing and aquaculture products (Strategic priority 2) According to the SPA-APC, promotion of the most profitable trade in fishing and aquaculture products from the economic and social standpoints means improving access to consumer markets, overcoming technical and sanitary constraints and the main external causes that upset the distribution chain, and increasing the value added generated by the fishing and aquaculture sectors. The constraints on access to markets for producers in countries of the ACP Group differ for local and regional export markets, and for export markets to industrialized countries. For the former, the sanitary and administrative constraints are minimal whereas for the second, they are consequential and contribute to structuring distribution chains alongside tariff constraints. Access to international markets is globally regulated by agreements on custom tariffs and trade such as GATT, the WTO and agreements dealing directly with trade in fish products. Among others, these include agreements on Technical Obstacles to Trade (TOT), on Rules of Origin, on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Currently the WTO negotiations concern disciplines on subsidies in the fishing field 15 and access to the market for products for non-agricultural use (AMNA) – the group to which fishing products belong. Developing countries, including the ACP States, request differential treatment on this question to avoid jeopardizing the emergence and development of their fishing sector. From its side, since the 1990s the EU has adopted a series of rules that condition access to its market and a system of recognition of third countries authorized to export 16. Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 of Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 sets specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin 17. The product must come from a fresh fish vessel or a frozen fish vessel approved by the national sanitary authorities (Competent Authority) and have been prepared in an approved establishment. For products imported in the EU, they must have been produced under conditions of hygiene and control "at least equivalent" to those in force in the EU. Alongside these measures concerning public health, since 2002 18 a new framework has been adopted for trade and cooperation in the development field between various regional entities of the ACP Group 19 and the EU – the economic partnership agreements (EPA). The impossibility of concluding an EPA before the deadline of 31 December 2007 led a certain number of countries not belonging to the group of LDCs to make agreements called interim agreements in order to be able to continue to export to the EU with the same advantages as in the past: non-LDC countries had to align to a system of generalized

For the most recent developments: see: http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/is-an-all-or-nothing-wto-fisheriessubsidies-agreement-achievable 15

The list of establishments per third country is available at the internet site of the Directorate General for Health and Consumers– DG SANCO https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sanco/traces/output/non_eu_listsPerActivity_en.htm#.

16

The new sanitary rules, in force since 2005, have now been adopted in the legislative "package" on hygiene of food products: Regulations (EC) No. 178/2002, No. 852/2004, No.853/2004, No. 854/2004, No. 882/2004. It gives more responsibility to private operators who now do their own controls of the application of the hygiene and sanitation rules they must comply with in the distribution chain. This "hygiene" package is accompanied with additional legislative texts such as Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 that sets the rate of histamines authorized in tuna (with or without conservation in brine)..

17

18

In order to comply with the WTO rule on reciprocity in trade before 31 December 2007.

19

Sub-regional entities (ECOWAS, CEAC, ESA, EAC, SADC, Caribbean, Pacific.

Context - 11

preferences (SPG 20) and consequently lose a certain number of customs advantages including dutyand quota-free access. Non LDC tuna-exporting countries like the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Kenya (collectively 21), the Seychelles, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea and Fiji also took steps so as not to be penalized after 1 October 2014 22, particularly in case of the absence of conclusion of a regional EPA in due time, as may be the case for Central Africa (CAEMC), Eastern Africa (EAC) and southeast Africa (ESA); the other regional districts had signed or initialled their EPA 23. Certain interim EPAs enable the countries providing industrial processing of tuna to benefit from a temporary exemption on rules of origin. That is, the EPA now in force in the Seychelles, Mauritius, Madagascar authorized these countries to export 8000 tonnes of preserved tuna and 2000 tonnes of tuna loin to the European market and the Kenya EPA, 2000 tonnes of tuna loin. What is more, these countries, like all countries exporting tuna loin to Europe, can take advantage of another derogation of rules of origin: a quota of 22,000 tonnes of tuna loin can gain access to the European market duty-free for the period 2012-2015. The admissible volume should be increased to 30,000 tonnes as from 2016. Concerning overcoming technical and sanitary constraints for products intended for markets in developed countries, and particularly for those of the EU Member States, only a few countries in the ACP Group show recognized sanitary compliance. Currently 29 countries in the ACP Group have European approval 24 only 10 of which export tuna in the form of preserved tuna or tuna loin 25. Several other countries have expressed their desire to be able to export to the EU, particularly those that have a partnership agreement in the field of fisheries (São-Tomé and Principe and Comoros for example). The public investment is large, however, whether for setting up a certification system or for maintaining it at a satisfactory operational level. Moreover in this type of system, countries must invest continually for the recurrent updating of administrative provisions and competences, and monitoring technologies and sanitary control, particularly in analysis laboratories. Certain countries are considering pooling their technical resources and competences at regional level (Ghana, Togo, Benin for example). Others, in the Pacific, are trying to neutralize their experience (particularly in the context of an association of the tuna industry in the Pacific iles 26) and continuing training, particularly with the help of their support programmes like "DEVFISH2 27". In addition to these purely sanitary and technical requirements, a requirement of good management is included increasingly: thus, to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, undeclared and unregulated fishing The EU's general scheme of tariff preferences (GSP) proposes reductions in custom duty or duty-free access to the Community market for exports of 178 developing countries and territories. The Community scheme gives special advantages to 49 LDC and two countries implementing certain standards in the fields of labour and the environment. The EU grants these preferences without requiring any counterpart from the beneficiary countries. (see.http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2004/march/tradoc_116451.pdf). 20

21

With other member states of the EAC (Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzanie and Uganda).

22

Certain interim EPAs which are not yet included.

23

See the situation on 31 July 2014: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/september/tradoc_144912.pdf

The European system is founded on the appointment of competent authorities, in charge of controlling hygiene and sanitary conditions of supply chains of fishing products to the Community market, based on the equivalence of health conditions and on recognition of the establishments' measures for inspecting the products. This recognition is granted by a decision of the Commission after a visit of the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office. The country is then put on a list of third countries from which imports of fish products are authorized for human consumption. It is then up to the third country to communicate to the Commission for approval the list of its establishments authorized to export. The third country must update this list regularly. 24

25

See the footnote above concerning the list of establishments per third country.

26

http://www.pitia.org/

As the project was implemented by the CPS and the FFA, the information is found on both websites: http://www.spc.int/fame/fr/projets/devfish2?start=20 ; http://www.ffa.int/taxonomy/term/450 27

Context - 12

(IUU), all marine fish products entering EU territory must be accompanied by a catch certificate attesting that the international rules concerning conservation and management of fish resources have been respected. In 2013, Ghana saw several containers returned from European ports for lack of a complying catch certificate. In other words, export countries must now ascertain that the fish exported to the EU was caught under legal conditions 28, meaning conditions other than those that characterize IUU fishing 29. More and more, the general trend is thus to associate trade in fresh products with good management of fisheries. Trade will therefore become increasingly responsible. As concerns controlling the main external causes of loss of value, particularly piracy, major efforts have been made in recent years. Somali piracy in the EEZ of Indian Ocean States and international waters, particularly attacks on tuna vessels, have decreased sharply since the end of 2012 and disappeared in 2014. Geographic and logistic constraints 30 imposed on tuna seiners have greatly reduced their fishing area and their capacity to follow schools of fish. Consequently the fleet lost 25% of its numbers between 2006 and 2012. Long-liners, for their part, have moved to the southeast zone, deserting the northeast zone: the number is more or less stable. Certain countries like the Seychelles, Mauritius and Kenya were considerably disadvantaged by the situation whereas others, like Madagascar and Mozambique, gain a certain advantage from the very southern location of the fleets which consequently use their ports more often. The effects of piracy remain very negative, however 31. In the Golf of Guinea, the coastal States also mobilized, led by the Centre de coordination régionale pour la sécurité maritime de l’Afrique centrale (CRESMAC - Regional Coordination Centre for Maritime Security in Central Africa) 32 to set up an antipiracy plan. Nigerian acts of piracy, formerly limited to attacking oil interests, given reinforcement of the oil industry's capacity for protective intervention, have gradually extended their activities to industrial fishing. As the harmful capacity of Nigerian pirates is still substantial, efforts continue. As concerns improving value added, whether for the tuna industry or for other fisheries, it has been observed that the value added is very small because of limited processing of exported products, significant post-catch losses and the poor quality of processed products intended for national and regional consumption. Indeed, most of the fish caught in the high seas and continental waters is consumed either fresh or processed using traditional methods (salted, dried or smoked). Traditional packaging is privileged when consumption centres are far from the unloading port. Industrial processing, which is little developed, consists for the most part of canning tuna or small pelagics and filleting demersal fish, which is more like packing than processing. While the value of fish depends above all on its natural qualities and its size, the care with which it was caught, and its handling and storage up to the place of consumption is crucial, since it makes the difference between first-choice fish, second-choice fish and downgraded fish not fit for export. The difference in price per tonne between first-choice fish and second-choice fish is nearly €1000 and more 28 The certificate must be remitted to the European authorities several days before the exported product reaches the EU border. It must be validated by the national authority of the fishing vessel. Countries exporting fish must have set up a system enabling them to guarantee that their fishing vessels apply, control and respect the laws pertaining to conservation. They must also do regular inspections to ascertain that the system functions correctly. In order to ensure proper operation of the systems and traceability of all marine fishing products entering the EU territory, third-country fishing vessels are only allowed to unload or transship in certain designated European ports. For more details, see: 29

Seehttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/index_fr.htm

30

Notably the obligation to fish in pairs.

See this study on the tuna fleet in the Indian Ocean done in 2013: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/tuna-western-indian-ocean/index_en.htm

31

32 In keeping with its peacekeeping and security mission, the ECCAS initiated a strategy in October 2009 to secure the Golf of Guinea. This revolves around two aspects: the creation of a body whose role is to pool military and civil competence in member countries, and the creation of "synergy" with the Commission of the Golf of Guinea and ECOWAS.

Context - 13

than €3000 for downgraded fish 33. To illustrate the point, the use in Mauritania of fishing methods that do not promote quality causes an opportunity loss of €80 million, almost the equivalent of the amount of annual exports! This example can be repeated time and again for the other ACP countries. Consequently a large part of the wealth produced naturally by the marine ecosystems is wasted for lack of care. This had no incidence 20 or 30 years ago but today this kind of waste is extremely harmful. The marine ecosystems are damaged by the behaviour of fishing fleets and the tendency of small-scale fishers to try to do "more" whereas "less, but high quality" would provide them with an equivalent sales for two times less fish. This should encourage ACP countries to choose to develop trade based on quality products. For the segments of the fresh, refrigerated and frozen fish market, this quality in itself is value added because the care provided by operators mean sales for a higher price. For European importers, the segment both pays more (particularly due to the risks run) and it is also more promising for the future because of the gradual withdrawal of preserved products from consumption as they are replaced by fresh products or very elaborate ready-to-serve products. 34 In other words, value added does not necessarily correspond to processing of fish. On the subject, eco-certification seems to be a promising way to improve value added of fish and aquaculture products from ACP countries. The FAO has developed standards for this purpose which are the only international reference today, but these norms are rather general and imprecise. In the context of the common organization of the EU market for reforming fish products, a feasibility study will be presented at the end of 2015 to the Parliament and the Council on the possibility of establishing a European eco-label for fish products or defining minimum criteria. Under these circumstances, the EC feasibility study should take account of the possible development of an ISO standard 35 which particularly considers environmental aspects (appropriate management of resources and reduction of impacts on the ecosystems). This will of course result in establishing new requirements concerning traceability, labelling of products, inspection and the related certification process.

33 Failler P. et al. (2006). Évaluation des stocks et aménagement des pêcheries de la ZEE mauritanienne. Report of the 5th IMROP Working Group, Nouadhibou, Mauritania, 7-17 December 2002, United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, 2004, 203 p.

