Proposed FPA with the EU

1. Proposed FPA with the EU ACP Meeting on Fisheries under EPA 22 - 24 January 2007

2. Current EU Fishing Agreements

3. FSM Kiribati Solomon Islands

4. Basis for a Multilateral • Access in the region for EU fishing interests; • Enhanced conservation and management arrangements; and • Mutually beneficial fisheries development and investment opportunities that would include joint ventures and other initiatives to foster the long-term establishment of economically viable domestic industries.

5. Overall objective of a MFPA To establish a partnership agreement between the EU and PACPS to manage the long-termsustainable harvest and utilisation of fishery resources from the EEZs of PACPS, to the mutualeconomic benefit of all parties, recognising the special biological, economic and social circumstances of individual Pacific ACP States and the region as a whole.

6. FFC comments on a multilateral • need to take account of existing bilateral arrangements; • importance of development assistance; • principle that no member should be worse off; • potential impact on status of stocks; • need to take account of the Vessel Days Scheme; • importance of domestic industry development for some members; • concerns that all FFA members should benefit from a m/lateral; • a possible head agreement with subsidiary bilateral agreements could be negotiated on issues such as access and fees; and • the need to adopt a cautious approach.

7. Perspective of PACP States • Interest in a multilateral – unsure of extent of overall package of trade and other possible EPA benefits • PNA states have generally favoured bilaterals, non PNA in favour, as a means of gaining benefits from a ‘regional resource’ • Three PNA States happy with current bilateral (12-18%,but based on P/S @ €100 per tonne – represents only 1-2% for l/line fish

8. Major Outcomes

9. 3 (at least) forms of MFPA • A Type 1 MFPA or ‘head’ agreement featuring an overall agreement based on the objective and principles outlined above, but with each state continuing to negotiate access through separate agreements; • A Type 2 MFPAor EU ‘Treaty’ agreement that would be similar to a US-treaty style agreement (but very different in content) and include provisions for access to the EEZs of all Parties; • A Type 3 MFPA agreement that would be a sub-regional form of a US-Treaty style agreement, such as a purse seine agreement with PNA countries, or an albacore agreement with countries in the southeast area of the Pacific Islands region.

10. Elements of a multilateral FPA (1) • Access • Access payments • Market access, including amendments to the rules of origin • Fisheries Development funds • Conservation and Management funds • Controlling catch and effort • Other management measures • Vessel reporting, MCS etc

11. Elements of a multilateral FPA (2) • Economic cooperation – includes JFVs • Option of compulsory landings/use of facilities • Technical assistance • Capacity building • Socio-economic impacts of fishing

12. Possible EU Fishing Effort • For the purse seine fishery a guaranteed minimum level level of effort in the fishery higher than that already obtained under existing bilateral arrangements • For the longline fishery zero under access arrangements and must use charters or joint ventures

13. Current Situation • Legal Text finalised following a Meeting Fisheries and Trade Ministers in November to finalise the draft FPA in November • Draft FPA to be formally proposed to the EU for a response