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

Final <strong>Report</strong>
RoO Derogation under the PACP-IEPA
face meetings with relevant stakeholders to focus on issues that are not sufficiently addressed in the
public domain, are not easily understood or are of a sensitive nature.
Desk top research included a review of reports/documents (e.g. public sector, private sector, grey
literature, academic literature), media releases, company profiles, data and official statistics (e.g.
vessel catch and effort data, vessel registries, trade statistics, market information), internet sites and
other sources in the public domain.
The study involved face-to-face consultation with key stakeholders in the EU (Belgium and Spain),
PNG and Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). Written submissions were also received from three
EU stakeholders (see Section 1.3).
Using relevant literature sources, data, information gathered from key stakeholders and the
consultants’ own knowledge and industry contacts, an evidence-based analysis was conducted.
In assessing the impacts of the RoO derogation, three timeframe scenarios were considered:
• Pre-derogation: 2006-2007
• Post-derogation (first three years following notification): March 2008-2011
• Post-derogation (future five-year projection): 2012-2016
In terms of future projections of potential development of PNG’s tuna processing industry, a
maximum period of five years was considered, as both the client and the consultants’ were of the
view that projections any further than five years out could not be made with any certainty.
While the objective of the review was to specifically analyse the impacts of the global sourcing
derogation, in each section of this report discussion goes well beyond this, where issues which were
either in existence prior to the derogation and/or have little relation to global sourcing have been
included for the purpose of providing context.
1.3 Stakeholder consultation
The study involved extensive consultation with key stakeholders in the EU (Belgium and Spain), PNG
and FSM. Table 1.1 presents a list of organisations that were consulted including relevant
government agencies, tuna fishing and processing operators, international and regional
organisations, non-government organisations and civil society representatives. Follow-up was
conducted via email/telephone with selected stakeholders (particularly industry representatives)
with additional information and data requests to support evidence-based analysis (see Appendix 2
for the list of persons consulted).
Discussions held with EU stakeholders centred largely around their respective positions on PNG’s
global sourcing derogation. The positions raised were general in nature (with little empirical
supporting information) and centred on issues including the potential impact of the derogation on
the EU market, and EU fishing and processing industries, as well as industries in other ACP and GSP+
countries; the impact on the WCPO tuna resource, including the potential for IUU fishing and SPS
infractions; and social issues relating to PNG’s processing facilities. Positions were presented during
the multi-stakeholder consultation and bilateral meetings held in Brussels and Spain (18-29 July), as
well as via written positions submitted to the consultants by three EU-based organisations.
Linpico s.a.r.l. Page 10