On this subject see et al. (2008). Future prospects for fish and fishery products; 4. Fish consumption in the European Union in 2015 and 2030 - Part 2. Country projections. FAO Fishery circular No. 972/4 Part 2, 400 p.

34

Indeed, if an ISO standard were to be established and to become the reference, certification bodies and distributors promoting ecocertified products would be audited with regard to that standard. Norway, Canada, Malaysia, Mauritius, Spain, Thailand and the United States, as well as professional organizations – mostly French, such as the French tuna seiner organization -- have reacted favourably to the proposal, and Afnor is currently piloting an international initiative with stakeholders to create an ISO standard (ISO standard 19565) which should be published by the end of 2016. It will be voluntarily applicable and define the minimum requirements for certification of sustainable marine fishing products. 35

Context - 14

Session 3: Promoting food security (Strategic Priority 3) According to the SPA-ACP, food security entails drafting plans for future food security in terms of quantity, quality, continuity of supply, availability and price. With this kind of planning, the action plan recommends taking account of demographic evolution and assessing the role of fishing products given the emphasis put on improving management of fishing and the development of aquaculture. The FAO estimates that annual world consumption of fish per capita should rise to 20.7 kg in 2022. Consumption of fish per capita is growing on all continents with the exception of Africa (decrease of 10% due to demographic growth higher than the increase in supply), the highest rate of growth is in Asia (+14%). The increase will be quite low in many developed countries (overall growth of 4% from now until 2022). Developing countries will represent more than 91% of the total increase in fish consumption. Despite that, the annual consumption per capita will remain below that of the most highly developed regions (19.8 kg versus 24.2 kg), although the gap will narrow. So fish contributes greatly to national food self-sufficiency by direct consumption and by trade and exports. In ACP countries, consumption of fish per capita is still high, although it differs from one country to another. In certain Pacific island countries, consumption per capita is higher than 50 kg per year. In the African countries of the ACP Group, fish provides nearly 22% of protein consumption and in West Africa, it is a central element in local economies. Thus the proportion of food proteins derived from fish is extremely high in coastal countries in the zone. In Senegal it represents 47%, 62% in Gambia and 63% in Sierra Leone and Ghana. In planning for food security, collecting and processing data on the availability/supply in terms of quality, the price of fish and fish products (from fishing and aquaculture/mariculture) on local markets of ACP countries is done in a partial way and does not cover all aspects needed for planning. Similarly, in ACP countries, assessments of changes in population and future nutritional needs have not been generalized due to a lack of technical and financial resources. In addition, certain countries that do a primary assessment of apparent needs for fish products every year recognize that greater rigorousness is needed in the method used to evaluate these needs. Indeed, these data are given very little attention, at times for lack of information on their utility as indicated by Benin. Namibia, which is currently doing a census of the population, has planned an assessment of malnutrition and of consumption of fish per capita. Other countries are collecting the information mentioned above but nothing is indicated about the use made of this information or whether it is taken into account in the policy document on fighting food insecurity. Practically all projects set up by ACP countries in the fishing sector target increasing production to contribute to food security, but the usual indicators used to assess these aspects are not known or indicated. Similarly, resources are insufficient to do the follow-up. The analysis done in the ACP-FISH II 36 project for 14 African countries in the ACP Group indicates that these countries in fact have little interest in continental fishing and aquaculture, although these fields are cited in priority in the policies for ensuring food security: most of these countries are confronted with increasingly rare marine fish resources. As concerns the role of small-scale fisheries in food security, the SPA-ACP stresses the need to improve management of stocks of wild species targeted by this practice. However, the strong expansion of small-scale fishing and pressure on coastal resources in ACP countries mean that fishermen rarely have the capacity needed to adopt methods that ensure sustainability and health of Guide d’aide à l’élaboration des d’instruments de politique des pêches, 2012. Programme ACP FISH II – Regional training workshop for developing fishing policy instruents, including working plans.

36

Context - 15

ecosystems. Today, 60% of world ecosystems, including freshwater and fishing resources, are deteriorated or poorly used and the poorest persons will be the first victims of this. To reinforce the role of fishing in food security, the FAO recommends better use and enhanced value of fish by reducing after-catch losses and increasing the proportion of fish used for direct human consumption. Losses after catch due to deterioration represent 10 to 12,000,000 tonnes per year. In addition, according to FAO estimates, 20,000,000 tonnes of fish are thrown back in the sea every year, which is another form of after-catch loss. By transforming resources with little value for trade into products intended for direct human consumption, rather than reducing them into fish meal, food security could be reinforced. As concerns the role of aquaculture in food security, several studies 37 show its importance and its contribution to the benefit of populations whether they are based in coastal zones or in rural zones. Indeed, aquaculture in small-scale, integrated agricultural systems can supply both high-quality animal proteins and other nutriments that can be particularly helpful for nutritionally vulnerable groups. Specifically, aquaculture provides proteins at generally affordable prices for poor and vulnerable communities. It also provides income for women and children by selling the fish produced. Job opportunities are also possible on large operations, in the food supply circuits, marketing circuits and incubation centres. Indirect advantages include an increase in availability of fish on rural and local urban markets and possibly increased household income thanks to the sale of products, as well as an increase in national consumption of the population. Aquaculture can also constitute an opportunity to the benefit of communities that do not have land, by means of raising fish in cages, and cultivating shellfish and algae. Another asset for developing aquaculture with the objective of food security consists of increased development of integrated agriculture and aquaculture systems to increase the effectiveness of the farm and the availability of food products of animal origin. Thus agricultural by-products such as manure from stock raising and crop waste can be used as fertilizer and food for commercial aquaculture on a small, family scale. In addition, raising fish in rice paddies, as is done in Nigeria or in Guinea, contributes both to integrated management of habitats and optimization of crop areas, in addition, the pond water used for fish farms becomes an important resource for irrigating crops, particularly in areas where drought is seasonal. These integrated production systems provide greater availability of food products, optimization of production costs for aquaculture, in particular for foods that constitute a financial constraint, and also a means of reducing seasonal fluctuation of income due to climate contingencies. Several ACP countries have set up development initiatives for extensive family aquaculture, by and large integrated in agricultural production. Thanks to this system of production, it has been possible to triple the number of aquaculture operations as is the case in Benin, Ghana and Nigeria. However, the impact on food security has not been assessed. Nevertheless, to maintain and improve fish production for food security purposes, ACP countries must overcome several obstacles -- the main challenges are (1) deterioration of the condition of aquatic resources and their habitats, (2) competition for resources (3) limited development of aquaculture and (4) institutional and regulatory constraints. In terms of perspectives, the voluntary guidelines for responsible governance 38 of land use applicable to land, fishing and forests in the context of national food security, constitute major progress to guarantee 37

The role of aquaculture in improving food security and nutrition, FAO, 2003

These guidelines were approved in May 2012 by the World Food Security Committee. The Directives on land use schemes, based on key international standards pertaining to human rights, are a powerful instrument for improving living conditions of millions of people. In September 2013, the FAO published the preliminary version of a technical guide to collect opinions on it. This phase for comments is on-going.. 38

Context - 16

sure, fair access to natural resources. These directives target achieving food and nutritional security and ensuring sustainability of the means of existence. They constitute a fundamental basis for ACP countries to guarantee sure access to coastal fish resources and therefore to contribute to food security to the benefit of fishing communities, particularly for vulnerable and marginal groups. They also propose an international framework for implementing fishing rights, which could and should be applied on all scales: local, national and regional. Among the essential elements in this context are partnerships and stakeholder participation, recognition of existing rights, equitable access and reinforcement of capacities. If these Guidelines on land-use schemes (or fishing rights) are to have the expected beneficial effect, the ACP countries must support their application and integration into the principles and standards recommended in fishing policies and management plans. Several ACP countries, for example Cameroon and Benin, have set up a maritime zone of three nautical miles specifically reserved for small-scale fishing in their regulations on fishing practices. However, incursions of industrial fishing in this zone are frequent and the cause of many conflicts between fisheries that put fishermen's security at risk. Moreover, as indicated previously, promoting greater value and processing of resources with low sales value into products intended directly for human consumption, rather than reducing them to fish meal, would also contribute to food security.

Context - 17

Session 4: Developing aquaculture (Strategic Priority 4) Aquaculture production is developing increasingly in the world and, as years go by is becoming a viable alternative to the exhaustion of resources from catching fish. According to the FAO 39, world aquaculture production has reached a new record: in 2012 with the production of 90.4 million tonnes (for a value of US$ 144.4 billion), of which 66.6 million tonnes of fish for consumption and 23.8 million tonnes of algae, and for 2013, estimates are for 70.5 million tonnes and 26.1 million tonnes respectively. The increase in aquaculture production meets a growing demand for fish, but also corresponds to a reduction in catches by industrial and small-scale fishing. However, Asian countries are those where the evolution of aquaculture production is most marked and, using FAO figures, total production of all ACP states represents less than 1% of world aquaculture production. In fact, aquaculture has taken time to develop in most ACP states. One of the reasons for this is that many projects focus on species that are extremely dependent on imported fish food and alevins – like tropical shrimp – intended for international markets and already dominated by a few countries (Southeast Asia, Chile, Norway). In the case of the IACT Pacific project, the type of aquaculture concerned – marine algae and tilapia – is less dependent on fish food 40. A large share of the production is sold on local and regional markets. In this case, aquaculture represents production of essential nutritive elements (proteins, minerals) and consequently contributes to meeting nutritional needs of local populations. However, a certain number of important questions must be answered if sustainable development of aquaculture is to be encouraged. First, many types of aquaculture depend on capture fish for fish meal, the choice of fish species that can use essentially vegetarian food produced on the spot is an important element to ensure long-term viability. Secondly, the fact that fish produced can be sold on local and regional markets can be a positive factor in improving the contribution of fish to food security at local and regional level, and decreasing dependence on international markets where constraints associated with changing standards are increasing. Several studies emphasize the role that aquaculture can play to fill the gap between supply and demand for fish and the potential reduction of pressure exercised on catch fish. According to a World Bank communication 41, aquaculture will certainly dominate the supply of fish of the planet after 2030. This activity will provide nearly two-thirds of world fish production intended for food by 2030, given the stabilization of catches of wild fish and the growing demand on a worldwide scale of an emerging middle class particularly in China.

39

See the FAO report State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2014. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3720f/index.html.

