preparation for epa negotiations - meeting to discuss a common ...
20
1 SmartFish Meeting Report No 018 Prepared by SmartFish Secretariat PREPARATION FOR EPA NEGOTIATIONS - MEETING TO DISCUSS A COMMON NEGOTIATING POSITION 5 th – 6 th March 2012, Mauritius
Transcript of preparation for epa negotiations - meeting to discuss a common ...
1
SmartFish
Meeting Report
No 018
Prepared by
SmartFish Secretariat
PREPARATION FOR EPA
NEGOTIATIONS - MEETING TO DISCUSS
A COMMON NEGOTIATING POSITION
5th – 6th March 2012, Mauritius
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. OBJECTIVE OF THE MEETING ............................................................................................................... 3
1.3. PARTICIPANTS .......................................................................................................................................... 3
2. PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1. FORMAL OPENING ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2. REVIEW OF THE AGENDA ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.3. STATE OF PLAY OF IEPA AND EPA NEGOTIATIONS ........................................................................ 5
2.4. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY ISSUES ......................................................................................................... 5
2.5. FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY ON RULES OF ORIGIN (ROO) AND DISCUSSIONS ...................... 6
2.6. INDIAN OCEAN TUNA INDUSTRY EXPECTATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EPA NEGOTIATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.6.1 MADAGASCAR – PECHE ET FROID DE L’OCEAN INDIEN (PFOI) ................................................. 8
2.6.2 SEYCHELLES – INDIAN OCEAN TUNA (IOT) ..................................................................................... 8
2.6.3 KENYA - WANAINCHI MARINE LTD. .................................................................................................. 8
2.6.4 MAURITIUS – THON DES MASCAREIGNES ....................................................................................... 9
2.6.5 MAURITIUS – PRINCES (MAURITIUS) LTD. ....................................................................................... 9
2.7. FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS IN EPA NEGOTIATIONS: DISCUSSION ON KEY ISSUES .............. 10
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 12
3.1. INTERIM EPA AND EPA NEGOTIATIONS .......................................................................................... 12
3.2. KEY ISSUES FOR FURTHER WORK AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMON POSITION ON ROO FOR FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS ON EPA ................................................................................. 12
3.3. FORWARD STRATEGY .......................................................................................................................... 13
4. ANNEXES ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
ANNEX 1: AGENDA ............................................................................................................................................ 15
ANNEX 2 : PARTICIPANTS LIST ...................................................................................................................... 16
This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this
publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way reflect the views of the
European Union.
3
Meeting Report
Preparation for EPA Negotiations
Meeting to Discuss a Common Negotiating Position
Pearle Beach Hotel, Flic en Flac, Mauritius
5th - 6th March 2012
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
The SmartFish Programme for the Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Strategy for the ESA-IO region has been
initiated in February 2011, with the aim of contributing to an increased level of social, economic and environmental
development and deeper regional integration in the ESA-IO region through improved capacities for the sustainable
exploitation of fisheries resources. The programme is financed by the European Union under the 10th European
Development Fund.
This meeting falls under Result 4 of the SmartFish programme related to regional trade development and provides
an opportunity for the countries to consider the advantages of various combined initiatives relating to how they
work together to improve market positioning and sustainability of the tuna industry.
1.2. OBJECTIVE OF THE MEETING
The meeting was organized and supported by the Indian Ocean Commission to bring together members of the
countries involved with the EPA negotiations expected to be held in mid-April 2012 and provided a forum for the
countries to discuss and orient towards a common position with regards to key issues facing the fisheries in these
countries. Specifically the meeting focused on the issues surrounding the Rules of Origin (RoO) and related
derogation requirements.
1.3. PARTICIPANTS
Participants included Foreign Affairs and Fisheries Administrations representatives from Comoros, Madagascar,
Mauritius, Seychelles, as well as industry and export association representatives (including Thon des Mascareignes
and Princes Tuna from Mauritius and Indian Ocean Tuna from Seychelles). Given the mandate and responsibilities,
representatives from COMESA, the ACP Secretariat in Brussels and the EUD in Mauritius also participated. Given
the need to ensure harmonization among the negotiating Groups in the region, the IOC also invited Kenya and its
industry to participate as observer. The list of participants is annexed.
4
2. PROCEEDINGS
2.1. FORMAL OPENING
Raj Mohabeer, the Chairman for the meeting, opened the session and welcomed all to Mauritius on behalf of the
Indian Ocean Commission, and invited various key invited guests to the meeting to make introductory comments.
