Fisheries
A substantial body of work for the ESA group on Rules of Origin for Fish and Fish Products was prepared by the RTFP Director and was complemented by studies on other relevant subjects by external consultants.
The negotiations have been taking place within the context of a general trend to liberalise trade, including a trend to reduce tariffs (leading to an erosion of preferences) and harmonise Rules of Origin.
Coordination has also taken place with other EPA negotiating blocks such as the Pacific Forum.
Seven of the original ESA countries (Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles) have marine industries (or potential industries). Of those, the MMCS group (Madagascar, Mauritius, Comoros and Seychelles)have Fisheries Partnership Agreements under which EU pays for its fleets to fish in their designated Exclusive Economic Zones and whilst provideing support to develop the relevant state’s fishing industry.
Even in the MMCS group there are different constraints and so any negotiated agreement for the ESA group must, inevitably, represent a compromise position. With this in mind the recommendations for Rules of Origin for Fish & Fish Products March 07 English and toFrench) developed by the RTFP Director reflected a position which was believed to not benefit , but neither damage, any particular country or section of the ESA marine fishing industry.
A study was commissioned to provide data to assist the negotiation process on inland fisheries (with relevance to both capture fisheries and aquaculture). SPS issues were acknowledged to be a major problem and so the report looked at this and related issues in depth. It also considered what the barriers to the export of inland fish and fish products to the EU are. Finally, in establishing a general background against which development could take place, it set out a series of costs related to SPS activities and processes.
The study looked at the relative cost structure of tuna production and exports to the EU for Mauritius, Seychelles and Thailand. Whilst Thailand has an advantage because of its economic size and geographical location (resulting in the other two countries having to pay higher costs for the raw materials for such things as cans), it was also thought that the country benefits from the availability of fish that has not been caught by EU approved vessels . Of significance also was the conclusion that EU Food and Veterinary Inspectors adopted discriminatory practices with regulations being more laxly applied in Thailand than the stringent regimes in both Seychelles and Mauritius. (LINK) As a result of these issues being identified, a follow up study was commissioned.
Comparative Analysis of SPS Issues in Canned Tuna Production in Mauritius/Seychelles and Thailand:
In looking at the possible advantage to the tuna industry in Thailand of the more lax SPS compliance, the follow-up study concluded this related primarily to cost-savings in meeting hygiene regulations applicable to the supply chain. Owing to a lack of disaggregated statistics, the study was not able to establish that Thai processors use tuna from non EU approved sources – although there were strong indications that that was the case and one of the study’s recommendations is that EU import documents should follow the example of US documents by requesting details of the vessels which catch the fish. The follow up study also identified a lower entry threshold for new entrants and entrepreneurs seeking to move up the value chain in Thailand – which had negative implications for the future development of the processing sectors in Mauritius and Seychelles.