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

Final <strong>Report</strong>
RoO Derogation under the PACP-IEPA
parties to the agreement; and, b) being at least 50% owned either by nationals of parties to the
agreement or by a company based in one of the parties to the agreement. 7
Due to the specific nature of fish, the 'wholly obtained' approach is the basis of all EU preferential rules
of origin for fishery products in international preferential trade arrangements, including in the Cotonou
Partnership Agreement (and the Lomé Conventions before it) .
The main change in defining ‘wholly obtained’ fish in the (Interim) EPAs and the current GSP compared
to Lomé/ Cotonou and prior GSP RoO is the full deletion of a requirement for a vessel’s crew to consist
of 50% nationals of the parties to the agreement (75% for the prior GSP RoO). 8 EU industry had pushed
for this deletion as it would give ‘the EU fleet greater flexibility without compromising any of the other
benefits of the current RoO’. 9
The EU tuna fishing industry maintains that the RoO contributes to off-setting its higher cost structure
compared to less heavily regulated competitors, especially in the realm of ‘social and environmental
conditions’. 10 From the perspective of preference-receiving trading partners, such as the ACP group, EU
fisheries rules of origin have long been perceived as a source of contention due to their restrictiveness. 11
2.2 The ‘global sourcing’ rule of origin under the PACP-EU Interim EPA
The ‘global sourcing’ rule of origin permits PACP signatories to the Interim EPA to source fish from any
vessel regardless of flag or where it was caught, provided it has been ‘substantially transformed’ by a
PACP-based processing facility. 12 This provision means that PACPs are able to source qualifying fish from
a much wider range of vessels for onshore processing than under previous Cotonou Agreement rules of
origin.
After several years of negotiations, the EU and the Pacific ACP agreed to the terms of an Interim EPA in
November 2007, which deals solely with the trade in goods. Only Papua New Guinea and Fiji initialled
the Agreement and both have since signed it (in July and December 2009 respectively). Fiji has not yet
applied the Interim EPA or notified its intention to utilise global sourcing. For PNG, the continuation of
uninterrupted preferential access to the EU market for palm oil and canned tuna were major
motivations behind its initialling of the IEPA.
From the perspective of the Pacific parties, achieving a relaxation of the rules of origin for fish was a
primary objective in the negotiations. The rationales for this objective were recorded in the text of the
PACP-EU IEPA (2010):
7 This is a simplification of complex legal text. More detailed comparative accounts of fisheries RoO under Cotonou
and under (Interim) EPAs can be found in Campling (2008) and Naumann (2010).
8 Compare (Interim) EPA RoO protocols with CPA, Annexes 5 and 17; and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93
with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1063/2010.
9 Oceanic Développement-Megapesca 2007: 52.
10 FITAG-Anfaco 2011: 2; Murias 2011a; Estudios Biologicos 2006.
11 Commission for Africa 2005: 55-56; Cosgrove Twitchett 1981: 111; Davenport et al. 1995: 33, 61; Ravenhill 1985:
167-171; Stevens and Weston 1984: 55.
12 See Box 1 for full reproduction of the relevant article in the PACP-EU IEPA.
Linpico s.a.r.l. Page 14