Helen Kenani from COMESA made some welcoming remarks and noted that the Rules of Origin (RoO) issues
facing the region were particularly important for the future. The importance of the fishery to the economy of the
region was reviewed briefly, not least the indirect benefits that accrue from the industry. She noted that COMESA
is committed to reducing and eradicating poverty in the region and this process towards successful EPA discussions
will contribute to that objective.
Denis Reiss from the European Union Delegation (EUD) in Mauritius welcomed all to the meeting and thanked
IOC and SmartFish for their contribution to the meeting. He referred to the partnership spirit that exists in the
region and in the fishing industry. He explained that fishing is a growing sector and diversification is an important
factor as the partners move forward together. The consistencies with DG SANCO, as well as FPAs and EPA are
noteworthy. Consolidating EU Markets and to have access to other markets and better diversify the sector is
important and the EU is interested to support these activities in the region.
Hélène Fiagan from the ACP Secretariat in Brussels thanked the IOC for being invited to the meeting. She referred
to the mechanism on Fisheries that has been put in place in 2009 for ACP Fisheries Ministers and informed
participants that meetings are scheduled each year. This year’s meeting is to be held in Fiji from 16 to 19 June 2012
and the results of the work in the Eastern Africa region can constitute a valuable input for the meeting. She stressed
the importance of countries sharing experiences in the field of negotiation. She explained that this meeting was
taking place at a crucial moment as the environment has changed since the commencement of negotiations, with
more emphasis given to sustainability, sound management of environmental aspects, good governance, food
security, market access, etc. Integrating new aspects in the negotiating process is therefore very important. She
reminded the participants the main objective of the meeting which is to reach a common position in view of the
discussions with the EU in the forthcoming EPA negotiations.
Raj Mohabeer opened the floor for a round of self-introductions and then reviewed the agenda with the meeting
participants. He also indicated that the SmartFish Programme would welcome further involvement in terms of
supporting the process towards successful EPA negotiations and would be happy to discuss potential suggestions
on how the programme could assist.
5
2.2. REVIEW OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was revised to better accommodate the purposes of the meeting including presentations from the
industry as well as from governments officials. The meeting then proceeded to follow the revised agenda. The
revised agenda is annexed.
2.3. STATE OF PLAY OF IEPA AND EPA NEGOTIATIONS
• Mr. Michaud (Seychelles) and Mr. Boodhoo (Mauritius) provided an overview of previous EPA negotiations
and a status report on issues that are outstanding. In general terms it was noted that the interim EPA (iEPA)
was concluded, but not all ESA countries had signed. Certain issues were still considered to be contentious. It
was reported that progress had been made, however, since signing in 2009 and in 2010 a consolidated text was
tabled. After the conclusion of the iEPA, momentum was there that suggests that negotiations can be
concluded. Rules of Origin (RoO) for fish products are one of the key issues that need to be addressed. A
proposal to increase the Automatic Derogation to 30,000 Mt. has been made. There is a strong belief that
there is justification for increased derogation related to local needs in the region and a paper has been
presented to the EU in this issue. The EU has requested more detailed justification for this increase from
10,000 Mt. to 30,000 Mt. for the Automatic Derogation. A number of other items and issues were noted as
outstanding and requiring work for the negotiation process.
• The EU made comments after the presentation and noted that the key issues had been stated well. He also
noted that based on the catch data, and the demand from the processors, it seems that the factories are not
facing any sourcing problem even with the effect of piracy and reduction in EU fleet. He also noted, however
that it is necessary to get accurate data on this issue to fully justify and defend the requirement for an increase
in the derogation.
• Other comments were received from the participants, including Kenya who agreed with the presentation from
Mr. Boodhoo and Mr. Michaud. They noted that indeed piracy is having a significant impact.
• The Chair reminded the meeting that the SmartFish Programme is not restricted to IOC countries, but also
covers the ESA region.
• Comments were also received from COMESA that supported the discussions.
2.4. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY ISSUES
• Following the overview of EPA negotiations, discussions enabled the identification of 11 main issues to focus
on while moving forward to the development of a common position on RoO and to the completion of EPA
negotiations related to fish and fish products:
6
1. Need for the Automatic Derogation to be increased to 30,000 Mt.
2. Cumulation with ACP countries
3. Cumulation with OCTs
4. Cumulation with neighboring countries (including Maldives)
5. Fish caught in EEZ as originating
6. Flexibility on issue of force majeure
7. Calculation of value tolerance
8. Review clause for text
9. Carrying forward of Automatic Derogation
10. Coming up with language which links with development chapter 3
11. Effectiveness of normal derogation process.
2.5. FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY ON RULES OF ORIGIN (ROO) AN D DISCUSSIONS
• Mr. Bent Larsen, trade expert for SmartFish, introduced himself and gave some background to his regional
and fisheries experiences. He went on to summarize the findings of his report and provide background to the
objectives of the meeting. His draft report had been circulated prior to the meeting. In the paper, three different
options were provided for discussion:
1. Keep RoO as they are as beneficial – status quo
2. Promote an approach to open sourcing that would be acceptable
3. Define relaxed RoO and increase the volume under the automatic derogation
• Seychelles noted that the report is helpful and will help to move forward. There are corrections to the report
required, but it is more important to focus on the options presented at this time. There is a need to focus on the
11 points noted earlier.
