Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 15 • 10th October 2002
EU Snagged by WWF Criticism of Fisheries Agreement with Angola
EU Snagged by WWF Criticism of Fisheries Agreement with Angola
The environmental organisation WWF earlier this week came down hard on the EU for signing a fishing agreement with Angola worth 15.5 million Euros that they say would further threaten resource health and a food source in a nation grappling with a food crisis. WWF alleges that the deal defaults the EU’s commitment to promoting sustainable fishing practices, and creates confusion between the objectives of the fisheries and development directorates. While not opposing a fishing agreement between the EU and Angola, WWF believes that the agreement raises many questions that require a much wider debate.
In its scathing review, WWF stated: “Angola is starving but the EU - while providing emergency food aid - has recently signed an agreement to take fish from Angolan waters to feed European markets.” WWF views the deal as illogical in light of the EU USD 29 million contribution in humanitarian aid to help the African country deal with severe food shortages and other difficulties. One fisheries source went even further, highlighting tension between the EU development directorate and the fisheries directorate over the types of inconsistencies that exist between the two bodies’ policies in cases like the EU-Angolan agreement. Carl Gustaf Lundin of IUCN, however, pointed out that while there had been limited effort in the past to create coherence between various EU directorate policies, such as development and fisheries, efforts had been stepped up significantly to link the development and fisheries policies.
WWF also criticized the almost total absence of fishing limits in the new agreement — aside from shrimp — which they said “is not in line with sustainable fisheries.” The EU, however, stressed that the agreement was intended to help Angola develop sustainable fishing, inter alia by allocating 35 percent of this money for developing small-scale fisheries. “We try to make agreements that ensure there is no competition between EU and local vessels,” said Gregor Kreuzhuber, spokesman for EU Farm and Fisheries Commissioner Franz Fischler.
Some have also raised concerns over the Angolan authorities’ ability to properly regulate the fishery industry and the EU’s involvement in helping to manage the sector. As one fisheries source pointed out, it seemed inappropriate to have the same body, i.e. the EU, involved in purchasing almost limitless fishing rights and then helping to manage that same resource. The source went on to say that it would be better to separate these kinds of agreements and management.
What is not clear is exactly how the EU agreement will impact on the food supply of the Angolan people. Some believe that EU vessels might not necessarily impact local food supply or certain stocks. Under the agreement, the EU vessels must fish outside a 12-mile off shore boundary along the Angolan coast and will be monitored through satellite surveillance. While Angola has a sizeable small-scale fleet, which generally fishes closer to shore, their large-scale fleet is not particularly numerous or technically advanced. As Lundin explained, such a combination of EU and Angolan vessels could mean that different stocks and different fishing areas were used by different people.
ICTSD Reporting; “Conservationists slam EU fishing policy in Africa,” REUTERS, 9 October, 2002; “EU And ADB Provide Funds for Food Relief,” UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, October 3, 2002; “The EU-Angola Fisheries Agreement and Fisheries in Angola,” WWF, September 2002; “A WWF Report in Angola Highlights Controversial EU Fishing Agreements With Developing Countries,” WWF, 8 October, 2002.