40

In the case of tilapia, fish food is not necessary, but it is often used to speed growth

These projections are some of the main conclusions of the report "Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture", drafted jointly by the World Bank, the FAO and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

41

Context - 18

millions de tonnes et %

Figure 1: projection de la consommation des produits de la mer : pêche et aquaculture Source: Fish to 2030 Report, World Bank

Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Papua New Guinea and Zambia have become major aquaculture producers in recent years with production ranging from small family farms to intensive high-technology systems. However, the sector often encounters problems, among which are poor management practices and environmental risks such as water pollution, propagation of diseases to fish-farm populations, excessive use of antibiotics and harmful effects on biodiversity. In these countries, freshwater fish are farmed with increasing success: Nigeria's modern hatcheries produce more than half a million wels catfish alevins per month, and the country has more than 5000 aquaculture farms. The production of tilapia has also greatly increased, particularly in Zimbabwe and Ghana, and the entire production chain is growing: hatcheries, farms, production of quality fish food, etc. For aquaculture planning, several ACP countries have made significant progress in developing commercial aquaculture (particularly fish farming) and their success can be used elsewhere to the benefit of other ACP countries. The certain countries like Nigeria, Ghana and Zimbabwe, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica and Belize have considerably developed their aquaculture production, to a large extent using freshwater species like tilapia and shrimp as a secondary product. Other countries, specifically Madagascar, have given aquaculture new drive and life thanks to shrimp farming. Namibia has developed mariculture based on farming sea cucumbers, lobster, oysters and shellfish. Development of national aquaculture frameworks in several ACP countries began by defining national fishery and aquaculture management strategies. However, and although frameworks for aquaculture generally are little developed at ACP country level, regulations or tax schemes exist concerning rights to exercise this activity, as is the case in Belize and the Seychelles whose aquaculture development plan is scheduled for 2015. In addition, incentives are used by governments in certain countries like Benin which adopted a framework offering specific conditions for aquacultural investors, such as tax exemption on imports up to nine years for new producers to develop aquaculture. In other cases, the Fishing Code in force does not include specific measures for aquaculture, as is the case in Guinea where this activity is still marginal. However, review of the framework is going forward to take account of these aspects, particularly access to land which is still challenging. On the question of improving infrastructures, several ACP countries stress the poor condition of their roads for gaining access to aquacultural production zones located in rural areas. Currently, large aquacultural farms must integrate the cost of building access roads in their budgets, as is the case in Benin and Nigeria for example. As concerns specific infrastructures for aquacultural activities, these are projects entailing an extensive system of small-scale producers using ponds, at times alongside dams, Context - 19

to produce fish (alevins and fish). Generally, the investments made are limited to the production basin and ponds. In fact, fish food producers in these countries only produce floating rations for fish, and fish food continues to be imported to producing countries (Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal) and in the absence of granular fish food, this represents a high cost for producers and explains the difficulty of having access to a quality, profitable food product. So the progress recorded in terms of developing infrastructures is still limited and there are few achievements at this stage. Namibia is one of the exceptions. Indeed this country has set up an aquaculture Master plan and invested massively in the development of infrastructures such as ponds, reproduction units, fish food factories while encouraging public-private partnerships in aquaculture. The country has also set up a centre of excellence, the Kamutjonga Inland Fisheries Institute (KIFI) that is supported technically and financially by CETMAR, FAO, Cuba and Vietnam. Several technical assistance projects have been carried out in ACP countries. Some of them were done via South-South cooperation with the support of Asian countries (Vietnam, Thailand). Japanese cooperation also is active in several African countries with projects geared mainly to generalizing extensive aquaculture by families. Finally, the ACP Fish project contributed to reinforcing national and regional research strategies by training players in the public and private sector in the aquaculture field and by improving food rations for developing aquaculture in Mozambique. The project also supported institutional aspects by contributing to drafting the aquaculture development strategy particularly in Botswana, and reviewing the national policy in Mali. In 2002, a new project financed by the EU and managed by the FA0 was launched in Uganda, Kenya and Zambia to promote aquaculture as an instrument to fight hunger. This was part of a more general policy targeting aid to low income countries with deficits in the fish sector to develop sustainable aquaculture policies. As concerns developing markets, according to the FAO currently 38% of all fish produced is traded internationally, and more than two thirds of the value of exports of fish products in developing countries are intended for industrialized countries. Although aquaculture plays an increasingly large role in the world trade of fish (about half of the trade), the sector is relatively underdeveloped in ACP regions. Consequently there are still several questions about access to markets that trouble ACP governments, but many potential fields of action could reinforce the contribution of the fishing sector to national economic development. Sub-Saharan Africa, conversely, should see its fish consumption per capita decline by 1% per year from 2010 to 2030. However, given the rapid demographic growth of 2.3% during the same period, total fish consumption in the region will grow by 30%. Depending on the type of aquaculture operation, three types of markets can be identified in the ACP region. Factors such as production costs and the type of fish also determine the destination market 42: 

Access to regional markets is easier for industrial operations that are familiar with distribution and supply circuits. Operations of this kind are limited and are found mainly in Nigeria, Ghana, Benin, Namibia and in Belize. Regional markets, like the ECOWAS, facilitate the development of trade.



Local markets: these are mainly products intended for the national urban or rural market. The rural market constitutes an opportunity to meet the needs of the population and to replace frozen fish.



International export market: tropical shrimp produced in Madagascar and marine algae. The application by the EU of sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) and

Another important aspect in developing the aquaculture market in ACP countries is the growth of the networks in the private sector created via cell telephones and Internet. 42

Context - 20

requirements for the security of food products limits access of aquaculture products from ACP countries to these markets. FAO studies have shown that improving aquaculture production offers considerable physical potential to respond to a rise in demand for fish. A new FAO study shows that aquaculture benefits local communities (REF). Access to land for aquacultural investors is very complex and varies from one country to the next. The lack of clarification of the laws on water and land use in national legislation constitutes a constraint for developing fish farming in cages like in Lake Volta. Indeed, land ownership often represents a major constraint in rural areas. In addition, aquaculture is faced with the question of environmental sustainability -- in an extensive scheme, practiced by small-scale producers, it must deal with issues pertaining to food security, quality and traceability. Aquaculture is in competition with other rural activities for the use of water and is likely to be subject to growing pressure on the limited water supply, all in a context characterized by growing diversification and climate change. What is at stake is better optimizing production systems, particularly in fresh water, and controlling costs of the fish food needed, which also requires additional use of fresh water. Fish farming is still in the development stage in many ACP countries, and can learn from the experience of regions like Asia or Latin America, where the aquaculture industry has already taken off. However, this experience indicates the risks run by the coastal environments due to the major use of inputs from capture fishing (fish meal and fish oil). In June 2013, the CTA organized a Briefing on development in Brussels pertaining to fish farming. It brought in various experts to discuss the stakes and opportunities of developing aquaculture in ACP countries to ensure food and nutrition security. The meeting underscored the need to develop aquaculture in a sustainable way both from the social standpoint and that of the economy and the environment. National strategies and policies on developing aquaculture still need to be generalized in ACP countries. These strategies must be realistic, specific and have clear objectives. The definition of the roles and responsibilities of each sector: government, private sector, research, market, NGOs, should facilitate the implementation of strategies now being developed. Access to production sites (infrastructures), land use and the nature of the tax regime can act as incentives for developing aquaculture. Finally, taking environmental standards into account in the development of the activity should allow for sustainable aquaculture. Regional trade agreements can play a beneficial role in developing markets for aquaculture from ACP countries. As an example, setting up the customs union in the East African Community of which Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi are members, considerably improved free movement of goods in the region, including for fishing by-products (alevins sold directly for fish farming, fresh or processed fish). With the probability that South Sudan will join the EAC, the perspectives for extending the trade to new markets will be improved. Finally, strong demand for fish on national and regional markets in Africa will lead to a change in the destination of certain products like tilapia. For example, the largest tilapia farm in Africa, located in Zimbabwe, which had developed strict European norms of production, now mainly supplies African markets for 90% of the production and 10% to the EU market.

Context - 21

Session 5: Safeguarding the environment (Strategic Priority 5) For Strategic Priority 5, the SPA-ACP recommends undertaking a certain number of actions related to the management approach to fishing based on ecosystems, management of coastal zones, analysis of environmental impact and environmental changes on a global scale. As concerns the management approach by ecosystems 43, no sweeping attempt has been made for its application. While broadening the management of fish resources to management of marine ecosystems 44 is laudable in its own right, it must be realized that this has not been possible on the scale of the species, so how could it be done on the ecosystem scale? This is briefly what underlines the change of scale proposed at the Reykjavik conference on responsible fishing 45. But what about a change in level and complexity without modifying the perception of marine resources and their uses, or the way to approach the man-marine milieu relationship? Neither giving up the current mechanistic approach 46, nor a broader understanding has been on the agenda since this major conference on fisheries. This is much the same as promoting sustainable development as a means to get developers out of the rut or the current promotion of managing fisheries by managing ecosystems. The change in the scale that has been made is an illusion to get around questioning the viability of the current systems of exploitation. Whether the issue is managing a species or an ecosystem, if fishing practices don't change, what are the advantages? Managing fisheries is closely related to choosing good fishing practices. But still today, the choice is to regulate practices that are not sustainable from the environmental, economic or social standpoints. The change in the paradigm must concern fishing practices and not the scale of management approaches. An in-depth job of selecting fishing practices based on societal issues rather than profit needs to be undertaken 47. As concerns management of coastal zones, the evolution of the world population, where nearly 70% lives near the coasts, means that the marine and coastal ecosystems are increasingly subject to pressure from human activity. Moreover, several economic activities affect these ecosystems: fishing, oil and marine mining operations and industries installed on the coast. This anthropic pressure threatens the health of marine and coastal ecosystems by over exploitation of resources (over exploitation of stocks of demersal species and intensive exploitation of pelagic species); physical destruction of coastal habitats (coastal erosion, cutting of mangrove trees) and submarine habitats (extraction of ores); chemical pollution (oil spills, pollution by populations living on coast); eutrophization and algae "blooms", and destructive fishing practices (industrial fishing in mangrove areas – that are feeding zones for many species, use of monofilament fishing nets, resulting in "ghost fishing", using small mesh nets causing large by-catches and catches of undersized fish of the target species). Added to these are natural pressures, including climate change which has a major consequence on the distribution of marine species and the health of ecosystems in general. Given these constraints on 43

See the FAO summary document http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4470f/y4470f00.htm

44

See the FAO web site devoted to this approach http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/2880/en

45

Behind the development of the management by ecosystem approach in 2002.

46 The mechanistic approach to regulating access to natural resources is broadly accepted. Fish resources, like other renewable natural resources, must be exploited rationally. In other words, fish that are in surplus, whose removal does not jeopardize the renewal of stocks, can be taken. Catches should consist of fish that have contributed to reproduction of their species and are bound for a natural death. The concept of removing the surplus is very simple to define, but applying it is another question. As a demonstration: 70% of stocks exploited are in poor condition. For some, the level is such that their chances of survival are slim (cod in Canada, in the North Sea, for example).

See the results of the European research programme in cooperation with ECOST for a presentation of the societal approach to managing fisheries: http://www.ird.fr/ecostproject/doku.php 47

