Cotonou Partnership Agreement
ACP-EU Relations in a Changing World
- The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: what role in a ...
- Weekly updates on the EPA negotiations
- ACP face difficulties in placing fishery products ...
- EPAs: much work remains to be done to accommodate ...
- Agriculture and Development in the EPA Negotiations
- Scripting the future ACP-EU partnership
- Three questions to Lingston Cumberbatch and Dieter...
- Cotonou Partnership Agreement: dialogue comes first
- ACP-EU Cooperation - Cautious optimism, ownership ...
- Cotonou Partnership - Premature questions?
related sites
homeacp-eu trade
europafrica.org
caribbean-europe
pacifie-europe
conference home
subscribe to rss feeds
subscribe to email alerts
recent postings
archives
- supported by
with
and
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Weekly updates on the EPA negotiations
Now that the pace of the EPA negotiations has increased in all ACP regions, ECDPM has set up dedicated pages on the discussions in each ACP region on the acp-eu-trade.org web site.
These pages will be updated on a weekly basis and provide breaking news 'as-it-happens.'
See also feeds from euforic members:
acp-eu news from ACP countries [subscribe to email updates]
acp-eu trade news [subscribe to email updates]
news on acp-eu cooperation [subscribe to email updates]
africa-eu cooperation [subscribe to email updates]
caribbean-eu cooperation [subscribe to email updates]
pacific-eu cooperation [subscribe to email updates]
news from acp secretariat
news from cta
news from ecdpm
Check out discussions in the eu-africa joint strategy consultation [subscribe to email updates]
These pages will be updated on a weekly basis and provide breaking news 'as-it-happens.'
See also feeds from euforic members:
Check out discussions in the eu-africa joint strategy consultation [subscribe to email updates]
Labels: acp_trade, en, eu_acp, eu_cooperation, euforic, euforic_member, news, text
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
ACP face difficulties in placing fishery products on the EU market
Trade in fish and fishery products constitutes a vital source of income for a large number of ACP countries, especially some smaller countries – e.g. Seychelles, Namibia, Senegal and Côte d’Ivoire – for which fish makes up the bulk of their export products.
The fisheries sector shows strong potential for the sustainable development of local fishing communities. Fish is also a highly political commodity. Because European consumers' demand for fish exceeds the stocks available in the waters of the European Union (EU), the EU needs to negotiate access to third countries' stocks. As these third countries are often ACP countries, for which the fisheries sector is of major importance, stakes in the fishing trade are high.
However, the fisheries policy of the European Commission is not consistent with its aim of development cooperation. The Evert Vermeer Foundation and CONCORD are monitoring these inconsistencies under their "EU Coherence Programme". A recent case study on this subject exposed a number of manifest inconsistencies in this area, and has been presented submitted to the European Parliament at an expert meeting.
Fishery products originating from ACP countries have to comply to two sets of standards before they can enter the EU market: these are the "rules of origin", and a set of "sanitary and phyto-sanitary" (SPS) standards. These standards and regulations have led to a number of manifest inconsistencies in the practice of processing and exporting fish and fishery products from the ACP to the European market. For example, the rules of origin require ACP countries to buy and support their own fleets, but they do not have the means to do it.
The sanitary measures introduced by the EU to protect European consumers also act as non-tariff trade barriers, putting considerable constraints on market access for ACP exporters. For example, for one year Seychelles were not allowed to export their swordfish catches to the EU. As a consequence, a large number of fishermen and small and medium-sized businesses in the Seychelles either went out of business or had to change to fishing for species that were less valuable and less suitable for export to the EU.
Another inconsistent aspect is the difference in approach between EPA (Economic Partnership Agreement) negotiations and the established fisheries agreements. Both should aim for a more regional approach, as the ecosystem does fit neatly inside national borders. Both arrangements should focus on the link between market access and resource access. Sustaining ACP fisheries while at the same time maintaining the current level of access for EU vessels to ACP waters is simply impossible.
To summarise: if ACP fishermen cannot export their catches, or have no fish left to catch, because of EU vessels fishing in their waters, market access for ACP fisheries becomes a non-issue. The interests of the millions of people who depend on the industry should be taken into account, and sudden shocks to economies and livelihoods should be avoided as far as possible. Capacity-building for local fisheries should be reinforced, partly in order to help them reach EU standards.
Field experts and NGOs advocate that the rules of origin should be applied with more flexibility where needed, in order to benefit processing industries in developing countries.
More information: http://www.eucoherence.org
Source: CONCORD Flash, May 2007
See the Euforic Fisheries Dossier
The fisheries sector shows strong potential for the sustainable development of local fishing communities. Fish is also a highly political commodity. Because European consumers' demand for fish exceeds the stocks available in the waters of the European Union (EU), the EU needs to negotiate access to third countries' stocks. As these third countries are often ACP countries, for which the fisheries sector is of major importance, stakes in the fishing trade are high.
