• Les disciplines dans les APE sur des obstacles traditionnels à l’accès au marché, notamment les droits tarifaires et les contingents ;
• Les dispositions qui prennent en compte les obstacles non-traditionnels au commerce dans les accords de l’OMC et dans les divers APE ;
• Les réglementations et normes techniques et les procédures d’évaluation de la conformité ;
• Les mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires ;
• La relation entre les règles des APE  sur les obstacles non-traditionnels au commerce et celles qui figurent dans les accords de l’OMC.

L’auteur conclut qu’on peut faire beaucoup, grâce aux APE, pour réduire considérablement les effets de restriction des échanges résultant de la manière dont l’UE  formule et applique les obstacles techniques au commerce ou les réglementations sanitaires et phytosanitaires, et détermine le respect de ces règlementations.  Á cet égard, les APE pourraient être des instruments utiles pour corriger les déficiences des accords de l’OMC, en facilitant la mise en œuvre des dispositions qui présentent un intérêt particulier pour les pays ACP (telles que la transparence, l’équivalence et la régionalisation) à travers des directives de procédure et des dispositifs institutionnels détaillés. En outre, des dispositions renforcées sur l’assistance technique (contenant des engagements budgétaires et des mécanismes de décaissement clairs) pourraient largement contribuer à la prise en compte des contraintes de l’offre qui limitent la capacité des pays ACP à tirer profit du potentiel d’accroissement de l’accès au marché découlant des APE.

In the spirit of the International Year of Biodiversity and with a view towards the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) held “Geneva Trade and Biodiversity Day” to explore the increasingly important intersection between trade and biodiversity policy in the promotion of sustainable development.

From WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies to sustainability certification schemes for biofuels, trade policies have strong implications for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity around the globe. Similarly, ongoing talks on an international regime on access and benefit-sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity could impact existing multilateral trade rules. Despite the clear links between these two policy-making processes, there has been relatively little international discourse or analysis that has considered how these policy communities can enhance their cooperation.

It is against this backdrop that the Geneva Trade and Biodiversity Day sought to identify and explore key issues at the trade and biodiversity nexus and provide inputs to the perceived lack of synergies between the two policy communities. In this way, participants helped to ensure that trade and biodiversity rules are mutually supportive and work together for sustainable development.

Specifically, the event aimed to:

• Improve understanding among the trade and biodiversity communities of how the pursuit of their respective goals and objectives might complement or hinder each other;
• Provide information, analysis and knowledge on the impact of multilateral trade rules on biodiversity and how biodiversity policies impact on trade and poverty reduction;
• Promote policy coherence in multi-governmental fora, including the WTO, the CBD, and WIPO, especially with regards to negotiations on an international access and benefit-sharing regime;
• Explore the synergies between trade policy and biodiversity as it relates to sectoral themes, including agriculture, intellectual property, fisheries and climate change; and
• Facilitate synergies between trade and biodiversity policy-making that results in tools that are complementary to the objectives of both communities.

This important gathering was held on 22 April 2010 at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) headquarters, Conference Room “A”. The individual sessions brought together Geneva negotiators, international organisations, civil society and academia in an effort to foster interaction among policy makers involved in different fora, as well as with those influencing policy-making processes. See “Documentation” above for select presentations from the event.

Indeed, many countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) have inadequate human, financial or technical resources to meet the required standards of food safety. The Global Financial Crisis has placed further restrictions on developing countries’ ability to raise funds to upgrade their food safety capabilities. This aspect is seen as particularly relevant in view of the potential negative impact of climate change on fisheries through the introduction and spread of new diseases to fish, and changes in their traditional operating environment.

This study seeks to examine those challenges and to contemplate possible policy responses. It argues that the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the European Union and ACP countries represent an opportunity to achieve solutions to several problem areas associated with EU SPS requirements. The importance of addressing SPS concerns in the fisheries sector cannot be overemphasized given that the EU accounts for 75 percent of ACP fisheries exports.

Moreover, fisheries are a key source of employment, export revenue and food security for many ACP countries. Internationally, fisheries are one of the few areas where their share of world trade is increasing. Consequently, if the impact of some of the SPS ‘barriers’ were reduced, it could facilitate a further potential expansion of this sector. This paper suggests that in this light, SPS can quite properly be viewed as a tool of development for the purposes of the EPAs, and therefore merits funding on this count alone.