Context - 22

marine environments, research in ACP countries is insufficient because it is far behind research in marine ecology and oceanography in developed countries. To date, few research projects have dealt with the subject although existing research centres are opening to themes pertaining to marine ecosystems. Financial and human resources are always very limited, so research on the subject can hardly be developed. To this must be added the fact that this subject of study is not or is rarely included in research strategies of fish research centres in ACP countries. Given the pressure on the milieu and the current research context in ACP countries on these themes, the need for research on marine ecosystems consists first and foremost of improving knowledge on marine milieus and dynamics. Above all, focus should be on the evolution of the marine environment over time, particularly by means of modelization 48, and evaluation of more general actions to be enacted to protect coastal habitats and marine biodiversity in Cameroon. In addition, from the standpoint of managing fishing, a new approach has emerged in recent years related to a large extent to the phenomenon of climate change – governance of marine ecosystems. It also results from the observation that the oceans are very much involved in the carbon sequestration process and that, alongside forests, they play a major role in regulating the climate. This being the case, the stakes for political decision-takers are no longer management of stocks of fish, but maintaining the operational capacities of ecosystems in the oceans and in coastal zones. The actions undertaken to fight illegal fishing, which is the most destructive for marine habitats, takes on a new dimension, in that it now targets more general protection of marine ecosystems. With regard to the analysis of environmental impact, the increasingly urgent need to assess the sustainability of fisheries (national and foreign) operating in national waters, is hampered by a deficit of tools. Those that exist give a partial response because they focus on one dimension or another of sustainability of fisheries. Does that mean that the protection and conservation of resources are aspects that have been forgotten in fishing policy? Apparently not, because every fishing policy makes an effort to show that it takes the health of the ecosystem to heart. So why draft conservation policies and not imagine development projects that revolve around conservation of resources and their ecosystem? The fact is that the preoccupation with conservation stands downstream of the management process: developing or maintaining industry takes precedence – conservation of ecosystems is only a red flag that no longer attracts anyone's attention. Since it has never been upstream of the management process, the conservation principle has never been able to play its role as a safeguard to limit production activities and thereby allow integration of the protection of ecosystems in the framework of development priorities. Why, despite the application of the principles of sustainable development, responsible fishing and precaution, is the world of fisheries so very far from the principles of fishery management with reasonable care and forethought? The answer is to be found no doubt in the logic applied to fishery management. In Western Africa, for example, fishing policies follow the logic of growth, particularly of industrial fishing, considering that the age-old practice of small-scale fishing is bound to disappear. This 48 Modularization of the pressures of coastal activities on ecosystems and the development of medium-term scenarios concern deterioration of aquatic ecosystems due to pressure from coastal activities, fishing and aquaculture, as well as oil activities, encroachment on the shoreline (buildings, etc.), industries installed on the coast, etc. Special attention must be given to pollution, eutrophization and coastal erosion. The idea is to do precise studies on the impact of chemical pollution on bottom-living and plankton communities, organic pollution, accumulation of hydrocarbon residues on beaches and in the water column, bioaccumulation phenomena and regulation of heavy metals and other pollutants in certain exploited species (fish, shrimp, oysters, etc.), eutrophisation of certain zones and algae "blooms". Specific studies should also be done on coastal erosion and the contribution of ecosystems to its reduction (mangroves protecting the coast). This initial work should enable research to describe a state of reference of pressure on ecosystems, so as to develop a model of pressure exercised by these activities on marine ecosystems. This model, including specialization of pressures and identification of "sensitive zones", could be superimposed on the geographic distribution of ecological habitats of interest (mangroves, plant communities, coral reefs). On the basis of this current reference state, parameters could be set for the model to develop evolution scenarios to foresee changes in the state of health of the ecosystems in the short and medium terms.

Context - 23

is a classical phenomenon of "path dependence" where the past and "institutional" history strongly condition the present and the future (idiosyncrasy of assets). Public decision-takers are then caught between the desire to modernize and develop their fishing industry and the utilitarian constraint of protection of resources. In view of the decline of fisheries in most regions of the world and particularly in Africa, the question of reconciling growth (or maintenance) of the fishing sector with the welfare of ecosystems becomes central. Under the circumstances described above (approach to management of fisheries based on ecosystems), it must be possible to identify the fisheries that are the most beneficial from the ecological standpoint (that create the least possible disturbance to ecosystems – by-catches, rejects, undersize fish, etc.), the least potential damage to the sea bottom, to habitats, etc., and from the economic standpoint (viable with subsidies with a fair distribution of profits and making a significant contribution to the local and national economy), and the social standpoint (contribution to the improvement of food security, welfare of the population of fishing communities and more generally the national population). Moreover, on the subject of environmental assessment, it is appropriate to take account of an integrated, perspective approach to marine ecosystems. A new conception of oceans and coastal zones and their components must be developed to take account of on-going processes on an international scale of which the two most important are the development of international markets for payments of ecosystemic services and the implementation of programmes for the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. As concerns the first process, it must be noted that management of fisheries is increasingly included in governance of marine ecosystems and particularly marine biodiversity. From this standpoint, fishing appears as one of the potential uses of marine biodiversity alongside many others that show considerably higher existing or potential market value in monetary terms, such as, for example, carbon sequestration by plant life or leisure activities, or again indirect usage related to ecosystem regulation functions. Payment mechanisms for services produced by marine ecosystems are now emerging as an extension of what is being done with forests under REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) 49. Clearly, this means that maintaining animal communities and habitats will benefit both the fishing sector and the economy of a country by the payment of services provided by marine and coastal ecosystems in good health. As concerns the effects of the climate, adaptation actions to cope with the impacts of climate change must be implemented at present, despite scientific knowledge that is still insufficient. Indeed, as quickly as possible, a way must be found to integrate fishing and aquaculture into the National Allocation Action Plans (NAAP) established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). For the moment, the marine, river and lake issue is absent from the discussion on mechanisms being set up on an international scale to adapt to and mitigate climate change. In the longer run, research efforts on impacts must be maintained to gradually improve pubic decision-taking aids. On this question, launching new networks for observing impacts and developing pertinent indicators to monitor the evolution of these impacts is desirable on the scale of the group of ACP countries. Support from the international community, by means of institutions specialized in these subjects, should be structured as from the present so that all opportunities that are and will be offered can be seized. Finally climate change is affecting fisheries today, and this deserves more substantial attention. The rise in the temperature of surface water forces fish to migrate to cooler water. The arrival of fish is and will be upset by this, aggravating or improving the food situation. Moreover, modifying the distribution areas of species gradually forces small-scale fishermen to migrate beyond the borders of the national EEZ. Adaptation actions to cope with the impact of climate change must be implemented now, despite scientific knowledge that is still insufficient. Indeed, as quickly as possible, a way must be found to 49

See: http://www.un-redd.org/

Context - 24

integrate fishing and aquaculture into the National Allocation Action Plans (NAAP) established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). For the moment, the marine, river and lake issue is absent from the discussion on mechanisms being set up on an international scale to adapt to and mitigate climate change. In the longer run, research efforts on impacts must be maintained to gradually improve public decision-making aids. The impact in the field of ecosystemic services 50, whose formulation is relatively recent, must be carefully assessed. On this question, launching new networks for observing impacts and developing pertinent indicators to monitor the evolution of these impacts are desirable. The working programme can be described as follows: 

Understanding climate change and identifying its effects. The question of considering that climate change is responsible for a variation in an impact variable is central in order to attribute effects that are actually due to climate change and to separate them from other components of global change, particularly anthropic effects (the use of water for irrigation activities and dams, for example). Methodologies must be developed to answer these questions dealing with the detection-attribution of the impacts of climate change. They must be associated with case studies such as streams flowing into large ichtyological basins or that of the main rivers and coastal regions.



Analysis of the question of extremes: risks and vulnerabilities. The resilience of natural and social marine and continental systems is strongly influenced by intra- and interannual variability, in particular extreme events (for example the drought in the years 1970 and 1980 in Africa). The study of these extreme events, their impacts, the evolution of their frequency and amplitude is consequently an indispensable field for research. The analysis of vulnerabilities associated with risks related to climate change should help define priorities in terms of public policies and management of systems. Risk management, which has been studied relatively little to date, takes account of vulnerability of the system studied and the need for research where the chancevulnerability-risk relationship must be mastered. For example, increasing water temperature increases vulnerability of an entire group of aquatic habitats and species of fish particularly sensitive to temperature. The risk is the disappearance of these habitats and of certain species.



Economic assessment of the effects due to climate change and measures taken. The economic assessment of the costs of the impacts of climate change and those of adapting to climate change is essential, particularly as concerns mitigation costs. This would make it possible to do a cost-benefit analysis correctly, by establishing correspondence between the damage due to impacts and the operating costs and investments of adaptation policies. Research proposals must be made concerning the assessment of these public policies and the development of adaptive methodologies to measure their effects.



Developing social-economic scenarios. Social-economic scenarios on the scale of large ecosystems (coastal mangroves, rivers, Lake Chad, or retaining reservoirs) or regions can be a means to analyse the interaction of adaptation policies with other components of economic and/or social development. It is indispensable to examine the way adaptation strategies will be represented and taken into account in integrated models. For adaptation studies, it is important to consider "anthropo-systems" starting with observations and modelization, up to decision-taking aids and management,

Ecosystem services, defined as the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to making human life both possible and worth living, include sampling services, regulating services, self-maintenance services and cultural services. "définis 50

Context - 25

possibly with a research-action approach. A federating effort must be undertaken to strengthen the national network of competence in this field. The involvement of players (deciders, prescribers, businesses, local governments, NGOs) in the proposals on the theme is decisive. 51

51 The development of policies and planning actions in response to climate changes involve not only the agencies concerned from a technical standpoint, for example departments in charge of fisheries, integrated coastal management, disaster risk management, internal affairs, science, education, but also those responsible for planning national development and finance. These institutions, and municipal or political representatives at sub-national and national levels must also be identified to gain targeted information and benefit from reinforcement of capacities. Establishing and reinforcing partnerships between public and private sectors, civil society and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) is also necessary.

Context - 26

Session 6: Synergies and cooperation Alongside the Strategic Plan for Action (SPA) of the ACP Group of States for fisheries and aquaculture adopted in June 2012 in Nadi (Fiji), several other action plans of a regional scope have been developed. The most recent is the one approved at the first African conference of ministers responsible for fisheries and aquaculture in May 2014. This regional SPA called "Policy framework and reform strategies for fisheries and aquaculture in Africa" 52 corresponds to that of the Caribbean region implemented by the CRFM for the period 2013-2021 53 and the more specific plans of Pacific region. Indeed there is not one single action plan for the Pacific region, but several inter-related plans. The South Pacific Committee has a strategy for developing aquaculture 54 whereas FFA action on tuna fisheries is based on the regional strategy for management and development of tuna fishery as well as the regional strategy for control, follow-up and surveillance 55. A regional action plan defined for shark fishing 56 has been in force since 2009, moreover. From the geographic standpoint, the new SPA-Africa oversees the sub-regional SPAs 57 developed by sub regional fishing organizations (SRFO) and regional organizations (RFO) in Africa: 

the 2011-2015 SPA of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Committee (SRFC) 58 ;



the 2009-2015 SPA of the Regional Fisheries Committee for the Gulf of Guinea (COREP) 59 ;



the 2011-2020 SPA of the Fishery Committee of the West Central Gulf of Guinea (FCWC) 60;



the 2012-2015 SPA (not yet validated) of the Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation among African States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean (ATLAFCO) 61

The fields of intervention are more or less similar from one SPA to another – they concern governance and management of fisheries, particularly control of access and the fight against IUU, development of aquaculture, increasing value added throughout the chain and the contribution of fish to nutritional security and finally protection of the environment (see Annex for more a detailed presentation of the SPAs mentioned above).

52

http://www.africanfisheries.org/sites/default/files/knowledge_outputs/PFRSFAA_FINAL_20140818.pdf

53

http://www.crfm.net/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=64:strategic-plan-2013-2021&Itemid=232

54

https://www.ffa.int/system/files/Regional%20Tuna%20Management%20and%20Development%20Strategy.pdf

55

https://www.ffa.int/mcs-strategy

56

SPA 2009-2012. See : https://www.ffa.int/sharks

The Indian Ocean Tuna Committee (IOTC) also developed a 2014-2016 SPA oriented to improving the effectiveness of the Secretariat in its mission. See : http://www.iotc.org/documents/secretariat-strategic-plan 57

58 Includes the following 7 countries (from north to south): Mauritania, Cape Verde, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea and Sierra Leone. For the SPA, see: http://spcsrp.org/Strategie/Plan+Strategique

Includes the following 5 countries (from north to south): Sao Tomé & Principe, Cameroon, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo. For the SPA, see: http://www.corep-se.org/index.php/en/strategies/principaux-axes-strategiq-de-reference.html

59

Includes the following 6 countries (from west to east): Liberia, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Benin, Togo and Nigeria. For the SPA, see: http://www.fcwc-fish.org/fr/a-propos/domaine-de-competence 60

Includes the 22 countries bordering on the Atlantic from Morocco in the north to Namibia in the south. The SPA has not yet been validated. 61

Context - 27

These SPA, that structure the intervention of the various organizations involved in fisheries and aquaculture, overlap with a certain number of major support programmes in the fish and aquaculture sectors. The EU is particularly active in this field of cooperation and support of public policies and the development of the sector in countries in the ACP Group as well as those in Latin America, Asia and the Mediterranean basin. Between 2007 and 2014 62, the amount of the various programmes implemented totalled nearly €200 million 63 (this amount does not take account of support to the sector in the context of partnership agreements in the fishing field in contracts between the EU and several countries 64). 1% 6% Asie Caraïbe

16%

Caraïbe, Afrique, Pacifique Pays voisins de l'UE Amérique latine

9%

56%

Amérique latine, Afrique, Asie 2% 9%

1%

Pacifique Afrique Sub-saharienne

Figure 1 Regional breakdown of the European budget devoted to external support programmes in fishing and aquaculture Africa benefits the most from this sector support since the amount devoted exclusively to regional African entities or African countries was roughly €110 million during this period (see the next figure). Globally, the ACP Group benefits from nearly 80% of European financing (€115 million), particularly in large-budget programmes like "ACP-FISH2" (30 million euros for 2007-2013) which covers the 79 countries in the Group or again "DEVFISH2" (nearly €9 million for 2010-2016) which covers all countries in the ACP group in the Pacific. Although these stress the same priorities, the African SPA and the Caribbean SPA do not mention the SPA adopted in Nadi: consequently there is no articulation of SPA with each other or harmonization of actions carried out on the different geographic scales of intervention. Nor are there tangible links between the programmes deployed in the regions of the ACP Group and the existing regional and subregional SPA. 65. 62

Among the most recent programmes launched, some programmes finish in 2019

63 The amount of other kinds of cooperation programmes (Japan and the USA for the most part) and international organizations is not known..