• Mauritius agreed that the report needs updating a bit, but the more important is to discuss the three options. He
also noted that a provision could be included in the EPA that when more favorable treatment is given to a
particular region, there is a need to consider other regions as well. Of the main 11 issues listed the main issue
is global sourcing vs. an increase in automatic derogation.
• Seychelles clarified that the countries are not for global sourcing at this point, but the situation is evolving and
the position may need to be reviewed within say 3 years.
• Madagascar indicated that they had discussed with the tuna company (PFOI) in Madagascar, and it expressed
concern regarding global sourcing in the context of this EPA. The answer is a definite no to global sourcing at
this time. Other points raised by PFOI were noted, such as the need to preserve the present RoO until
7
forthcoming agreement, and the need to exclude anything which does not go against IUU fishing from the
agreement. Madagascar also expressed their wish to strengthen the position regarding SPS standards for ships
fishing in the region, always in a spirit of sustainable fishing.
• The Chair summarized and noted that it was agreed between the countries that the tendency is to go for option
3 with an increased automatic derogation. He also indicated that there is a need to have a monitoring system of
all the bilateral and multilateral agreements that the EU is pursuing. It was suggested that maybe the ACP
Secretariat could be involved with this monitoring, as they are already coordinating on this issue.
• The Chair summarized that Madagascar agree with Seychelles and Mauritius, with some new suggestions. The
key point being to opt for Option 3 – an increase of automatic derogation.
• Comoros commented that they were not directly faced with RoO issues, but hope to be there one day. They
stated that they have nothing to win, thus they will favor the more advantageous option for the region.
• The Chair thanked Comoros for their comments and solidarity with the region.
• The industry representative from Kenya (Wanainchi Marine Ltd.) noted their interest to discuss “sourcing”.
Kenya’s opportunity is to strengthen its position for better sourcing options, and growing as a region. The
factory there has problems with sourcing and the plant had to close for part of the year as a result. Kenya noted
their desire to strengthen position as a group.
• The ACP Secretariat confirmed that they will carry out the monitoring of activities.
• COMESA indicated that they were concerned about the impact of RoO relaxation on the region. The
representative insisted on the fact that, by January 2014, countries without EPA will get preferences changed.
Given that the region will be affected by the agreements, she stressed the need to agree on a negotiating
position to be put forward. In this regard, she stated that COMESA will support the recommendations of the
meeting.
• Bent Larsen summarized the points received so far and particularly indicated a need to finalize report based on
comments received. He noted that there was agreement that option 3 in the paper is the right framework to
continue. Additional requirements were noted, for example the need to draft a justification paper for the
increase in derogation. He took note of the discussion on open/global sourcing and whether it has a future or
not. He noted that there wasn’t much enthusiasm for global sourcing so far. The issue of cumulation will also
need to be looked at later. It is an issue since fish and fish products have been taken out. However, he noted
that diagonal cumulation still exists. It was also noted that a study on the impact of PNG on third parties is
underway, so we need to get that study once it is completed.
8
2.6. INDIAN OCEAN TUNA INDUSTRY EXPECTATIONS IN THE CONT EXT OF THE EPA
NEGOTIATIONS
2.6.1 MADAGASCAR – PECHE ET FROID DE L’OCEAN INDIEN (PFOI)
• See above.
2.6.2 SEYCHELLES – INDIAN OCEAN TUNA (IOT)
• Some background data was provided about the industry in Seychelles.
• The representative noted a need to understand better about sanitation rules. They are obliged to buy from
registered boats (DG SANCO) and highly audited by EU on sanitary, environmental and ethical aspects.
They want to be sure that no other country is being given benefit to enter EU.
• He agreed on the need to review the derogation, and to analyze the situation to prove justification. This is
related to source and volume of supplies: he noted that supply is affected by the significant reduction of EU
vessels in the region, by the weather (monsoon) and by piracy. He noted that there is a need to understand
and be careful about bi-lateral agreements with EU. He also noted that there is a risk to loose derogation:
automatic derogation and carry over are therefore important. He noted that the EU will take final decision
anyway.