In considering what might usefully be achieved within the framework of rule-making under the Economic Partnership Agreements, consideration is also given to the World Trade Organization SPS Agreement and some of the ambiguities that the SPS Agreement poses in this respect.

Finally, this paper sets out a number of recommendations for consideration by the EPA negotiators. These cover both specific textual wordings dealing with the SPS Agreement ambiguities, capacity building, and the need for regional institutions and regional approaches to the problem, as pests and diseases do not respect political boundaries. Some other recommendations are also made, which whilst relating to SPS issues, have a broader development objective.

This paper is part of ICTSD’s project on fisheries, trade and sustainable development, which aims to foster an inclusive and informed process for crafting multilateral, regional and domestic trade rules and policies in the fisheries sector that are supportive of sustainable development.

The objectives of this dialogue are:

• To take stock of the current state of affairs in ACP-EC negotiations on fishery aspects of EPA;

• To allow ACP negotiators and stakeholders to address specific issues that remain unresolved in such negotiations, including questions related to rules on investment, transitional arrangements with regard to preference erosion, and rules of origin;

• To consider opportunities and challenges for promoting intra-ACP trade in fish and fishery products.

The dialogue will bring together around 35 negotiators, policy makers and stakeholders in the fields of fishery, trade, and environmental policy to interact in an informal and open fashion, with a view to input substantively in the process of ongoing negotiations on fishery aspects of EPAs.

Translation will be made available, both from English into French and from French into English.

Please follow the link to view a copy of the Draft Agenda.

Reflecting the deterioration in fish stocks, the upward trend in global marine fish catch since 1950 has now ended and may even be in decline. As the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) points out, “the maximum long-term potential of the world marine capture fisheries has been reached.” The current global catch of about 85 million MT also disguises the changing composition of the total, with catches of smaller and less desirable fish reflecting the decline in dominant species.

While larger fish are generally caught for human consumption, stocks of smaller fish such as sardines and menhaden, on which the larger fish feed, are being used for feed or fertilizer. Well over one-third of fish by weight taken from the ocean are such so-called forage fish, most of which are fed to farmed fish and to pigs and poultry. This not only has an impact on other fish, birds and marine mammals that depend on the smaller fish for survival, but also inefficiently uses large quantities of fish that could be directly consumed for human food.

A growing sector in international trade, fisheries are one of the few areas in which ACP countries’ participation in world trade is increasing. The EU accounts for around 75 percent of ACP fishery exports, and they are concerned that the EPA negotiations could lead to a loss of preferences and decrease in fisheries revenues. Due to these worries, a number of ACP countries decided to initialise Interim Economic Partnership Agreements (IEPAs) or agreed on full EPAs with the EU at the end of 2007.

Apart from a loss of preferences, ACP concerns include tariff escalation and peaks, the reform of rules of origin, and new EU regulations on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. The inclusion of investment in the EPA negotiations also adds a new dimension that warrants careful consideration. Overall, the negotiating process has been complex, challenging and divisive for the ACP groupings.
In order to facilitate a frank, open and solutions-focused discussion of these ACP issues, ICTSD and the Commonwealth Secretariat, in cooperation with GTZ and the Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub, organised a Regional Dialogue on Fisheries Aspects of ACP-EU EPA Negotiation at the end of August 2008 in Windhoek, Namibia.

At the dialogue, policy-makers, negotiators, representatives of the private sector and other stakeholders from ACP countries reviewed the substance of the fisheries provisions contained in IEPA/EPA agreements to assess their significance from a trade and sustainable development perspective and derive implications for the future course of negotiations toward full EPAs. Participants converged on the need to ensure outcomes that would effectively improve livelihood and food security, ensure meaningful market access, and achieve broad sustainable development objectives in the ACP countries.

Overall, participants noted an urgent need for regions with IEPAs to ensure satisfaction with fisheries provisions already negotiated, and for regions without interim EPAs to learn from other regions to better articulate their negotiating positions.

Concerns raised included EU preferential rules of origin (RoO) in EPAs, revolving around definitional issues for ‘wholly obtained’ and ‘sufficiently worked or processed’ products. While the new RoO will somewhat simplify conditions for qualification of ‘wholly obtained’, concerns remain with respect to demands that fish caught in a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone automatically qualify as wholly originating.