See the list of countries with which the EU has signed a partnership agreement in the fishery field: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_fr.htm 64

Note however that the SPA for the Caribbean region stems from a study done in the context of the ACP-FISH2 programme. 65

Context - 28

Efforts must be made to reconcile the various SPA with each other and the support programmes with existing SPA. In this perspective, the SPA of the ACP Group (SPA-ACP) can be considered as a tool that is both pooling regional and sub-regional initiatives and as a guideline, in that it is the best reflection of global issues and, better than any other SPA, it reflects the global issues and specifies the international constraints that are going to weigh on fisheries in the various regions. The absence of a unit of competence within the APC Secretariat devoted to the implementation of the SPA-ACP compromises this kind of opening, however. Seeking the best possible usage for financial and technical resources should guide the discussions of the session. Whether they are devoted to programmes to fight IUU fishing or the application of the rule of origin, it is imperative to first define the best scale of intervention (national, sub-regional, regional or ACP) and above all to allocate human and financial resources in view of the scales retained. The subsidiarity principle here joins that of complementarity in that the scale of intervention that is most effective should be given priority. Complementarity of actions also entails a prior agreement on the way they can structure conservation operations. Globally, it is very timely for the SPA-ACP to act as a catalyst of national and regional initiatives. This in no way jeopardizes national and regional prerogatives of fishing and aquaculture organizations or those of regional organizations for managing fisheries, but considerably reinforces the synergy of them all, thereby improving overall efficiency.

Context - 29

Table 1: Strategic Plan for Action of SRFO, RFO and the African Union

Creation Zone of competence

Strategic plan Intervention geared to

AU

CRFM

2002

2002

All countries in Africa.

Fishing zones of all members of the CARICOM area

2014 -

2013-2021

1. Enhancing conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources through the establishment of national, and subnational governance and institutional arrangements that ensure the societal contribution generated by Africa’s sectors have the greatest impacts at the most appropriate level.

1. Sustainable management and utilization of fisheries and aquaculture resources in the Caribbean region for the benefit of future generations. 2) Improve the welfare and sustainable livelihoods of fishing and aquaculture communities in the Caribbean region, by providing income and employment opportunities in fisheries and aquaculture sectors. 3) Ensure the Caribbean population has at all times sufficient safe and nutritious fish that meets the dietary requirements and is needed for an

2. Development of sustainable small-scale fisheries by improving and strengthening the contribution of smallscale fisheries to poverty alleviation, food and nutrition security and socio-economic benefits

ATLAFCO

CSRP

CPCO

1989

1985

2006

FAO fishing zones 34 and 47 up to the southern limit of the Namibian EEZ.

EEZ of Mauritania, Cape Verde, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea and Sierra Leone

2012-2015 (under development)

2011-2015

1. Conservation et exploitation of fish resources.

1. Promoting innovating approaches to fishery management.

2. Assessing and safeguarding longdistance migrating fish.

2. Setting up a system to capitalize on knowledge of the fishing sector in the subregion.

3. Monitoring, surveillance and control of fishing vessels. 4. Development of fish reproduction and production tools. 5. Marketing of fish products.

3. Reinforcing cooperation and exchange with organizations active in the field of fishing/ 4. Improving internal governance of the CSRP.

7. Social condition of seagoing fishermen.

5. Reinforcing mechanisms for harmonization of policies and legislation on fisheries 6.

8. Reinforcing

Supporting players in

6. Planning and financing of the fish sector.

Context - 30

EEZ of Liberia, the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Benin, Togo and Nigeria

2011-2020 1. Reconstructing and maintaining sturdy fish resources by political reforms reglementary cooperative, good governance and improving institutions. 2. Developing and implementing appropriate management frameworks that ensure that fish resources are exploited in a sustainable way, that intra-of regional and international trade in fish and fish products are improved and that maximum economic and social advantages are obtained from fisheries. 3. Developing the

COREP 1984 (2007 ECCAS) EEZ of São Tomé & Principe, Cameroon, Gabon, the Congo, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2009-2015 1. Assessing and characterizing fishery potential and describing stocks (overlapping, shared or in the common economic interest); 2. Assessment and characterization of the economic potential associated with fish resources; 3.Institutional reinforcement at the scale of the entire COREP region, the Member States and fisheries of major or common economic interest. 4. Assessment of costs and study of the ways and means for regional

AU of fishing communities and beyond. 3. Realizing the full potential of the aquaculture sector to generate wealth, social benefits and contribute to the development of the African economy by jumpstarting market-led sustainable development strategies.

CRFM active and healthy life.

ATLAFCO

CSRP

CPCO

COREP

professional and technical training.

sustainable management of fish resources.

9. Developing marine scientific research.

7. Promoting the image and the actions of the CSRP with stakeholders.

capacity of small-scale fishermen and other operators in the Member States to create sustainable means of subsistence for their communities based on a sustainable harvest, processing and marketing of their fish resources.

structuring and reinforcement of research services, follow-up, control and surveillance of fisheries.

10. Protecting and conserving the marine environment.

4. Reinforcing national capacities to monitor, control and supervised efficient, profitable and sustainable fisheries, and establishing mechanisms for effective regional cooperation in MCS, and applying the law to put an end to illegal, undeclared and on regulated fishing (IUU fishing) in the Centre-West of the Gulf of Guinea.

4. Promoting responsible and equitable fish trade and marketing by significantly harnessing the benefits of Africa’s fisheries and aquaculture endowments through accelerated trade and marketing. 5. Strengthening SouthSouth (bilateral and regional) cooperation, and developing coordinated mechanisms

5. Reinforcing cooperative research and ascertaining that decisions related to management of resources be based on solid knowledge, a scientific methodology and the best available information.

among RECs, RFBs and LME-based commissions to ensure coherence of fisheries policies and aquaculture development and their

Context - 31

5. Harmonization of conditions of access and exploitation of fish resources taking account of international fishing agreements and human migration. 6. Technical and financial assistance on the scale of the COREP region and shore regions dependent on fishing. 7. Information, communication, training.

AU

CRFM

ATLAFCO

adoption and adaptation. 6. Creating awareness on the potential and importance of the sector, based on current and emerging trends, challenges and needs as well as enhancing the capacity of governments and institutions in order to ensure sustainable development of the sector. 7. Increasing and consolidating the “African Voice” in the governance and management of high seas fisheries in order to substantially enhance the benefits accruing to the Member States associated with exploitation of high seas resources.

Context - 32

CSRP

CPCO

COREP

Assessment of progress made in implementing the ACP Strategic Plan for Actions in fishing and aquaculture, adopted at the ministerial meeting in Nadi in June 2012 The responses to the questionnaire sent to all fishery and aquaculture departments in countries in the ACP Group during the summer of 2014 and the spring of 2015 have made it possible to take an inventory of the progress made in each of the strategic priorities identified in the SPA-ACP. The results are presented below for each action. In all, 34 countries answered and completed the questionnaire, representing a rate of response of 43%.

Context - 33

Summary of the strategic priorities and priority fields of results

Priority fields of results (PFR)

Stragegic priority 1

Stragegic priority 2

Stragegic priority 3

Stragegic priority 4

Strategic priority 5

Efficient management for sustainable fishing

Promoting optimal return to trade in fishery products PFR 5: Access to markets

Supporting food security

Developing aquaculture

Safeguarding the environment

PFR 9: Planning for food security

PFR 12: Planning of aquaculture

PFR 15: Approach to fishery management based on ecosystems

PFR 6: Overcoming technical obstacles

PFR 10: Small-scale fishing

PFR 13: Infrastructures and technical support

PFR 16: Management coastal areas

PFR 7: Coping with the main external causes of loss of value

PFR 11: Developing local businesses

PFR 14: Developing markets

PFR 17: Environmental impact analysis

PFR 1: National management frameworks

PFR 2: Coping with the main threats to sustainable management of fisheries PFR 3: Complying with international recommendations and agreements PFR 4: Regional cooperation and partnerships

PFR 18: Environmental changes on a global scale

PFR 8: Value added for ACP States

Context - 34

of

Stragegic priority 1 - Efficient management for sustainable fishing Objective: Concluding global management agreements to ensure viability of stocks of wild species Priority fields of results

Actions Aspects of management 1.1 The States should assess the performance of their fishery management frameworks, particularly when the results are not satisfactory. [Ref: M1:R22]

State of progress and remarkable initiatives

1.1 The implementation of this action is limited by technical and financial constraints.

More than half of the countries that answered (59%) confirmed that they have done an assessment of the performance of their fishery management frameworks. Moreover, the sporadic nature of this action or the gap in time between efforts must be noted. The analysis identified two cases: (i) countries that did an assessment of the management framework at the time of the review of the fishery regulatory system (case of Benin, Cameroon, Gabon, Dominican Republic); (ii) the other countries, which have not yet done this assessment because of: the ongoing implementation of the management plan – which has prevented doing an assessment at this stage – or because of technical constraints or the absence of planning of the study to be done. The ACP Fish II Programme should have facilitated carrying out this assessment since it promoted the development of a national fishery and aquaculture policy.

PFR 1 National management frameworks 1.2 The States should adopt an efficient management system that reflects reality

1.2 The adoption of efficient management measures is to a large extent deterred by

1.3 The States should consider a full range of elements for putting in place an

1.3

and the level of development of the country [Ref: M2:R4]

effective management system, including:: 1.3.1 Stakeholder participation • Recognition by stakeholders of the need for sustainable management and respect of the management system • A clear understanding of fishing rights and responsibilities by all stakeholders. • An appropriate combination of approaches based on regulation and comanagement.

Context - 35

the difficulty of revising the regulatory framework for fishery management and by the weakness of an ineffective data collection system. Despite the number of responding countries that affirm they have adopted a management system (63%), measures are limited to reducing overfishing. Free access remains broadly in practice.

1.3.1 Participation of stakeholders in management systems is provided broadly in

responding countries (82%). Namibia does annual consultations of stakeholders. However, setting up fishing rights and empowering all stakeholders still seems to be a long process (like in Angola). The lack of information and awareness, as well as the absence of appropriate regulations constitute an obstacle for putting this action in place. The case of Belize is interesting. The country studied a whole range of measures for establishing an efficient management system, including consultations with stakeholders.

