Report on the Implementation of the derogation to ... - Trade Websites

Final <strong>Report</strong>
RoO Derogation under the PACP-IEPA
The EU continues to maintain FPAs with Kiribati, Solomon Islands and the Federated States of
Micronesia. There have been no reports of any actual or potential impacts of the derogation on the
terms or day-to-day operations of these agreements. The time-frame of the FPAs are scheduled as
follows:
• Federated States of Micronesia: 26.2.2007 – 25.2.2016
• Kiribati: 16.9.2006 – 15.9.2012
• Solomon Islands: 09.03.2011 – 08.03.2014
Due to the stability of and strong record of compliance within FPAs, the consultants are not aware of
any reasons why the three PACP parties to these FPAs will not be willing to renegotiate them in the
future. 311 Moreover, there is no clear relationship between the derogation provided to PNG and
decisions made by these three sovereign Pacific island nations.
Impacts on the EU Distant Water Fleet in the medium term (to 2016)
In formal communications and press releases and during consultations, EU industry alleges that in
the medium term:
• some fleets with lower cost operations will gain an additional commercial advantage over
the EU DWF in the WCPO. This is a possible outcome, but fish caught by non-EU fleets is
already entering EU markets via other processors in the Asia-Pacific, albeit normally with the
payment of MFN or GSP import duties (see Section 6.7.4);
• the derogation will result in IUU-caught fish entering EU markets via PNG processors (for
analysis of this allegation, see Section 5.5)
• it will result in unsanitary fish entering EU markets via PNG processors (for analysis of this
allegation, see Section 5.6)
Separating the EU DWF out from connections with EU processors, 312 we have identified two
additional possible concerns with the derogation:
1. That it will heighten an ongoing scramble for strategic long-term access to WCPO fisheries as
companies make commitments to onshore investments, as per the types of arrangements
currently deployed in PNG. This scenario may result in greater competition for tuna fisheries
access in the WCPO and, in some cases, may exclude fishing interests that are unwilling or
unable to commit to onshore investment. However, at present, PNG appears to be the only
PACP state that is likely to utilise global sourcing in the medium term (see Section 7) and it
does not have an FPA with the EU or access arrangements with any of the 10 Spanishowned,
foreign-flagged vessels registered with the WCPFC. As such, any future licensing
requirements imposed by PNG – such as requiring a set amount of tuna catch to be landed
domestically – will not affect the current operations of the Spanish fleet in the WCPO.
Moreover, one EU tuna fishing-processing firm – Sapmer – has expressed interest in
investing in PNG (see Section 3.2.3).
2. That the derogation will be treated as a precedent rather than an exception in the European
Union’s other trade negotiations with third countries, such as the proposed multilateral or
bilateral FTA with ASEAN members (see Section 7). If the EU were to accept the derogation
311 Any future agreements would be in a new form subsequent to the reform of the external dimension of the
EU’s Common Fisheries Policy in 2012.
312 This is simply done for most of the French fleet and for the Spanish fleet that are members of ANABAC, but
it is a false separation for the vertically-integrated members of the OPAGAC producer organization (see
Sections 6.4 and 6.5).
Linpico s.a.r.l. Page 152