PNA Agitated By EU Claims It Need Not Follow Rules On FADs And VDS ff

Source: Islands Business

A key fisheries body in the Pacific has criticized the European Union for a recently signed fisheries agreement that does not require EU fishing vessels to abide by already established fisheries management requirements in the region.

The EU said since it is not a part of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), it is not obligated to follow PNA rules.

The dispute between the PNA and the EU shows dramatically opposed views about fisheries management in the Pacific, and raises the question of the ability of the PNA to enforce rules as a group when individual members sign bilateral agreements with foreign fishing nations that do not require the foreign fishing nation to abide by PNA rules.

While PNA officials were blunt in their criticism of the EU for not recognizing the need to comply with PNA’s vessel day scheme, ban on the use of fish aggregation devices, closures of high seas pockets and other conservation measures, the EU was equally blunt in stating that it is not legally bound by PNA requirements.

“PNA rules are not applicable to the EU, unless they form a part of legal obligations (in a bilateral agreement),” said Annick Villarosa, the head of sector for regional integration, Natural Resources and Environment, at the European Union’s regional office in Suva, Fiji.

In a bilateral agreement approved between the EU and Kiribati recently, there is no mention of the vessel day scheme or other measures that apply to all purse seiners fishing in PNA waters, said Transform Aqorau, chief executive officer of the PNA. The PNA represents Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia and Marshall Islands.

The EU said it is responsible for following national laws of Kiribati according to the terms of the fisheries protocol initialed recently.

Aqorau and Maurice Brownjohn, a PNA commercial manager, who are based in Majuro, are concerned by EU actions not only in relation to the recent bilateral fisheries deal initialed with Kiribati, but more broadly with the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA)—a free trade deal between the EU and the Pacific that is under negotiation.

Since fish is the main export item for most islands, the fisheries chapter of the trade agreement being negotiated is of primary importance to the islands.

“We look forward to future partnerships with the EU in the region,” said Aqorau. “But they must operate within the rules set up by the PNA.”

But the EU takes a different view. “The fisheries chapter under negotiation in the framework of the comprehensive EPA with Pacific states aims mainly at encouraging a coherent approach on fisheries issues in order to assist sustainable fisheries development in the region, promoting good governance and best practices in fisheries management, improving the investment climate in the region and alleviating poverty,” said Villarosa.

“In no case can the fisheries chapter of the EPA be considered as a framework for discussing or negotiating conservation measures or any technical measures applicable to vessels involved in fisheries.”

Aqorau pointed out that the vessel day scheme that governs all purse seine boats in the region was established by the PNA and has also been adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission that governs high seas fishing in the region.

The WCPFC comprises both islands and distant water fishing nations, including the EU.

“The EU is not even applying measures that they have adopted (through the WCPFC),” Aqorau said.

But the EU said its fisheries activities in the region are handled by agreements with individual nations. “The WCPFC conservation measure on bigeye and yellowfin tuna simply acknowledges that PNA members would implement VDS in their waters,” the EU said. But this WCPFC measure “does not create explicit obligations for the EU.”

In addition, because the current WCPFC measure expires in December 2012 and will be replaced subject to negotiations in the framework of WCPFC, and not the EPA, the EU does not view this as creating a legal obligation for the EPA under negotiation with the Pacific.

PNA officials say this is a way for the EU to maneuver around requirements established by the two main fisheries organizations in the region—the WCPFC and the PNA. Brownjohn said text proposed by the EU for the fisheries section of the EPA trade agreement calls on its fleet to “take into account” regulations adopted by the WCPFC.

“It does not require the EU to follow these regulations, and they want to delete references to national laws (of Pacific islands),” Brownjohn said.

Aqorau recognized the EU’s announced willingness to work against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, and said the best way to do this in the Pacific is for the EU to implement all PNA measures in the fisheries chapter of the Economic Partnership Agreement. But, he said, the latest draft of the fisheries chapter for the EU trade agreement “has no mention of the fisheries measures already in place and no mention of the PNA,” Aqorau said. “This is unacceptable.”

Aqorau said PNA officials are calling the EU Parliament “to carefully scrutinize the fisheries chapter to ensure it is consistent with measures already in place. If not, the EU will be contributing to IUU.”

The EU countered this criticism by saying the nations in the EU are “responsible flag states”.

If EU vessels operate without following PNA requirements, then by definition they will be fishing illegally, said Aqorau.