Priority fields of results 1.3.2

•

Actions Governance A governmental agency with the competence, authority and resources needed for fishery management.

•

A management system offering a sufficient level of control for fishing capacity, operations of vessels (including foreign fleets), the volume of captures, data, technical competence, knowledge of species, stocks, etc. that can be used as the basis for management plans for the chosen fishing sectors.

•

Effective management capacity in all shared fisheries.

•

1.3.2 •

The means to promote security of vessels and crews, including observers and service personnel.

•

Compatibility with management systems at the sub-regional scale and in RFO.

Context - 36

About 2/3 of the countries confirm the existence or the establishment of a governmental agency with the necessary competence, authority and resources for managing fishing. However, the structure directly concerned by fishery management still has limited or insufficient competence or is attached to a ministerial Department that has several portfolios (environment, agriculture, trade). Fishing is then in competition with other sectors and does not have sufficient resources to conduct sustainable management of the fisheries sector. No doubt this situation needs clarification to avoid incoherence in fishery management (definition of a clear strategy with coherent objectives). Efforts have been made or are being developed. Namibia has a structure with full competence; other countries like .Benin or Gabon have started reforms by creating a specialized agency responsible for execution and a department in charge of developing or defining fishing policies (mainly management plans).

•

In most responses, the countries dispose of a management system but it does not provide a sufficient level of control. In addition, no system has yet been put in place to assess the effectiveness of the measures taken.

•

Capacity for managing shared stocks is very weak. Many responding countries do not have management plans for shared fisheries. The case of tuna is an exception, however. Many countries that have taken specific measures for stocks. For example, Seychelles, which houses the IOTC, is an active member of several working groups and ensures management of shared stocks.

•

The level of jurisdictional control is still insufficient due to the lack of regular data on the state of the stocks, the lack of capacity to cover the entire judicial district and problems in delimiting the EEZ. Some countries, (Seychelles) require to all international vessels authorized to fish in their waters to have VMS. There is also 100% VMS coverage for local fleets (except for outboard motor boats and sport fishing). Disputes on maritime borders between coastal countries are another problem that reduces the capacity to control the entire juridction.

•

Promotion of the security of ships and crews, including observers and service personnel, is poorly ensured – with only half of the responding countries.

•

On the whole, actions related to governance are not fully implemented due to lack of training, of capacity and of coordination and management of the various

Effective means of control in the entire jurisdiction.

•

State of progress and remarkable initiatives

Priority fields of results

Actions

1.3.3

• • •

State of progress and remarkable initiatives segments of the fishing sector.

Science and data/information A sufficient understanding of the main target stocks so as to be able to establish viable capture limits. The authority to demand data from vessels. The capacity to interpret data in the context of the evolution of stocks and incentives on the markets.

1.4 Compliance

The capacity to reinforce compliance with management rules and controls. • Guarantee responsibility of the Flag State for vessels in activity outside their national jurisdiction. • Partnerships to support monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) of vessels Fishing capacity 2.2 The States should assess fishing capacity in national fisheries concerned and develop appropriate programmes, supported by donors if applicable, in order to adapt the fishing capacity to the capacity of resources. [M1:R21] •

PFR 2: Coping with specific threats to sustainable management of fishing

IUU Fishing 2.3 The States should develop and implement a NAP-IUU as a guideline for 2.4 fighting IUU fishing in the national and regional plans. [Ref: M1:R20]

PFR 3: Conformity with international recommendations and agreements

3.1 The State should implement a policy and define a legislative framework in conformity with: • The pertinent provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;

Context - 37

1.3.3 Only 41% of respondents confirmed that they have sufficient understanding of the main target stocks. This is mainly related to a lack of assessment of stocks, of research centres or of capacities. In addition, the data collection system performs poorly to which is added to the difficulty of interpreting the data. Existing studies and data are often outdated (more than 10 years old in certain cases – Cameroon, Benin) so it is not possible to establish viable capture limits. In addition, cover of assessed stocks is still low. Certain countries (like Angola) apply a precautionary approach and establish capture limits for stocks of important fish. 1.4 Nearly 60% of responding countries reinforce compliance with management rules and controls. Partnerships to support monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) of vessels endeavour mainly to reinforce coordination with the authorities concerned (national Navy, defense). Gabon and the Ivory Coast have set up structures for control and surveillance. Other countries (Dominican Republic) call on regional organizations to ensure compliance with recommendations on surveillance, but do not have VMS equipment. 2.2 Fishery capacities are assessed partially. The assessment does not cover all fisheries and only half of the respondents (53%) confirmed that they are doing capacity assessment studies. Once again, available data are often out of date, as they are taken from programmes more than 10 years old. The countries mention important needs to assess state of demersal stocks. Respondents confirm that they are doing studies to reassess capacity. Belize is currently doing studies and establishing TAC for the main commercial stocks. . 2.3 The NAP-IUU, a major scheme for fighting IUU, has been set up by only 47% of responding countries. Moreover, the countries that adopted it stressed the lack of resources for implementing it. Belize has reinforced its legislation by adopting stronger rules in 2013 (2013 law on fishing in the high seas) and a NAP-IUU to deal with IUU in the high seas. The main difficulties stem from the absence of appropriate human, technical and legislative resources. 3.1 More than 71% of responding countries confirmed that they have implemented judicial frameworks in compliance with international agreements on fisheries. These actions were implemented to a large extent thanks to a review of legal frameworks concerning fishing and aquaculture, that has been concluded, mainly in the last two

Priority fields of results

Actions The FAO conformity agreement; The 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement; Decisions of regional fishery management organizations; and other FAO instruments including the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the 2009 FAO Port State Measures Agreement, and the 2012 FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Land Tenure. [Ref: M1:R15] • • •

Regional cooperation 4.1 The States should put in place mechanisms for support and collaboration between regional economic integration organizations and regional fishing organizations.. [M2:R21]

PFR 4: Regional cooperation and partnerships

4.2 The States should urgently seek to set up sustainable financial mechanisms for regional fishing organizations, in order to reinforce these institutions. [M2:R23] 4.3 The States should reinforce coordination between regional fishing organizations and ACP countries and the ACP Secretariat in order to promote a more coherent approach to sub-regional and international plans [M2: R22], particularly to ensure shared/joint management of straddling stocks and adjacent habitats and systems.. 4.4 The States need to pool their financial and technical resources to better fight IUU [M2:R11], and to meet common challenges such as training in assessment of stocks and data management.. 4.5 The States should conclude partnerships with the international community to gain financial and technical support of programmes specific to national and regional plans to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. [M2:R12] South-South Cooperation 4.6 The States should set up mechanisms to effectively reinforce South-South cooperation in the fishing sector at all levels, with the objectives of increased solidarity and the transfer of high performance standards, approaches and models between countries facing similar limits.. [M1:R19]

Context - 38

State of progress and remarkable initiatives years, or is on-going The provisions of the LOSC are the ones that are broadly applied. This result confirms growing awareness in ACP countries of the international dimension of fishery management and consequently the need to comply with international recommendations, conventions and agreements targeting improving governance for the sake of sustainability. The strategic fishing policy of the Dominican Republic was prepared in conformity with provisions of the FAO Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries 4.1 Countries are putting in place mechanisms for support and collaboration between economic integration organizations and the RFO as a result of their belonging to both organizations at the same time. These two types of bodies help coordinate and promote management and development of fisheries in various ACP zones: Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) and Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC), ECCAS and COREP, SADC and COMESA, etc. 4.2. Financial mechanisms are only partially set up and do not allow for sustainable financing. 4.3 Coordination is going forward and should be reinforced. Currently, only 58% of responding countries consider that this coordination is effective. 4.4 Countries are establishing agreements with various organizations to fight IUU: the Dominican Republic has developed an agreement between various fishing organizations and the Navy to fight IUU. Benin has mutualized resources by means of the Prosperity Operation planned with neighbouring Nigeria. The actions are still limited due to limited financial and logistic resources. 4.5. Partnerships are going forward particularly with the EU in the context of maritime security as in the Gulf of Guinea. Training programmes for personnel involved in the fight against IUU exist with France (ASECMAR, CRIMGO, etc.), Cameroon and Benin. Belize has set up a partnership with several organizations such as the WCS and EDF to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. 62% of responding countries have concluded partnerships with the international community. 4.6 Nearly 64% of the countries confirm reinforcement mechanisms of South –South cooperation in the field of fishing. The Dominican Republic has reinforced its cooperation with Chile, Cameroon is developing cooperation mechanisms with neighbouring countries, as well as with those having advanced experience.

Priority fields of results

Actions International participation 4.7 The States should allocate sufficient human and financial resources to active participation in regional fishing management organizations, in order to influence decision taking to the benefit of members holding resources, so as to optimally develop economic advantages from the standpoint of viability and management agreements.. [M1:R18] 4.8 The States should actively encourage constitution and reinforcement of regional fishing organizations where applicable. [M1:R18]

Context - 39

State of progress and remarkable initiatives 4.7 This is an action confirmed by nearly 76% of respondents. However, it must be stressed that the resources allocated to these management bodies are limited. 4.8 This action is implemented broadly (74%) but remains limited due to lack of available resources.

Stragegic priority 2: Promoting optimal return to trade in fishery products Objective: Gaining value added in a high-performance fishing sector via fair access to markets and development of the sector Priority fields of results

Actions 5.1 The States should negotiate continual access to the main markets (including the EU and new markets) under favourable conditions for local investments, participation and employment in ACP countries.

PFR 5: Access to markets

Erosion of preferences 5.2 The States should assess the consequences of an erosion of preferences that is increasingly probable for fishery products on national export markets. They should begin to develop national approaches to help the private sector attenuate the harmful effects of this erosion - in consultation with the private sector. [M1:R28] 5.3 The States and the Ministerial mechanism should provide political support to obtain bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the EU as concerns the erosion of preferences, which will have a devastating effect on processing industries for fishery and aquaculture products in ACP States. [M1:R29] Economic/fishery partnership agreements (EPA/PPA) 5.4 The States should promote exchanges of information and opinions on EPA chapters specific to fishing, among all public and private players and the ACP countries involved in the same regional configurations, so as to make the most of the negotiations. [M1:R31] Rules of origin 5.5 The States should invite the EC to: • Consider extending cumulative advantages in the context of EPA negotiations on rules of origin applicable to the fishery sector to all ACP countries and regions that apply for them [M1:R30]

Context - 40

State of progress and remarkable initiatives 5.1 More than 60% of responding countries have undertaken actions to guarantee access to the main markets. Moreover, several initiatives are going forward for the European market (several countries are already enrolled on the single list of countries exporting fishery products to the EU). This is an initiative of Belize to maintain access to the export market of the United States, and to take measures to comply with EU regulations on IUU fishing. Saint-Kitts-and-Nevis has signed an EPA with the EU and members of the CARICOM. So has Namibia (EPA with the EU). Other countries, like Sierra Leone, are in the process of increasing their official capacity in order to gain access to EU markets. 5.2 This assessment is done only sparsely, at a rate of 35%. The difficulty lies in the lack of technical and financial assistance to carry out this action, particularly for countries that are directly dependent on export markets.

5.3. This action is undertaken relatively little, 38%. However, negotiations are going forward; but concluding them would require greater synergy between the policy level and the technical level of management to implement follow-up measures on a national scale.

5.4. Action undertaken by 56% of responding countries. Some countries, in this case Belize, have organized public information sessions.

5.5 • This consideration has begun for 44% of countries. Cameroon has already envisaged it and this is set down in an interim EPA which was adopted by Parliament and must be ratified.

