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

Final <strong>Report</strong>
RoO Derogation under the PACP-IEPA
the framework of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, including the
Vessel Monitoring System and Observer Programmes. In this context, the Parties agree
that notwithstanding paragraph 1, when circumstances are such that wholly obtained
products as defined in Article 5 paragraphs 1(f) and 1(g) cannot be sufficiently utilised
to satisfy the on-land demand and following the prior notification to the European
Commission by a Pacific State, processed fishery products of headings 1604 and 1605
manufactured in on-land premises in that State from non-originating materials of
Chapter 03 that have been landed in a port of that State shall be considered as
sufficiently worked or processed for the purposes of Article 2. The notification to the
European Commission shall indicate the reasons why the application of this paragraph
will stimulate the development of the fisheries sector in that State, and shall include
the necessary information about the species concerned, the products to be
manufactured as well as an indication of the respective quantities to be involved.
(Protocol II, Article 6.6(b). Emphases added.)
Two points from this text are worth re-emphasising here. First, the rule was worded as a one-off
exemption applied to the Pacific islands (as already emphasised in the wording of the text of Article
6.6(a)). Second, this text and the ‘review clause’ (see below) details the principal objective of the
derogation – ‘long-term income and employment generation for Pacific States’ (see also, Commission
Staff Working Document 2007: 15).
The term ‘global sourcing’ can be misleading. While in terms of preferential origin the derogation is
global if compared to standard EU origin rules, this does not permit PACP signatories unmitigated
sourcing of tuna or other fish species on a global scale. The supply of fish is subject to strict EU sanitary
and phytosanitary (SPS) measures and the EU regulation on the import of IUU fish and fish products.
Both conditions are specified in Article 6.6(e) of Protocol II.
Another conditionality in the derogation is that ‘[a] report on the implementation of Article 6.6(b) shall
be drawn up no later than three years after the notification’ to the European Commission (Article 6.6(c)
and (f)). PNG sent a notification to the European Commission on 13 March 2008. This report was
commissioned to fulfil the requirement of Article 6.6(c). 14 In so doing, it provides the first step in the
process of the derogation’s ‘review clause’. The review clause specifies that:
On the basis of this report, the European Community and the requesting Pacific State
shall hold consultations on the utilisation of subparagraph (b), taking into account in
particular its development effects and the effective conservation and sustainable
management of the resources and, if appropriate, amend it. (Protocol II, Article 6.6(d).
Emphasis added)
The review clause thus specifies the two central elements to be considered in this report: the
derogation’s overarching objective of generating ‘development effects’ (defined as ‘long-term income
and employment generation’ as per Article 6.6(b) above) and the principal conditionality of ‘the
effective conservation and sustainable management of the resources’ (Article 6.6(d)). A third
component of this report takes seriously the en passant mention in Article 6.6(a) on ‘the low risk of
destabilising the EU market due to large inflows of fishery products from the Pacific States’ (see above).
14 See Appendix 1 for the full terms of reference for this study.
Linpico s.a.r.l. Page 16