New European Regulation Against Illegal Fishing Raises Concerns in Africa

The European Commission has passed far-reaching regulations designed to restrict the flow of illegal fish into European markets. The regulation places obligations on countries wishing to export to the EU and they will come into force in January 2010. It is a matter of some concern whether African countries will be ready and able to respond.

Published on 28 September 2009 in ISS Today

Andre Standing, Senior Researcher, Corruption and Governance, ISS Cape Town

The European Commission has passed far-reaching regulations designed to restrict the flow of illegal fish into European markets. The regulation places obligations on countries wishing to export to the EU and they will come into force in January 2010. It is a matter of some concern whether African countries will be ready and able to respond. 

The context of these new EU regulations is a growing concern with the scale and impact of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUU), including in the territorial waters of developing countries. One influential study claims Africa looses $1 billion from IUU, although this is at best a crude estimate. No one really knows how significant illegal fishing is and its definition remains contested. Despite the paucity of data, criminal activities seem to be an embedded feature of the competitive global fisheries sector; there are too many boats chasing dwindling fish stocks and governments almost everywhere have proven poor at enforcing laws, particularly against their own fishing companies.

The EC regulations are complex and multi-dimensional. The most important aspect is that all fish imported to the EU has to have certified documents showing that it was fished legally. In essence, the onus is now firmly on fishing boats to show that their catch is not illegal. In order to do this they require local fishing authorities to provide credible documentation on where and how fish was caught. 

The underlying aim of the new EU regulations is generally well supported by international stakeholders. However, there is growing trepidation among developing countries over the implementation and trade consequences of these new obligations. Such concerns are understandable given that the EU is the largest market for fish in the world, accounting for 40% of all traded fish, and it is by far the most important destination for fish exports from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) – roughly 60% of all fish exports from ACP countries goes to the EU.

Precisely how the EC regulations will work in practice remains unclear. The idea of certification is an attractive one, but in reality the complex and varied nature of fishing makes designing an international certification system extremely challenging. The stark reality in many, if not most, African countries is that capacity to meet the EC regulations is not available. For the time being, many African countries will not be able to provide credible catch documents as they do not have the ability to effectively monitor fishing activities. Very few African countries use a system of onboard observers or have a functioning satellite vessel monitoring system. 

It is therefore the case that if countries want to meet the EC obligations, fishing authorities in developing countries will need to undertake new activities and probably put in place new policies. This could be a highly beneficial process. However, no one fully understands what the costs will be of meeting the EU regulations and how these costs will be met. It is possible that the costs will fall on the shoulders of the commercial fishing industry as well as foreign donors.

Partly due to concerns over costs and lack of capacity, it seems likely that in January 2010 many African countries will not have the necessary systems in place to ensure fish being exported from their waters to the EU will have the required certificates. The EU has funded workshops on the regulations for African officials, yet it is reported that this may be too little too late. This situation is not unique to Africa. For example, a recent study by Traffic International showed that China has a long way to go in reforming its management procedures before it could export to the EU. Many other ACP countries are in a similar position.

Given this situation, at the beginning of 2010 there could be several countries who suddenly find it impossible to export to the EU and non-certified fish products from several non-European countries will be denied entry to the lucrative EU market.

It remains to be seen how strict EU member states will be and there may be strong resistance to disrupting international supply chains. However, if EU member states do take a hard line on the new regulations, then this may lead to litigation against them. Moreover, several commentators have questioned whether the EU regulations could operate as unfair barriers to trade. This is something that the European Commission refutes, but it may continue to be an issue for consideration by the World Trade Organisation.

Animosity to the regulations among non-European countries will be exacerbated if there is any evidence that their implementation is inconsistent and promotes European commercial interests. The EC has stressed that the IUU regulations are non-discriminatory and will be applied transparently. Yet the reality is that global fishing is increasingly competitive and the sustainability of the European fishing industry is being challenged by other fishing nations, most prominently from the Far East. It would seem reasonable to question whether the regulations will be more stringently applied to certain fishing boats and nationalities than it is to others. It is worth noting that for a long time there have been allegations that EU regulations on the sanitization of fish products entering the EU have been administered unfairly against non-EU companies.

Finally, one of the major threats to the success of these new regulations is that they may simply create new opportunities for fraud and rent seeking. Fisheries in many African countries are undermined by high levels of corruption and those fishing illegally may find it easy to pay bribes for certificates and catch documents. The EU says it will monitor such abuses, but precisely how it will do so remains unknown. Of course, it is not only in African countries where these practices thrive — some of the European ports where fishing boats are obliged to visit are renowned for being highly corrupt, lacking in transparency and are very poorly policed. In this environment it may be very difficult for third parties to have confidence in the verification of certificates and catch documents.

For many stakeholders January 2010 will be an important event in global fisheries. The EU regulations are as ambitious as they are contentious. Understanding how these new rules impact on the governance of African fisheries and international trade will be important tasks for the future.