2.6.3 KENYA - WANAINCHI MARINE LTD.
• The representative stated that the derogation was hampering them: even when they get approval, it doesn’t
work as it is too late. Three years in a row, they received it in December and they were not able to have the
time to process. They had a capacity of 60 Mt. per day, but it has now increased to 120 Mt. per day. Cold
storage increased also from 1,400 Mt. to 5,400 Mt. This proves that an increased derogation is required.
• Kenya noted their need for the derogation as supplies are limited in Kenyan waters. Kenya noted their
concern for the EPA – because each one of these options is not necessarily as it seems. He noted that the
EU doesn’t recognize ACP rules anymore, and that global sources also come with problems. We just need
more sustainable sources in the future, and we are getting cut off by more stringent RoO, he said.
9
2.6.4 MAURITIUS – THON DES MASCAREIGNES
• TdM exports tuna loins and pouches to EU and American markets. The representative of TdM noted that
global sourcing as an option rather than a priority is the way we are moving. He noted that the indication of
catches mentioned by the EU representative is actually a maximum and not reality based on seasonality,
etc.
• He underlined that the case of Mauritius is different from Seychelles, as away from landing of fish. He
stated that logistics was an additional challenge that requires more flexibility.
• He stressed the need for more options for sustainable fish, given that the number of vessels has decreased
due to piracy and closures. Derogation and RoO being closer to what it was, additional flexibility with EU
is required.
2.6.5 MAURITIUS – PRINCES (MAURITIUS) LTD.
• The representative from Princes highlighted that canneries have no other choice than to grow. He explained
the need to reduce costs due to preference erosion. In the future, they will have 40% less vessel movements
and 1/3 less catches. He also underlined the decrease of fishing areas (box North of Somalia is closed and
marine parks have been announced in the Mozambique Channel). In addition, there is currently a shift from
skipjack to yellowfin in catches. The conclusion of all these parameters is that they will run short of fish.
Northern Europe only wants skipjack, and if they can’t find it in the Indian Ocean, they will find it
elsewhere.
• He raised the issue of sustainable sources. According to him, the discussion is not about “Cotonou +” but
rather about “Cotonou –”, given that they could source previously from more places. For example, it is not
possible to get FAD-free fish from PNG because rules are different. Consequence is that trade between
African countries is not possible. It is not possible to get FAD-free and pole and line tuna. All new vessels
for the Indian Ocean are designed for other markets (frozen tuna for Japan). In 5 to 10 years the supply
market will be very different.
• The representative highlighted that global sourcing will not solve problems, given that no ACP country has
a fleet, with a few small exceptions. For example, in PNG, half of fish is caught by Vanuatu vessels. There
is no agreement with DG MARE, so it is not that easy to have fish from other sources. According to him,
the biggest change is that they lose all possibility to do business with countries.
10
2.7. FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS IN EPA NEGOTIATIONS: DISCUSSION ON KEY ISSUES
• The Chair summarized that key challenges have been indicated in these presentations. He added that lots of
challenges on the horizon need to be understood during these upcoming negotiations. He also noted that it
is important that we get these issues written down as strong proposals from this region. Generally it was
concluded that there is much to do amongst ourselves before going forward. He reiterated the need to put
on paper strong justifications for all these proposals. He then opened up the floor for discussions and
comments.
• Mauritius thanked the industry representatives for their presentations. These points can now strengthen the
paper so it can be used as a guideline for negotiations. It is a good thing that countries appear to be moving
in same direction. The lack of flexibility and effectiveness of the normal derogation was highlighted
(timing issues).
• The ACP Secretariat noted that the normal derogation application involves considerable delay. As a
consequence, applications are submitted more than a year before. Cotonou agreement included a 75 days
silent agreement for the derogation to be effective, but now that is gone. She noted that they have asked for
an increase of the quota. She also explained a system where there used to be a 5 years regional derogation
requested (this amount was then partitioned amongst countries later). It was also explained that, in the past,
it was possible to transfer amounts to another country, if required.
• Kenya thanked the consultant for the discussions and indicated that they had talked about building in a
graduating scale so that a derogation award is built up. If we could talk about including a way to get what
we were actually requesting it would be progress.
• Mauritius noted that under normal derogation it is received late. However when it has arrived in time in the
past, they have always used it, so it is definitely needed. They noted that they already have a quota on an
annual basis of 10,000 Mt. They will find out how they are going to reallocate unused quantities. The 75
days issue relates to the Normal Derogation. They stressed that an implementation committee would be
useful to look at this.
• The EU made it clear that there is no link between RoO and sustainable fisheries, and asked that the
participants consider this important issue. In addition, we can’t allow any shortcut saying that the EU fleet
in the region is not sustainable.
