Reforms to European Common Fisheries Policy good news for African fisheries?

The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is subject to review that will end in 2012. It appears that this review will lead to significant changes to the governance of European fishing in African waters. So far, African governments have engaged in this review, with input to the European Commission (EC) consultation on the green paper for the reform by an African, Caribbean and Pacific group on fisheries. Mooted reforms to the CFP represent opportunities to make positive changes to the governance of commercial fisheries on the continent, particularly ideas on de-linking fishing access from financial support for development reforms, and improving transparency and combating corruption. It is important that more African stakeholders, including African inter-governmental organizations, consider not only the benefits of these reforms, but also what issues are influencing policy debates in Europe.

Published on 07 July 2010 in ISS Today

Andre Standing, senior researcher, Environmental Security Programme, ISS Nairobi

EU fisheries agreements are controversial. They have been blamed for overfishing and targeting fish stocks that are needed by local fishermen. The negotiation of fisheries agreements has lacked transparency and key information on the implementation and performance of FPAs has been kept secret. It is also alleged that European boats fishing under access agreements have under-reported their catches, which has denied some African states important revenue.

Critics of FPA shave also pointed out that through partnership agreements, the EU has linked financial support for African fisheries directly to gaining access to commercial fishing.The number of fishing boats that are allowed to fish through these agreements directly influences the financial support given to the country for the development of their fisheries sector. This is not only incoherent in terms of the EU’s policy towards development aid, but it is also a system that some believe encourages the licensing of too many boats, which may contribute to overfishing.

The perception of Europe’s engagement in Africa’s fisheries it is not all bad. Few experts would want to see the FPAs scrapped altogether. This would merely open the way for a plethora of individual licenses and joint ventures, which would be much harder to regulate and may increase the opportunities for forms of corruptionand illegalities. Moreover, while the EU stands accused of lacking transparency and accountability, the situation is worse with bi-lateral fisheries agreements signed between African states and Asian countries and fishing associations. These remain entirely confidential and quite possibly they are to blame for more abuses at sea than the European agreements. Moreover, it is a widespread complaint that large aid and infrastructural support provided by some Asian countries to African coastal states are also made contingent on access to fishing grounds. In short, what critics of the EU want to see is a reform of FPAs, but not their removal; FPAs remain a vital part of improved governance of commercial fisheries in Africa.   

Criticisms of the EU FPAs seem to have been taken on board. In a recent public hearing on the reform of the external dimensions of the EU’s CFP, the most important voices from the EC supported the idea of de-linking development support for fisheries in African countries with commercial access for European boats. This is a very important decision. From 2012, the EC may commit to supporting the development of African fisheries on the basis of the needs of individual countries,irrespective of whether these countries agree to provide fishing opportunities to European boats. 

The EU is also taking on board complaints about the lack of transparency associated with its dealings in African states. The EC is therefore contemplating adding anti-corruption and transparency clauses to all future agreements, as well as clauses stating that the EU will not fish in countries guilty of serious human rights abuses. These are policy ideas that will be welcomed by civil society in Africa and Europe,although precisely how they will be enforced seems to be a matter of further debate. A senior official in DG MARE, the EC Directorate-General responsible for fisheries, joked about these mooted policy ideas, pointing out that if they were implemented properly, then the EU would not be able to fish in Africa a tall.

So why this willingness to change by the EC? It is possible that these policy ideas derive from frustration at the poor legacy of EU support for fishing sector reforms in Africa, as well as the relentless criticism raised by international and local NGOs. Decades of European financial support to African countries have failed to improve fisheries management and the development of the artisanal sector inmost, if not all cases. With increasing scrutiny being given to unsustainable and inequitable fisheries, the EU simply cannot carry on as before.  

However, there may also be geo-political factors influencing these policy ideas. European fishing boats claim that Asian companies, for whom adherence to good governance is less of a concern or hindrance, are squeezing them out of African waters. What Spanish and French fishing companies want to see is a level playing field,which they believe can be achieved through improving public access to information that would show clearly that they are more responsible than their competitors. To those who have followed developments in the extractive industries, this may seem familiar. Western companies championed good governance in the mining and oil sectors only when their hegemony was challenged by Chinese companies. Nevertheless, corporate self-interest in improving accountability does provide an opportunity for genuine reform, perhaps something that should be supported by civil society rather than dismissed as a cynical attempt by companies to stay in business.

The debates surrounding the reform of the EU CFP remain somewhat academic. There is a long process ahead, turning these ideas into policy documents that will gain the approval of the EU parliament. The process will be drawn out and subject to complex political compromises that laypeople and most experts will find difficult to follow. It is quite possible that the idea of introducing anti-corruption and transparency clauses in FPAs will be reconsidered when people think through the practical and political implications, although de-linking development support from fisheries access seems more likely to succeed.