Priority fields of results

• •

Actions Increase the automatic derogation for preserved tuna and tuna loins given the growing threat of piracy. [M2:R7] Make every effort to ensure that the accumulation of origin mechanism is extended as broadly as possible and is not subject to conditions that restrict its use. [M2:R8]

WTO 5.6 The States should improve the exchange of information between stakeholders at the national and regional levels, in order to support the development of effective global negotiation strategies with the WTO. [M1:R25] 5.7 In the negotiations with the WTO, the States should stress that: • An effective special, differentiated treatment is needed for ACP States in WTO, including appropriate exemptions in favour of small-scale fisheries and a flexible regime for industrial and semi-industrial fisheries, and processing plants. [M1:R27] • The requirements should reflect the realities of the ACP Group, particularly their limits in terms of capacities, and the WTO should permit reinforcement of provisions pertaining to technical assistance for implementing high performance fishery management systems. [M1:R26] • Given the special contexts, ACP States benefit from special, preferential treatment as concerns the general prohibition on subsidies to fisheries. [M2:R3] 6.1 The States should reinforce their technical capacities and their infrastructures to comply with requirements for exports in the fields of food security and product quality. PFR 6: Overcoming technical obstacles

Conformity of regulations concerning SPS and IUU fishing 6.2 The States should analyze the potential for regional solutions to meet national requirements for conformity with SPS and the EU IUU regulation, in view of potential economies of scale. [M1:R33] 6.3 The States should seek technical and financial support of the EU and other development partners in order to reinforce the supervisory bodies in the value chain, including national agencies for public health and food security and the private sector, to meet increasingly strict health requirements on an

Context - 41

State of progress and remarkable initiatives • The information provided is still limited (23%). However, Namibia has succeeded in obtaining an automatic derogation via the EPA. • The countries underline the need for greater coordination and synergy among national bodies in charge of the EPA negotiations. 5.6 Appropriate frameworks for exchanges of information are being implemented, but only 50% confirm that mechanisms have been developed. Benin has created a national framework open to broad participation for disseminating information on SPS measures involving the public and private sectors. However, this framework is no longer operational. The lack of information on recent developments is a constraint. 5.7. Special, preferential treatment was negotiated within the ACP Group and the WTO. However, this negotiation is going forward under the auspices of the Department of Trade.

6.1. More than two thirds of responding countries are working on their infrastructures. Belize organizes continual reviews of regulations concerning food security and quality control of fishery products by a competent authority, the Belize Health Authority. Cameroon is now making efforts particularly by opening a laboratory for analyzing fishery products and by placing landings in the main fishing zones. 6.2. & 6.3. Actions are being implemented with the support of regional organizations, particularly the AU for the Africa region and the CRFM for the Caribbean region.

Priority fields of results

Actions international scale. [M2:R6][M1:R9] for example, including accreditation of laboratories to support and test products for compliance with international standards.

State of progress and remarkable initiatives

EU 2008 IUU Regulation 6.4 The States should do a detailed assessment of the content of the EU 2008 IUU Regulation in order to take immediate measures to analyze the national situation, the requirements for conformity, and to develop a national strategy to meet the challenges posed by those requirements. [M1:R34]

6.4 This assessment is only partially implemented (47% of respondents). The process has been started for many countries which were able to set up a strategy for fisheries and aquaculture thanks to support from the ACP Fish II project. Grenada is already in compliance and has been since 2010. However, its implementation is still not effective.

6.5 The States should seek technical and financial support of the European Commission to finance a programme on the scale of the ACP Group, to help ACP members implement the 2008 EC Regulation on IUU fishing, by ensuring that a programme is put in place in consultation with the ACP countries. [M1:R10]

PFR 7: Coping with specific external causes of loss of value

6.6 In a partnership with the EC, the States should adopt and implement a flexible, negotiable timetable for the gradual implementation of the EU regulation on IUU fishing on the scale of the ACP Group, with reasonable deadlines. [M1:R11] Piracy 7.1 The States should seek assistance from the international community when ACP States apply for aid, to ensure the safety of all fishing vessels and their crews in the waters of ACP Member States, or international waters, and to protect them from piracy and armed robbery which continue with the same violence and can squelch all efforts for development and promotion of the fisheries sector. [M1:R23] 7.2 The States should immediately ask the international community to provide total support, including technical and financial assistance for the implementation of the ESA/IO regional strategy and action plan against piracy and for maritime security. [M2:R14] 7.3 The States should ask the international community to fight piracy and its deeprooted causes in priority and to provide greater support to the ACP State which are suffering from the consequences. [M2:R15]

Context - 42

6.5 Seeking financial support from the European Commission is reported for 38%

6.6. The effort is going forward at this level but little information is communicated.

7.1. These are actions that are being implemented. Thus in the context of maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea, African States that are members of ECCAS, ECOWAS and GCC seek assistance from the international community to guarantee security in the common maritime area. Belize offers observer services at sea, via the RFO, for its vessels to ensure the authenticity of catches. 7.2 & 7.3 Seeking international support for technical and financial assistance on this item. Only half the responding countries have requested support of the international community on this item. Several initiatives are going forward, particularly in Togo, which participates in the implementation of Interpol's SCALE project in the Gulf of Guinea. Several international conferences dealt particularly with maritime piracy in the Gulf of Guinea. Seychelles gave authorization for foreign vessels fishing in its waters to employ armed security personnel on board. In addition, Seychelles continues to deploy an anti-piracy patrol at sea and by air to discourage acts of piracy.

Priority fields of results

PFR 8: Value added for ACP States

Actions Development of local industry 8.1 The States should try to increase the value of their fishing resources and deploy every effort, political and other, needed to promote value added by national businesses in the fisheries sector, in order to make the most of fisheries for national development and economic growth. [M1:R38] 8.2 The States should bring together the national players in the public and private sectors, associated with reduction of poverty and social and economic development, in order to promote development of the entrepreneurial spirit at national level. [M1:R36] 8.3 The States should reinforce the commercial development policy to improve the national context for investment and allow development of public-private partnerships. [M1; R37] 8.4 The States should collaborate with development partners to assess and implement measures to support the sector, including: • promoting the efficiency of capture and processing, • supporting initiatives of the private sector to improve product quality and increase value throughout the value chain; • implementing infrastructures, such as collective services and transport, to support investments in the sector; • enabling access to finance/investments of small and medium-size businesses and processing and storage plants; • developing and diversifying fisheries; • encouraging the creation of new products on concluding partnerships on the market; • promoting the role of women in producing, processing and marketing, as entrepreneurs, for example by means of micro-finance initiatives; • producing and interpreting data to facilitate understanding of the volatility of the market, prices and supply and demand requirements; • promoting and developing diversification of support services to the fish and aquaculture sectors, for example maintenance, procurement, maintenance and supply of vessels Marketing and labels 8.5 The States should promote systems of ecological labels compatible with international standards [M2:R5], including traceability and labeling of products. Agreements on access to fishing

Context - 43

State of progress and remarkable initiatives 8.1. Actions are taken by 64% of respondents. These are mainly promotion of the value chain, the entrepreneurial spirit and the development of public-private partnerships as is the case in Cameroon and Namibia. Seychelles have developed a section for value added of products of the sea within the SFA to facilitate and promote greater innovation and value in the private sector. The lack of financial resources slows down the implementation of current projects and initiatives. 8.2 Collaboration with development partners is encouraged in 73% of respondent countries. This mainly concerns implementing infrastructures and promoting the role of women in processing and marketing. (Togo, Cameroon,) 8.3 – 8-4 The reduction in the implementation of these actions is due to the lack of financial and material resources/

Priority fields of results

Actions 8.6 The States should negotiate conditions of access (including fees) for vessels that reflect the value of the fishery market and support participation and employment in the fishery sector at local level.

State of progress and remarkable initiatives 8.5- These systems are becoming increasingly important for 47% of responding countries. Their implementation nevertheless remains subject to technical and financial constraints.

8.6- Efforts are still expected as concerns negotiation of conditions of access of vessels: only 41% of responding countries have undertaken actions. They mainly concern tuna fisheries. Grenada has developed a regional fishing policy with the CARICOM countries that defines the conditions for vessels. Namibia does not support agreements on access to fishing because of a management system based on fees.

Context - 44

Stragegic priority 3 - Supporting food security Objective: Ensuring continual access to fishery products for national populations Priority fields of results

PFR 9: Planning food security

PFR 10: Small-scale fishing

PFR 11: Developing local business to support food security

Actions 9.1 The States should assemble and interpret data to understand availability/supply, the quality and price of fish and fish-based products on local markets (derived from fishing and aquaculture/mariculture). 9.2 The States should assess future changes in population and nutritional needs. 9.3 The States should put national projects for food security into application, stressing the role of fish and fish-based products (fishing and aquaculture). 9.4 The States should take account of the additional advantages resulting from substituting local supply for imported fish products 9.5 The States should promote the use of by-catches and by-products of industrial fishing and fish processing. 10.1 The States should recognize and protect the rights of small-scale fishermen. 10.2 The States should determine a clear role for small-scale fishermen in decision taking. 10.3 The States should ensure access and the yield of coastal stocks in the smallscale fishing sector. 11.1 The States should support development of infrastructures for local storage, transport and processing of fish. 11.2 Research should be carried out to develop and support small business investments in the use of by-catches and processing by-products in order to reinforce national food security. 11.3 The States with their development partners should provide possibilities for micro-finaning and an insurance agreements to support local businesses focusing on fishing and processing of fish products. 11.4 The States should provide targeted support to increase the contribution of women to food security, particularly in the sector of processing fish products.

Context - 45

State of progress and remarkable initiatives 9.1 Despite the importance of this action, it is only applied moderately (55%). No doubt data are collected, but partially only and they do not cover all aspects indicated. The data concerning aquacultural activity are collected sparsely if at all. 9.2 Because of a lack of resources, this action is implemented only partially (53%), despite its importance. However, Namibia is doing a census of the population and assessing the level of malnutrition and consumption of fish per capita.

10.1 & 10.2. More than two thirds of respondents undertake actions to support and protect the rights of small-scale fishermen. This action is particularly applied when management plans are developed with the players. 10.3 This aspect is taken into account (by 44% of respondents) particularly in countries that have a small-scale fishing segment. Access to coastal stocks is ensured in the small-scale fishing sector. In Cameroon and Benin, a zone (3 nautical miles) is specifically reserved for small-scale fishermen. 11.1. On-going efforts to support the development of infrastructures for storage (producing ice, cold chambers), transport (isothermal lorries) and processing. This action nevertheless is limited due to lack of means. Certain countries in the Africa zone benefit from support of Japan to construct a fishing port or landing. 11.2, 11.3 & 11.4. Partially supported (44%-52%) due to limited means. Several countries underline the need for studies to carry out these actions.

Stragegic priority 4 - Developing aquaculture Objective: Sustainable growth of aquaculture and mariculture production Priority fields of results PFR 12: Planning aquaculture

PFR 13: infrastructures and technical support

Actions 12.1 The States should develop coherent national frameworks favourable to the development of aquaculture, in conformity with existing policies on economic and social development. (It is desirable to set up these frameworks as soon as possible, the international master plans geared to developing the sector, taking account when necessary of factors that contributed to errors in the past). [M1:R35] 12.2 The States should develop frameworks of regulations that: • give clear rights with regard to access to land/water for aquaculture; • allow development of aquaculture by means of support policies, possibly including favourable tax schemes; • recognize the involvement of players (including, for example, those of structuring organizations for the sector). Infrastructure 13.1 The States, with their development partners, should create an infrastructure (including services and transports/road network) to support the development of aquaculture. Technical and research requirements 13.2 The States should promote research on aquaculture, mainly on the sustainable supply of stocks of good quality seed and good quality fish.. [M2:R18] 13.3 The States should seek the means to establish fish-farming centres in regions with high aquaculture potential, in order to facilitate a reliable supply of seed for farmers. [M2:R19] 13.4 The States should seek technical and financial assistance to promote the development of Marine aquaculture and aquaculture on land specialized international organizations including the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (DEC). [M2:R20] 13.5 The States, with their development partners, should put means into place to make it possible to:

Context - 46

State of progress and remarkable initiatives 12.1 Frameworks developed by nearly 59% of respondents, but the implementation of the scheduled actions remains limited. Constraints are present for legislative, technical and economic aspects. 12.2. 50% of respondents have a regulatory framework on aquaculture. The review of the framework is going forward; taking account of special aspects of access to land remains a challenge.