• Seychelles agreed with the EU on this issue. The EU fleet is the most controlled, and it is managed by the
IOTC. There is no link between RoO and sustainable fisheries.
11
• The chair, with assistance from the floor, summarized the key issues from the discussions, in line with the
list of 11 outstanding issues to be considered in the upcoming negotiations. He urged the floor to decide
how to move ahead on these points.
• Mauritius noted that most of the points were clear and that some of the points are already acceptable to the
EU. He emphasized that the main point that needs clarification and justification is the increased Automatic
Derogation. He suggested that more expert work might be needed to have a strong paper to justify this,
with some strong language in it.
• Mauritius presented a paper prepared by their delegation on flexible rules for tuna. It was suggested that the
consultant strengthen it, given that the EU said it was not strong enough. It was noted that more expert
work is required to ensure accuracy of data and inclusion of appropriate details. The expert would meet the
parties concerned to get clarifications and contributions.
• This proposal was agreed by the participants. Once the paper is prepared, it will be circulated to
participants and then all agree together. We would then take that as a common proposal to be presented to
the EU. This will include the language used in the 11 points. The Mauritius paper was copied and
circulated.
• Mauritius reviewed the paper for all. A number of issues were highlighted in the paper (vessels,
sustainability issues and EU standards, piracy, etc.). New RoO proposal from EU and the impact on
cumulation was also highlighted. The need for more depth in the economic aspects and social aspects was
stressed.
• Seychelles considered that the paper was a good base for making a good case. It was suggested to use other
words when looking at flexible sourcing. It is also necessary that the consultant verifies figures and data
with countries. With regards to sustainability issues and vessels, it is important to be fair and reasonable.
• The Chair stressed the need for deadlines and suggested to have the draft report ready by the end of the
month (March 2012). He stressed the need to start straight away (EPA negotiations may occur in mid-
April) in order to get inputs from the region. Comments from participants should therefore be available one
week after end of March once the draft report has been circulated.
• Mauritius noted that this paper only deals with one issue discussed this morning. It justifies the need to
increase the normal derogation, which is only one aspect. There are many links to other RoO issues.
However, it is concluded that most points on the list do not need expert work.
12
• The Chair suggested that this paper be called “Position Paper on RoO for Fish and Fish Products”. It will
address three key areas: derogation, cumulation and other issues.
• The EU agreed that this was a good proposal and that the consultant could sub-divide the fish products also
for further understanding.
• The ACP Secretariat noted that real administrative cooperation was key.
• Kenya proposed to represent the position of EAC on these issues at this meeting. This was agreed.
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1. INTERIM EPA AND EPA NEGOTIATIONS
It was noted that the interim EPA (iEPA) was concluded, but not all ESA countries had signed. Certain issues were
still considered to be contentious. It was reported that progress had been made, however, since signing in 2009 and
in 2010 a consolidated text was tabled. After the conclusion of the iEPA, momentum was there that suggests that
negotiations can be concluded. Rules of Origin (RoO) for fish products are one of the key issues that need to be
addressed. A proposal to increase the automatic derogation to 30,000 Mt. has been made. There is a strong belief
that there is justification for increased derogation related to local needs in the region and a paper has been presented
to the EU in this issue. The EU has requested more detailed justification for this increase from 10,000 Mt. to 30,000
Mt. for the automatic derogation. A number of other items and issues were noted as outstanding and requiring work
for the negotiation process.
3.2. KEY ISSUES FOR FURTHER WORK AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMON
POSITION ON ROO FOR FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS ON EPA
Discussions enabled the identification of 11 main issues to focus on while moving forward to the completion of
EPA negotiations related to fish and fish products.
1. Need for the Automatic Derogation to be increased to 30,000 Mt.
2. Cumulation with ACP countries
3. Cumulation with OCTs
4. Cumulation with neighboring countries (including Maldives)
5. Fish caught in EEZ as originating
6. Flexibility on issue of force majeure
7. Calculation of value tolerance
8. Review clause for text
13
9. Carrying forward of Automatic derogation
10. Coming up with language which links with development chapter 3
11. Effectiveness of normal derogation process.
3.3. FORWARD STRATEGY
Mr. Bent Larsen, trade expert for the SmartFish Programme, summarized the findings of his report which
concluded on 3 different options as forward strategies provided for discussion:
1. Keep RoO as they are as beneficial – status quo;
2. Promote an approach to open sourcing that would be acceptable;
3. Define relaxed RoO and increase the volume under the automatic derogation.
Discussions following the presentation concluded as follows:
• The report is helpful and will help us to move forward. There are corrections to the report required, but it is
more important to focus on the options presented at this time. There is a need to focus on the 11 points noted
earlier.