On ‘sufficiently worked or processed products’ for fish, two issues remain: a possible extension of the new value tolerance (or de minimis) provision of 15 percent for non-originating inputs of fresh or frozen fish in fish products; and second, a possible extension of the global sourcing RoO currently offered by the EU to the Pacific to all other ACP regions. The global sourcing rule would allow for fish to be deemed originating from the ACP country regardless of where it was caught or the status of a vessel’s flag, as long as it was transformed into a pre-cooked, packaged or canned product.

ACP countries continue to demand flexibility and support to comply with stringent EU SPS regulations. Key challenges discussed at the meeting included the costs of HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) systems both in terms of equipment and skilled human resources, inadequate laboratory facilities, and the lack of a business-friendly environment for the exploitation of inland fisheries. Participants noted that the increasing range and complexity of SPS requirements - which have to be administered by the public sector but implemented and paid for by the private sector - warrants a much closer relationship between the two in the form of public/private consultative partnerships.

Generally, participants felt that numerous challenges relating to non-tariff measures remain to be addressed to enable meaningful benefits. As several ACP regions enter the final stage in their EPA negotiations, rules and disciplines on trade in fish and fishery products are likely to remain under scrutiny given the critical importance of fisheries for employment, livelihood, export revenues and development in a large number of ACP countries.

Rising oil prices have pushed the cost of marine diesel up by 30 percent this year and 320 percent over the past five years. Without subsidies for fuel or a relaxation of fishing quotes that could help offset fuel-related costs, the fishermen argued, bankruptcy would be their only option. “This is the worst crisis in the industry in 100 years,” said Javier Garat, the Secretary General of the Spanish Fisheries Confederation.

In mid-summer the European Commission’s Fisheries Council took the bait, adopting an emergency package to tackle the fuel crisis that provided an extra €600 million in support of the European fishing industry. The objective of the proposal was to reduce overcapacity fishing while decreasing fuel costs through measures such as modernizing vessels. Partial decommissioning of new vessels, was also included in the deal, which critics have accused of coming dangerously close to a reintroduction of subsidies for vessel construction—a measure that was phased out in the Common Fisheries Policy Reform in 2002.

The Fisheries Council decision was not a unanimous one. Countries like Sweden voted no to the measure, stating that it was merely a short-solution to a long-term crisis. Higher fuel prices, they argued, are only aggravating the industries’ problems that are caused by too many fishing vessels and too few fish stocks. Marine advocates have echoed this sentiment, warning that the European’s proposed measures may offset fuel costs, but they encourage overcapacity fishing.

Instead of subsidies, critics are calling for a long-term approach that helps the fishing industry adapt to rising fuel prices over time. Marine advocates argue that government must take responsible decisions to ensure that expenditures focus on reducing fleet capacity, supporting moves towards smaller, less environmentally damaging fishing fleets, finding techniques with low energy consumption, and adopting smarter fisheries management practices, globally. Many marine conservationists are also arguing for a reallocation of government funds away from subsidies and towards programmes that can help fishermen establish other long-term sources of incomes.

Throughout the past year there has been a major push in the WTO to prohibit fisheries subsidies in order to allow the replenishment of global fish stocks. But the recent failure of the WTO to reach an agreement on key issues during the Mini-Ministerial held in Geneva at the end of July, had repercussions for negotiations like those on fisheries, who fell victim to the collapse.

In late September, the European Commission launched a phase of analysis and consultation to further reform the Common Fisheries Policy of 2002. While the European Commission acknowledges that the 2002 policy yielded significant achievements, in light of the recent challenges the industry has faced, they heeded advice that more long-term decision making is needed to address the economic profitability and ecological balance of the fisheries sector. Talks began in late September, with plans to issue a full discussion document in early 2009.

One such solution that is being offered is eco-labelling of fish. Much like labelling of other food and consumer products, a fishery product bearing an eco-label logo signals that the product has been produced in accordance with certain environmental standards. Eco-labelling of fisheries products is generally calculated on the basis of criteria that assess, principally, the level of stock of the particular species, the environmental impact of the product on the marine environment, and how stocks are managed to respond to changing fisheries populations.

So, how exactly does a seemingly simple label serve to halt irreversible damage to global fisheries?

