REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

PART FOUR
of Origin that have to be met to qualify for the quotas, in particular definitions of the origin of vessels, the width of
territorial waters, origin of catches and ‘wholly obtained’ products. The Commission has promised to review
them as one way to improve market access for ACP fish products. There is also a stand off over the definition
of territorial waters: the Commission says 12 nautical miles, while the Pacific Islands argue for the 200-mile
Exclusive Economic Zone.
Is the tuna preference being challenged in the WTO?
It is caught up in the bigger challenge to Lomé preferences. The value of the preference is also under attack
from bigger, more competitive tuna fishing countries. As part of the deal for securing a WTO waiver until 2008,
the Commission gave the Philippines and Thailand preferential market access to Europe for a fisheries quota at
a tariff rate of 14%, rather than 24%. Many predict that this will become the European Union’s new across-theboard
tariff rate, making it harder for Pacific exporters to compete. Fisheries subsidies are also under attack in
the WTO Doha negotiations and the ACP countries have pleaded for special consideration of the impact on their
fisheries.
“We have a biological
problem, there are too
many boats taking too
many fish. It also
spawns an economical
problem where we have
legitimate fleets being
forced out of business
by the pirate fleets or
the non-conformists.”
(Grahame Southwick,
owner of Fiji Fish, 2004)
How might fisheries be dealt with in the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations?
Given the migratory nature of tuna fisheries and the need for costly infrastructure, a regional approach makes
sense. But those Islands that are tuna-rich and already have bilateral deals with the European Union have little
reason to pool the resource. As with sugar, an Economic Partnership Agreement without fisheries may fall short
of the requirement to cover ‘substantially all trade’. The alternative is to develop a subsidiary Fisheries Partnership
Agreement that includes development funding and other support, as foreshadowed in the Pacific Islands
strategy. That could also come with risky trade-offs. To attract foreign investment to local processing plants,
governments may be asked to guarantee the security and possibly the profitability of those investments.
Depending on the nature of these guarantees, foreign companies could challenge government policies or laws
that reduce the value or profitability of their operation, even if those measures have a sound developmental,
cultural or conservation rationale. They may also be asked to promise not to give preference to local firms,
require a certain amount of local processing or employment, or insist on joint ventures. It is important to
remember that these may not be specific to an agreement on fisheries; the European Commission is likely to
insist on them as basic principles in the umbrella Economic Partnership Agreement.
How would a Fisheries Partnership Agreement link to other aspects of the negotiations?
According to The Way Forward a worthwhile fisheries agreement must deliver more benefits to the Pacific
Islands and European Union than current arrangements. It would be linked to trade in goods, trade facilitation
and promotion, and foreign investment and have improved Rules of Origin. This reflects the broad ACP
insistence that Economic Partnership Agreements must involve genuine development, not just market access.
Is the Commission likely to accept the Fisheries Partnership Agreement option?
If the Commission thinks the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations aren’t offering enough on market
access, services and investment, or if the Pacific wants too much in return, it may be happy to get as much as
it can through bilateral deals in areas of particular interest, notably fisheries. How far the Commission would
accept the ‘development’ side of the package would probably depend, yet again, on what precedents it sets.
Would this approach really promote development for Pacific peoples?
The hope is that people will find jobs in the new fish factories and on ships. Balanced with this is the experience
in many countries that women workers leave their villages to take low paid jobs in the towns with huge impacts
on their families, communities, culture and the sustainability of the subsistence economy. Those impacts intensify
if the foreign investors decide the venture isn’t profitable enough and leave. These risks haven’t been assessed.
Nor it seems, have the environmental impacts. The fishery is one of the Pacific’s most precious resources. It
sustains the livelihoods of most Pacific people. Fish stock, biodiversity and the marine ecosystem need to be
protected from over-exploitation and destructive fishing practices. If fisheries form part of the bigger Economic
Partnership Agreement negotiations, there is a risk they would become the subject of trade offs, with no
assessment of the consequences. The fisheries also face pollution and damage from other commercial activities,
such as factories, tourist resorts, shipping and new ports. These fall within other parts of the Economic Partnership
Agreement negotiations that have no impact assessments either.
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 61