• The report needs some updating.
• The general consensus was to opt for option 3.
Further discussions concluded on the followings as the way forward:
• There is a need to focus on increased automatic derogation as the major issue.
• There is also a need to have a monitoring system of all the bilateral and multilateral agreements that the EU is
pursuing. It was noted that the ACP Secretariat is already coordinating on this issue.
• There should be provision for a review of the position within say 3 years, given the evolution of the
circumstances.
• The industries presentations were converging towards more focus around the 11 identified issues.
• COMESA, as lead secretariat for the ESA group in EPA negotiations, will be keen in supporting the process
forward.
14
• There is a need to get the above issues to be written down as strong proposals from this region.
• Also it was noted that a study on the impact of PNG on third parties is going to happen, so we need to get that
study once it is completed. The ACP Secretariat will follow on and will circulate key relating documents.
• There is also a need to follow on and coordinate on the evolution of the GSP and EPA.
• A presentation of the paper on the justification for increasing the amount of automatic derogation already
prepared by Mauritius was done. It was felt that the paper was a good basis for further work and more
justification was needed to strengthen it. The expert will consult the parties concerned to include social and
other economic aspects including all the participants to get inputs and contributions.
• The expert, Mr. Bent Larsen, will finalize the report based on comments received, including a justification paper
for the increase in derogation as well as on all the other 10 issues as a comprehensive guideline for negotiations.
• A first draft of the negotiating guideline document will be circulated to all participants by the end of March
2012. Comments will be received within one week and a final draft circulated to all participants at latest mid-
April 2012.
• The meeting also recommended that the conclusions be forwarded to the EAC Secretariat by COMESA for
consideration for the purpose of harmonization as directed by the Council of Ministers of both Organizations.
• The meeting also stressed the need to address the development aspects as per the provisions of the development
chapter within the iEPA. The meeting took good note that the SmartFish Programme provided a first step
towards concrete action in this area. However, it was noted that the current calendar of SmartFish is too short.
The momentum developed need to be maintained and further reinforced with the next phase of the SmartFish
Programme.
• To conclude, the Chair indicated that the IOC and its SmartFish Programme remain available for further
involvement in terms of supporting the process towards successful EPA negotiations and implementation on
fisheries.
• It is noted that the report of the meeting will be sent by the end of the week to all participants. Participants will
then have one week to send comments on the report, after which we will assume the report to be finalized.
15
4. ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: AGENDA
TIME Agenda Item Who 09:30 Formal Introduction to event by the IOC Raj Mohabeer 10:00 Introduction to event by the ACP Secretariat Hélène Fiagan
10:15 Tea/coffee break
10:40 State of Play of EPA Negotiations Philippe Michaud and Sunil Boodhoo
11:00 Findings & recommendations from study on RoO Bent Larsen
11:15 Discussion / Questions All
11:30 Indian Ocean Tuna Industry expectations in the context of the EPA negotiations
Industry representatives
12:00 Discussion / Questions All 13:00 Lunch
14:00 Fish and fish products in EPA negotiations: Identification of key issues for further work
All
16:30 End of Day 1
Tuesday 6th March Developing a Common Negotiating Position:
Discussion on Key Issues Identified TIME Agenda Item Who
09:30 Summary of Day 1 and presentation of draft conclusions
Raj Mohabeer
10:15 Tea/coffee break All 10:40 Comments on draft conclusions All
11:30 Finalizing list of key issues for further work and recommendations for the development of a common negotiating position
All
13:00 End of Day 2
ANNEX 2 : PARTICIPANTS LIST
Country Name Institution E-mail
01 Seychelles Philippe Michaud Ministry of Foreign Affairs [email protected]
02 Michel Marguerite Seychelles Fishing Authority [email protected]
03 Joram Madnack Indian Ocean Tuna Ltd
04 Madagascar Tahirimiakadaza Ratsimandao
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
05 Njaka Ratsimanarisoa
Ministère de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques
06 Mauritius Sunil Boodhoo Ministry of Foreign Affairs
07 Pradeep Neermul Ministry of Fisheries
08 Nancy Wong Min Thon des Mascareignes Ltd
09 Evert Liewes Princes Tuna Mauritius Ltd
10 Mandusha Rambacussing