Advocates of eco-labelling schemes argue that they create market-based incentives for environmentally friendly products, thereby achieving sustainable development objectives making use of market measures. By providing consumers and retailers with more information on their products eco-labels raise environmental awareness. As more consumers call for products incorporating these standards, producers are motivated to meet these demands to gain a competitive advantage in the industry, add value to their product, and gain access to growing ‘green markets’. In the end, eco-label advocates say, political support for more sustainable and responsible fisheries production and management is generated.

Eco-labelling is not as straightforward as it may seem, however. There are several different labelling schemes and ensuring that they all meet sustainable standards can be a challenge. In response, in 2005 the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO) Committee on Fisheries (COFI) developed guidelines for eco-labelling fish products. “We have seen a proliferation of eco-labels on various products, some of which have little credibility, confused consumers, caused unfair competition in the market place, and did not promote sustainable practices,” said Ichiro Nomura, the FAO Assistant Director General for fisheries. “These are the kinds of challenges that the guidelines on eco-labelling of marine-capture fish products recently adopted by COFI can help address.”

The FAO eco-labelling guidelines outline general principles to govern such schemes, including the need for transparent, accurate, and independent auditing of standard-setting and accountability, and the need for standards to be based on reliable science. These principles provide guidance to governments and organisations that maintain eco-labelling programmes—such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)—and they outline minimum requirements and criteria for assessing whether a fishery should be certified and awarded an eco-label. Some examples of what is assessed includes the levels of fisheries stock for the targeted species, what impact the fisheries activities have on the marine environment, such as on the ocean floor, and how management systems that are in place will respond to changing fisheries populations. The entire process of certification takes, on average, 14 months and involves a wide range of stakeholders from the fisheries industry, environmental NGOs, marine scientists, and governments.

While schemes such as that promoted by the MSC and the FAO have met with success, there is concern over the challenges these programmes pose for poorer countries and small, artisanal fisheries, particularly in developing nations. Fisheries are a vital source of income in developing countries: net revenues from fish trade exports by developing nations is greater than that earned from their exports of tea, rice, cocoa, and coffee combined. The economic importance of fishery industries in these countries is further compounded by the reliance of communities and fishermen on fisheries for their livelihoods.

Signing up to eco-labelling schemes poses several challenges for developing countries and small and artisanal fisheries. With less access to financial resources and technical capacities, these vulnerable populations may lack the capacity to bring their fisheries production into line with eco-labelling criteria and standards. If global demand for fisheries products carrying the logo continues to grow, thereby decreasing the demand for non-eco-labelled goods, this could seriously threaten developing country producers and restrict market access. Here, the competitiveness of countries unable to meet or afford foreign labelling and certification standards risks erosion. In this case, the burden falls disproportionately on small and artisanal suppliers. Finally, from a trade perspective, there is concern that labelling schemes constitute a form of disguised protectionism.

While the concerns expounded here are similar to those often raised with regard to other eco-labelling schemes, the fisheries industry has made efforts to not repeat the same mistakes. The FAO guidelines acknowledge the hurdles that poorer countries face in responsibly managing their fisheries because of a lack of financial and technical resources, as well as the particular challenges posed by the small-scale fisheries typical of many developing nations. The FAO guidelines, therefore, call for financial and technical support for poorer countries to help them implement and benefit from eco-labelling schemes. Likewise, the MSC recently initiated a pilot project to help bring in small scale developing country producers through the establishment of a methodology that will assess fisheries levels and other data that is necessary for certification on a smaller scale. Results for this pilot project are expected sometime in early 2009. It is hoped that through this project, developing country and small scale fisheries can overcome the current barriers to certification, such as limited data on stock levels.

Advocates for the schemes argue that eco-labelling holds potential for developing countries’ fishery industries. Incorporating these standards presents opportunities for these producers to add value to their product, expand their market reach, and increase export revenues. They could also provide new opportunities for investment and joint ventures, something already witnessed in countries that have formed regional partnerships in order to bring industries into line with eco-labelling standards. At the moment, however, the proportion of certified fisheries producers based in developing countries remains low. Over the next several months, it is hoped that the efforts to further engage these producers will help yield significant results both financially, as well as environmentally.

Moreover, marine conservationists argue that if fisheries are more sustainably and responsibly managed as a result of eco-labels and seafood resources are protected, this is economically beneficial to developing countries that rely on fisheries for their livelihoods and food security in the long run. Fisheries management serves to protect the future of these fishing communities, say supporters.