However, the fisheries policy of the European Commission is not consistent with its aim of development cooperation. The Evert Vermeer Foundation and CONCORD are monitoring these inconsistencies under their "EU Coherence Programme". A recent case study on this subject exposed a number of manifest inconsistencies in this area, and has been presented submitted to the European Parliament at an expert meeting.
Fishery products originating from ACP countries have to comply to two sets of standards before they can enter the EU market: these are the "rules of origin", and a set of "sanitary and phyto-sanitary" (SPS) standards. These standards and regulations have led to a number of manifest inconsistencies in the practice of processing and exporting fish and fishery products from the ACP to the European market. For example, the rules of origin require ACP countries to buy and support their own fleets, but they do not have the means to do it.
The sanitary measures introduced by the EU to protect European consumers also act as non-tariff trade barriers, putting considerable constraints on market access for ACP exporters. For example, for one year Seychelles were not allowed to export their swordfish catches to the EU. As a consequence, a large number of fishermen and small and medium-sized businesses in the Seychelles either went out of business or had to change to fishing for species that were less valuable and less suitable for export to the EU.
Another inconsistent aspect is the difference in approach between EPA (Economic Partnership Agreement) negotiations and the established fisheries agreements. Both should aim for a more regional approach, as the ecosystem does fit neatly inside national borders. Both arrangements should focus on the link between market access and resource access. Sustaining ACP fisheries while at the same time maintaining the current level of access for EU vessels to ACP waters is simply impossible.
To summarise: if ACP fishermen cannot export their catches, or have no fish left to catch, because of EU vessels fishing in their waters, market access for ACP fisheries becomes a non-issue. The interests of the millions of people who depend on the industry should be taken into account, and sudden shocks to economies and livelihoods should be avoided as far as possible. Capacity-building for local fisheries should be reinforced, partly in order to help them reach EU standards.
Field experts and NGOs advocate that the rules of origin should be applied with more flexibility where needed, in order to benefit processing industries in developing countries.
More information: http://www.eucoherence.org
Source: CONCORD Flash, May 2007
See the Euforic Fisheries Dossier
Labels: acp_fisheries, acp_trade, coherence, concord
Monday, April 02, 2007
EPAs: much work remains to be done to accommodate ACP concerns
Among the recent key meetings on EPA negotiations were the Joint Trade Committee Meeting (JTCM) on 1 March where the conclusions from the EPA review carried out in ACP sub-regions were discussed. This meeting was followed by the informal EU Development Ministers meeting on 13-14 March hosted by the German EU Presidency.
Both meetings resulted in EU/EC statements affirming that progress is being made and "that much work remains to be done" but that negotiations are on schedule.
However, from the ACP side, things seem to be less clear and from informal debriefings, it appears that much remains to be done to accommodate ACP concerns. There is appreciation of the fact that the EC and in particular Commissioners Mandelson and Michel have finally understood that their "dismissive tone" towards their ACP counterparts is little but provocative and can certainly not be understood as a confidence building approach. Recognition by Commissioner Mandelson about failing to listen to the ACP comes late, but it is hoped that such change will lead to the necessary sincere engagement and accommodation of ACP concerns. This "change of tune" only proves that the EU Council's political supervision is urgently needed to ensure that the EPA negotiations are in line with principles enshrined in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, rather than DG Trade negotiation practices.
Source: EU NEWS - Issue 2, March 2007 (APRODEV, CIDSE, Caritas Europa).
See also Euforic dossier on ACP trade.
Both meetings resulted in EU/EC statements affirming that progress is being made and "that much work remains to be done" but that negotiations are on schedule.
However, from the ACP side, things seem to be less clear and from informal debriefings, it appears that much remains to be done to accommodate ACP concerns. There is appreciation of the fact that the EC and in particular Commissioners Mandelson and Michel have finally understood that their "dismissive tone" towards their ACP counterparts is little but provocative and can certainly not be understood as a confidence building approach. Recognition by Commissioner Mandelson about failing to listen to the ACP comes late, but it is hoped that such change will lead to the necessary sincere engagement and accommodation of ACP concerns. This "change of tune" only proves that the EU Council's political supervision is urgently needed to ensure that the EPA negotiations are in line with principles enshrined in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, rather than DG Trade negotiation practices.
Source: EU NEWS - Issue 2, March 2007 (APRODEV, CIDSE, Caritas Europa).
See also Euforic dossier on ACP trade.
Labels: acp_trade, aprodev, cidse, eu_acp, eu_cooperation, euforic_member