Ministry of Foreign Affairs [email protected]
11 Ramesh Ghunsam Ministry of Foreign Affairs [email protected]
12 Jeewoulall Audit MRA Customs [email protected]
13 Patrick Robert GM Thon des Mascareignes [email protected]
14 Rooma Narrainen MCCI [email protected]
15 Comoros Youssouf Ali Mohamed
Vice-Présidence en Charge de la Pêche
16 Kenya Dedan Mwangi Mungai
Ministry of Fisheries
17 Peter Sol Rogers Wanainchi Marine Products Ltd
18 Beth Wagunde AFIPEK
[email protected]; [email protected]
19 COMESA Helen Kenani COMESA
17
20 EU Denis Reiss EU
21 ACP SEC Hélène Fiagan ACP Secretariat
22 IOC Raj Mohabeer IOC [email protected]
23 IOC Bent Larsen IOC [email protected]
24 IOC Christ Short IOC [email protected]
25 IOC Yann Yvergniaux IOC [email protected]
26 IOC Léon Martial RAZAKA
27 IOC Said Ahamada IOC [email protected]
28 Mauritius Lilowtee Rajmun MEXA
29 Mauritius Rudraralingum Coopamootoo
Ministry Foreign Affairs [email protected]
30 Denmark Joe Ryan ACP Fish2 MidTerm Evaluation Team
18
SMARTFISH MEETING REPORTS
List of Publications
Ref Description meeting
1 Regional Trade Strategy Development Workshop; 26th – 28th July 2011, Zambia
2 Dagaa Value-Chain Study Workshop; 25th – 26th August 2011, Tanzania
3 Implementation of EAC SPS measures and procedures VOL III workshop; 31st August – 2nd Sep-tember 2011, Tanzania
4 Laws, MCS capacity and fisheries governance consultations; 27th – 30th September 2011, Mauritius
5 Development of MCS Action for Lake Victoria Held; 5-7 october 2011, Uganda
6 MCS training module development workshop, 10th – 14th October 2011, Kenya
7 Regional fish trade strategy development workshop; 17th – 19th October 2011, Uganda
8 Indian Ocean tuna operators association meeting on Eco certification; 21st – 22nd October 2011, Mauritius
9 MCS operational training workshop to combat IUU in lake Victoria ; 24th November–1st December 2011, Tanzania
10 Meeting to finalize updating of the EAC SPS VOL III; 5th – 7th December 2011, Tanzania
11 EU grant application workshop for joint fisheries surveillance ; 5th to 9th december 2011Tanzania
12 EU grant application for joint fisheries patrol workshop ; 14th – 15th December 2011, Mauritius
13 Tanzania joint committee meeting for grant application for joint fisheries surveillance ; 9th – 11th January 2012, Tanzania
14 Regional meeting to prepare a popular version of Dagaa processing and marketing manual ; 17th – 20th January 2012, Zambia
15 Atelier de formation sur la gouvernance des pêches maritimes dans la région AOA-OI ; 31st ja-nuary–2nd february 2012, Madagascar
16 Experts meeting to update and improve EAC SPS VOL III fish and fisheries ; 6th to 10th February 2012,
17 Experts meeting to update and improve EAC SPS VOL III fish and fisheries ; 6th to 10th February 2012,
18 Developing and Managing Small-Scale Freshwater Aqua-Businesses in Zimbabwe, 20 – 24th Febru-ary 2012
19 Joint operational workshop ; February 2012, Uganda
20 Atelier de formation sur la gouvernance des pêches maritimes ; Avril 2012, Djibouti
21 Quality & hygiene training of trainers and border inspectors training ; 9th – 23th April 2012, Uganda and Zambia
21 Quality & hygiene training of trainers and border inspectors training ; 9th – 23th April 2012, Uganda and Zambia
22 Rwanda TOT in fish handling, hygiene and processing; February and April 2012
23 Appui dans l’amélioration du cadre de gouvernance pour une gestion durable et responsable des pêches maritimes ; 24 – 26 Avril 2012, Madagascar
19
24 Regional Workshop on MPAs as a potential management tool for sustainable fisheries in the South-west Indian Ocean ; 11-13 June 2012 Mauritius
25 Training workshop on governance in marine fisheries in the ESA-IO region ; 11th – 14th June 2012, Kenya
26 Report on the training workshop for senior managers ; 5-7 June 2012 Mombasa
27 Workshop on grant application for joint fisheries patrol ; 10th - 11th April 2012, Burundi
28 Coordination meeting for IOTC session and committee meetings 14th April 2012, Mauritius
29 SmartFish trade event report ; 26th – 27th April 2012, Zambia
30 Developing and Managing Small-Scale Freshwater Aqua-Businesses; 5 – 9th March 2012 Zambia
31 Joint operational training feedback report: 07 - 25 may 2012, kenya
32 Mission and trip report to Entebbe ; 12 – 16 February 2012, Uganda
33 National working group for regional trade strategy development 1 ; 18th-21th March 2012, Zimba-bwe
34 Burundi TOT in fish handling, hygiene and processing ; February and March 2012, Burundi
35 Working group for the development of a national strategy for regional fish trade ; 17th – 18th April 2012, Uganda
36 Working group for the development of a national strategy for regional fish trade ; 24th – 25th April 2012, Malawi
37 First working group meeting on developing a national strategy for regional trade ; 02 – 03 May 2012, Mauritius
38 First working group meeting on developing a national strategy for regional trade; 08th – 9th May 2012, Zambia