The challenge for stakeholders—including governments, industry, and civil society—is thus to produce positive environmental outcomes in fisheries. They must promote sustainable fisheries, responsible management, and marine biodiversity conservation, while also protecting industries and communities, particularly in developing countries, from discrimination and economic disintegration. International efforts and global guidelines, such as those led by the FAO, are vital for achieving these objectives. However, global dialogue must continue; stakeholders from developed and developing nations need to engage with one another in future and current eco-labelling discussions and standards-setting to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable societies are met and that support is provided for these communities to guarantee that sustainable and responsible fisheries management practices are implemented worldwide.

Caitlin Zaino is Assistant Editor, ICTSD Publications

Fisheries trade relations between the EU and ACP countries are governed by World Trade Organization (WTO) provisions, as well as those of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA) between the EU and ACP countries. These relations are undergoing a period of change, with the negotiation of new economic partnership agreements (EPAs) that will replace current unilateral trade preferences offered by the EU with reciprocal preferences. The ACP-EU EPA negotiations have given rise to concerns about potential loss of preferences that could result in a significant decrease of export revenues for ACP countries. Other issues of concern for ACP countries relate to tariff escalation and tariff peaks, reforming rules of origin, and the implications of EU regulations on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. The inclusion of investment in the negotiations brings a new dimension that warrants careful consideration.

The continuation of uninterrupted market access for fish and fish products was a primary motivation for several ACP countries to agree to initial interim economic partnership agreements (IEPAs) or to agree to full EPAs with the European Community at the end of 2007. In certain cases a specific fisheries chapter was included in a regional IEPA/EPA. This was the case for the East African Community (EAC) and Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) IEPAs, and similarly for the chapter on agriculture and fisheries in the Caribbean EPA (CARIFORUM). In other cases, fisheries were part of bilateral IEPAs between the EU and certain non-least developed countries (LDCs) in the ACP. This was the case for Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, as West Africa did not come to an agreement with the European Community on a regional EPA at the end of December 2007.

The process of negotiating EPAs, including negotiations on rules governing trade and market access for fish and fish products, has been complex, challenging and divisive for the ACP groupings. At present, ACP groups yet to finalize their negotiations with the European Community are under pressure to do so. In regions that have already initialled an interim agreement, a number of questions subject to possible renegotiations remain. Overall, there is an urgent need for regions with IEPAs to ensure satisfaction with fisheries provisions already negotiated, and for regions without interim EPAs to learn from others in order to better articulate their positions in the process of negotiating full EPAs.

In response to these concerns, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) is initiating a process of analytical review of negotiations on fisheries under the EPA negotiations. This effort seeks to provide a better understanding of the substance of the provisions contained in IEPA/EPA agreements and to assess their significance from a trade, livelihood and sustainable development perspective.

As part of this process, this study is intended to be a practical tool for national and regional policymakers and stakeholders. It is meant to contribute to enhancing preparedness for negotiations of full EPAs such that the outcome contributes effectively to improving livelihoods and food security, ensuring meaningful market access, and achieving broad sustainable development objectives in ACP countries.

Liam Campling is currently a PhD candidate in development studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. His research examines the global commodity chains in canned tuna (centred on the EU and US), with a focus on their developmental relationship with Fiji and Seychelles.

He has published on development in small island states, the politics of international trade relations and commodity studies in the Journal of Developing Societies, the Journal of Agrarian Change (with Henry Bernstein), Sustainable Development (with Michel Rosalie), Island Studies Journal (with Elizabeth Havice) and Development Policy Review (with Jesper Nielson and Stefano Ponte). He is on the editorial board of the journal Historical Materialism and is reviews editor of the Journal of Agrarian Change. Since November 2007 he has been consultant trade policy analyst to the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). He has also worked as a consultant for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Center for the Development of Enterprise (CDE), the governments of Mauritius and Seychelles, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, the Regional Trade Facilitation Programme and United Nations Research Insitute for Social Development (UNRISD). He previously taught international politics and history on the University of Manchester Twinning Programme, Seychelles Polytechnic.

This paper is part of ICTSD’s project on fisheries, trade and sustainable development, which aims to foster an inclusive and informed process for crafting multilateral, regional and domestic trade rules and policies in the fisheries sector that are supportive of sustainable development.