13.1. 59% of responding countries support the development of aquaculture with the backing of partners. Initiatives are going forward particularly with the FAO, IFAD. Namibia encourages public-private partnerships in this field. 13.2 Promotion of South-South cooperation for exchanges of experience, particularly with Brazil, Egypt and Vietnam. Actions pertaining directly to research are still limited (lack of resources).

13.4, 13.5, 13.6, 13.7- Actions undertaken in this direction (59% of respondents). These are mainly actions to reinforce skills of the management personnel and actors in the private sector, to put in place infrastructures for producing alevins and fish food, and support in aquaculture equipment and inputs for private players.

Priority fields of results

PFR 14: Developing markets

Actions supply funds/capital for aquacultural species, for example in landlocked countries • improved genetics of fish-farm species, particularly in landlocked countries. • provide training and develop helpful skills and knowledge for the aquaculture sector. • allow access of specialized equipment. 13.6 The State should seek financial and technical support from the EU and other development partners in order to reinforce their capacity to cope with increasingly strict international health requirements. 13.7 The States should promote South-South cooperation initiatives for the development of aquaculture. Access to markets •

14.1 The States should negotiate favourable access to local/regional and international markets for aquaculture and mariculture products. Marketing and labels 14.2 The States should put measures in place intended to encourage the development of new products and partnerships on the market. 14.3 The States should support access to ecolabel projects for aquaculture/mariculture on key markets.

Context - 47

State of progress and remarkable initiatives

These actions are undertaken sparsely (32%). Access to international markets faces trade barriers (particularly SPSS). Certain countries nevertheless indicated negotiations are taking place in 2015. This is the case for Seychelles.

Stragegic priority 5 Safeguarding the environment Objective: Safeguarding the environment to support fishing and other major services related to the ecosystem. Priority fields of results PFR 15: Management approach to fishing based on ecosystems

Actions 15.1 The States should integrate important ecological considerations in the fishing management systems, and therefore adopt provisions to: • Preserve important species/ links with ecosystems • Prevent undesired side effects of activities related to fishing. • Provide appropriate protection of associated species, such as seabirds.

State of progress and remarkable initiatives 15.1. These actions are implemented by 60% of respondents thanks to the support of NGOs and other players. Certain countries had the benefit of support from the FAO to integrate an ecosystem approach in the management plan for demersal fishing. For other countries, and specifically Guinea, this action is related to the current review of the fishing code. On the whole, these considerations are recognized as important, but their integration is not effective.

PFR 16: Management of coastal areas

16.1 The States should take measures to ascertain that development on the coast maintains stocks of fish and the related coastal ecosystems and habitats, using means such as: • Integrated management of coastal zones. • Management of sources of marine pollution originating on land. 17.1 The States should estimate and implement appropriate means to manage environmental effects of the development of aquaculture and mariculture, particularly: • the use of strategic environmental assessment techniques • estimate and management of potential effects of new/reinforced species. • quality control of water and how the ecosystem functions in rivers, lakes, lagoons and estuaries. • preservation of the quality of water and access to water for all players. 18.1 The States should undertake any action needed to ensure resistance of fishing grounds and fishing communities to climate change and natural disasters, in order to protect means of subsistence and reduce poverty.[M1:R17] 18.2 The States should take the needed measures to better integrate fishing and the oceans in national and international agendas pertaining to climate change, so as to be sure that oceans are taken into account in the financial instruments decided to support adaptation and the fight against climate change, including the United Nations Framework Agreements on Climate Change - the World Environment Fund (Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), and the Adaptation Fund)?. [M2:R16]

16.1. Development carried out by 59% of responding countries. Current initiatives, particularly include preservation of mangroves in coastal areas, which constitute spawning grounds. Belize has developed a project for integrated management plan of coastal areas that is to be implemented this year (2015). 17.1. Some actions undertaken in this sense. Need to reinforce capacity and technical assistance.

PFR 17: Environmental impact analysis

PFR 18: Environmental changes on a global scale

Context - 48

Togo developed a programme for adapting resources to climate change that takes account of fish resources with financial support from the IFAD that Departments other than fishing are responsible for conducting this kind of action. Implementation by 55% of respondents. Initiatives have been developed in the context of a project for adaptation of fishing communities to the effects of climate change (NAPA). Fishing is not systematically included on the agenda of national actions for adaptation to climate change. Seychelles took certain measures to improve awareness in fishing communities of the impact of climate change on fisheries. An insurance scheme for fishermen to protect them from extreme climactic events and natural disasters is now operational.

Priority fields of results

Actions 18.3 Il Capacities should be reinforced and put in place (institutional, human and technical, etc.) in ACP States and regions to enable them to meet the challenges entailed in environmental changes/ variations in climate for the development of the fishery sector.

Context - 49

State of progress and remarkable initiatives

Annex 2 Agendas of the 2nd ACP meeting on fisheries

78

Annex 2.1 Agenda of the technical meeting

79

ACP/84/042/15 Rev.1

Sustainable Economic Development and Trade Department

Brussels, 19 July 2015

4TH MEETING OF ACP MINISTERS IN CHARGE OF FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE ACP House, Brussels (Belgium) ******* MEETING OF SENIOR OFFICIALS 20 – 21 July 2015

DRAFT PROGRAMME

Time

Monday, 20th July 2015

08:30 – 9:00

Registration

09:00- 9:30

Opening session : Welcome statement by the ACP Assistant Secretary General, Sustainable economic development and trade Department Organisation of the meeting and Adoption of the Agenda

09:30 –11:15

Session 1 : Progress and roadmap for Topic 1, Fisheries management -

11:15 – 13:00

Discussion (30 min) Drafting the roadmap for Topic 1 (30 min)

Session 2 : Progress and Roadmap for Topic 2, Optimizing fisheries sustainability: -

13:00 – 14:30

State-of-play: ACP Secretariat (10 min) Challenges: IUU fishing, Mr. Stylianos Mitolidis, DG-Mare (10 min) Experience and outcome of fisheries quota management system in Namibia, Mr. Rudi Cloete, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (10 min) Gabon Bleu and IUU fishing, Mr. Georges Mba-Asseko, Director, National Fisheries Agency (10 min)

State-of-play: ACP Secretariat (10 min) Challenges : Added value, Mr. Raymond Tavarez, UNIDO (10 min) Fish trade in the context of the Post-Bali work program, Mrs. Namita Khatri, ACP Geneva Group (10 min) Improving added value of processed tuna in Mauritius, Mr. Devanand Norungee, Ministry of Fisheries (10 min) Discussion (30 min) Drafting the Roadmap for Topic 2 (30 min)

Lunch break

1

14:30 – 16:15

Session 3 : Progress and Roadmap for Topic 3, Food security - State-of-play: ACP Secretariat (10 min) - Challenges: The role of fishery for food security, Mr. Mark Prein, GIZ (10 min) - Experience of the Cook Islands, Mr. Ben Ponia, Secretary for Marine Resources, Cook Islands (10 min) - The Madagascar experience, Mr. Sambany Ruffin, Director of Partnership & Sustainable development, Ministry of Marine Resources and Fisheries (10 min) - Discussion (30 min) - Drafting the roadmap for Topic 3 (30 min)

16:15 – 18:00

Session 4 : Progress and aquaculture -

-

-

Roadmap

for

Topic

4,

Development

of

State-of-play: ACP Secretariat (10 min) Challenges: Technology transfer, Mr. Jiansan Jia, Deputy Director, Fisheries and Aquaculture Resources Use and Conservation Division, FAO (10 min) Development of aquaculture in Nigeria, Ms Abiodun O. Cheke, Deputy Director of Fisheries, Federal Department of Fisheries (10 min) Constraints to aquaculture development in the Caribbean region, Belize, Mr. Mauro Gongora, Fisheries Officer (10 min) Discussion (30 min) Drafting the roadmap for Topic 4 (30 min)

End of Day one

2

Tuesday, 21 July 2015 9:00 –10:30

Session 5 : Progress and Roadmap for Topic 5, Protection of the marine environment -

10:30 – 13:00

Discussion (30 min) Drafting the roadmap for Topic 5 (30 min)

Session 6 : Articulation between the various strategic plans and synergies with major projects -

13:00 – 14:30

State-of-play: ACP Secretariat (10 min) Challenges: Ecosystem management, Mr. Mohamed Seisay, AU-IBAR (10 min) Benefits of protected marine areas for fisheries in West Africa, Dr. Paul Silaï Tendeng, RAMPAO, Senegal (10 min)

State-of-play: ACP Secretariat (10 min) Strategic plan for tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean, Mr. Rondolph Payet, Executive Secretary, IOTC (10 min) Strategic plan for fisheries and aquaculture in Africa, AU-IBAR, Dr. Simplice Nouala, AU-IBAR (10 min) Strategic plan for fisheries and aquaculture in the Caribbean, Mr. Milton Haughton, Executive Director of CRFM (10 min) Strategic plan for fisheries and aquaculture in the Pacific, Mr Mike Batty, FFA (10 min) Discussion (30 min) Drafting of a paper on common objectives (30 min) Lunch break

14:30 – 16:00

ACP Secretariat - Finalization of the Documents: Outcome of the Meeting and Elements of a Roadmap

16:00 – 17:00

Session 7 : Discussion and approval of a roadmap for the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for Fisheries and Aquaculture

17 :00 – 18 :00

Session 8 : Consideration and adoption of the report from the senior officials’ meeting End of the Meeting

3

Annex 2.2 Agenda of the ministerial meeting

84

ACP/84/043/15 Rev.1

Sustainable Economic Development and Trade Department

Brussels, 19 July 2015

MINISTERIAL MEETING

4th Meeting of ACP Ministers in charge of fisheries and Aquaculture ***** ACP House, Brussels, Belgium 22 – 23 July 2015

DRAFT PROGRAMME

Time

DAY ONE

08h00 – 9h00

Registration of participants

09h00- 9h30

Opening Session: Welcome remarks by ACP Secretary General, H.E. Dr. Patrick I. Gomes Opening Statement by the Chair of the Ministerial Meeting

09h30- 11h00

Panel discussions with invited guests Introductory speech by Mr. Fernando Frutuoso de Melo, DirectorGeneral for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO), European Commission Keynote speech by Mr. Stefaan Depypere, Director of International affairs and markets, Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the European Commission (DG MARE), European Commission Exchange of views with Ministers

11h00

[Restricted ACP Members meeting]

11h00 - 11h10

Adoption of the Agenda

11h10 -11h30

11h30 – 13h00

Presentation of the report of the Senior Officials meeting Ministerial round table Moderator: Chair of the Ministerial Meeting

13h00 – 14h30

Lunch break

14h30 – 15h30

Discussion on the proposed Roadmap for the five-year strategic plan, 20122016, for the fisheries and aquaculture

15h30 – 16h00

Consideration of the proposed resolutions and statement on the outcome of the meeting

1

Time

DAY TWO

10h00 – 11h00

Adoption of a road-map for the implementation of the Five year Strategic plan for fisheries and aquaculture

11h00 – 11h30

Adoption of the resolution and the statement on the meeting results

11h30 – 12h00

Closing ceremony

12h30

Press Conference

2