39 TOT in fish handling, quality and processing-implementation of the training . July 2012, Democratic Republic of the Congo
40 National working group for regional trade strategy development ; 4th – 5th June 2012, Zimbabwe
41 Training for fish quality improvement: training of trainers ; June 2012, Zambia and Zimbabwe
42 Third meeting of the working group for the development of a national strategy for regional fish trade ; 12th – 13th June 2012, Uganda
43 Regional Working Group for Developing Border Inspectors' Guide, 11th - 15th June 2012, Kenya
44 Regional training course in the investigation and prosecution ; 11th – 22th June 2012, Tanzania
45 Community based MCS – anti blast fishing training . 25th June – 5th July 2012, Tanzania
46 U.N. agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unreg-ulated fishing . 16th – 20th July 2012, Tanzania
47 CCAMLR workshop on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing . July 2012, South Africa
48 Joint operational training feedback report: 07 - 23 august 2012, Tanzania
49 Second working group meeting on developing a national strategy for regional trade ; 21th – 22th June 2012, Zambia
50 Training for fish quality improvement: training of trainers workshop ; July 2012, Tanzania
51 Joint operational training feedback report ; 18th June – 06th July 2012, Uganda
52 MCS training ; 9th – 27th July 2012, Tanzania
20
La bonne gouvernance et la bonne gestion des pêches et de l'aquaculture permettent d'améliorer la contribution du secteur à la sécurité alimentaire, au développement social, à la croissance économique et au commerce régional ; ceci en assurant par ailleurs une protection renforcée des ressources halieutiques et de leurs écosystèmes.
La Commission de l'Océan Indien (COI) ainsi que la COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa), l'EAC (East African Community) et l'IGAD (Inter-Governmental Authority on Development) ont développé des stratégies à cette fin et se sont engagés à promouvoir la pêche et l'aquaculture responsable.
SmartFish supporte la mise en œuvre de ces stratégies régionales en mettant l'accent sur le renforcement des capacités et des interventions connexes visant à :
• la mise en œuvre d’un développement et d’une gestion durables des pêcheries ;
• le lancement d’un cadre de gouvernance pour les pêcheries durables dans la région;
• le développement d’un suivi-contrôle-surveillance efficace pour les ressources halieutiques transfrontalières ;
• le développement de stratégies commerciales régionales et la mise en œuvre d’initiatives commerciales;
• l’amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire à travers la réduction des pertes post-capture et la diversification.
SmartFish est financé par l'Union Européenne dans le cadre du 10ème Fond Européen de Développement.
SmartFish est mis en œuvre par la COI en partenariat avec la COMESA, l'EAC et l'IGAD et en collaboration avec la SADC. Une collaboration étroite a également été développée avec les organisations régionales de pêche de la région. L'assistance technique est fournie par la FAO et le consortium Agrotec SpA.
By improving the governance and management of our fisheries and aquaculture development, we can also improve food security, social benefits, regional trade and increase economic growth, while also ensuring that we protect our fisheries resources and their ecosystems.
The Indian Ocean Commission (IOC), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the East African Community (EAC) and the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) have developed strategies to that effect and committed to regional approaches to the promotion of responsible fisheries and aquaculture.
SmartFish is supporting the implementation of these regional fisheries strategies, through capacity building and related interventions aimed specifically at:
• implementing sustainable regional fisheries management and development;
• initiating a governance framework for sustainable regional fisheries;
• developing effective monitoring, control and surveillance for trans boundary fisheries resources;
• developing regional trade strategies and implementing regional trade initiatives;
• contributing to food security through the reduction of post-harvest losses and diversification.
SmartFish is financed by the European Union under the 10th European Development Fund.
SmartFish is implemented by the IOC in partnership with the COMESA, EAC, and IGAD and in collaboration with SADC. An effective collaboration with all relevant regional fisheries organisations has also been established. Technical support is provided by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Agrotec SpA consortium.
Contact:
Indian Ocean Commission-SmartFish Programme
5th
floor, Blue Tower – P.O. Box 7, Ebène, Mauritius
Tel: (+230) 402 6100
Fax: (+230) 406 7933
