Case Study

01: Forming an African Voice in International Fisheries Negotiations

In order for the international Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA) to be successful all port states must comply. This will prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) vessels from taking advantage of more lenient rules and regulations in noncomplying states.

This agreement provides internationally agreed upon minimum standards and procedures in respect of foreign vessels engaged in, or suspected of being engaged in, IUU fishing when they require port services. It was negotiated due to a growing awareness of the social, economic and environmental impacts that IUU fishing has.

During the negotiation process a group of African countries worked together to form a coherent, well argued, relevant and broadly supported African position – an African Voice. It was important that what became known as ‘the African Group’ was able to shape the agreement in a way that provided relevance for the African continent within a framework of comprehensive fisheries reform. This was one of the first occasions that this approach was adopted by a pan-African group in an international fisheries policy process.

The process of forming an African Voice on IUU fishing has been ongoing in various African regions for some time.  However, the momentum to bring these together was formed at the 1^st Southern and Eastern African Forum to counter IUU Fishing, held in 2007, in Maputo, Mozambique. This led to the signing of the SADC Statement of Commitment on IUU Fishing in July 2008 and an increased commitment and willingness to cooperate with regard to IUU fishing.

Simultaneously with the momentum gaining force in parts of Africa, negotiations on legally binding Port State Measures were initiated[i] and took place through a four-session long Technical Consultation in Rome.

In the first session[ii], the African Group met almost every day, with Mozambique, Senegal and Angola chairing most of these meetings. Although the first session focused on definitions and general provisions, African delegates supported each other on some of the key discussion points. At this stage there was no outside support for the Group.

---

What happened?

A preparatory meeting – the 2^nd Southern and Eastern African Forum to counter IUU Fishing – was held in advance of the second session[iii], hosted by Mozambique. To support the discussions and with a view to facilitating a stronger voice at the negotiation, a briefing paper was discussed that outlined the most contentious Articles with an emphasis on provisions of importance to developing countries and issues that would benefit from the development of a common pan-African position.

In the second session, the African Group held meetings every morning and during lunch breaks. At each of these meetings, a different chair was appointed. Outside support, including technical and legal advice, was provided by the Stop Illegal Fishing Programme, the Pew Environment Group, and WWF.

In the third session[iv], one of the key events for the African Group was when, after a meeting with the Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS), a joint proposal was produced with regard to Article 21, on requirements of developing States[v].  This was later adopted in the plenary.

In the fourth and final session[vi], the African Group did not meet regularly as the Articles of main interest to the Group had been discussed and most of its aims had been achieved.

More generally in the negotiation, the countries spoke on their own behalf, but took into consideration the agreed on position while making their interventions. The Group focused their joint efforts on certain prioritised issues and articles, rather than the entire text of the Agreement.

---

Drivers

The main driver behind the process of developing an African Voice was the momentum created through the 1^st Southern and Eastern African Forum to counter IUU Fishing and the SADC Statement of Commitment. These initiatives highlighted the practical need for cooperation to stop illegal fishing and the negotiating power in taking a common position. Political momentum to take this forward was created as well as a framework to facilitate cooperation between countries.

---

Key features and outcomes

• Working together as an African Group meant African countries managed to influence the Agreement making it more relevant to the continent’s IUU issues, e.g. in relation to migrating artisanal fisheries and the financial support mechanism.
• Cooperating with the Pacific SIDS led to joining forces with like minded groups and being able to exert even more influence.
• Support provided by experts was crucial as the provision of background documents and briefing papers outlining key issues helped focus the discussion on specific issues.
• Actual ratification and implementation of the Agreement has so far been limited to the three African countries who have signed the Agreement: Angola, Gabon and Sierra Leone[vii]. However, the attention shown by members of the African Group in the negotiation suggests a broader interest. Hopefully, the funding mechanisms of Article 21 will provide African countries wishing to ratify and implement with the necessary financial and technical support.[viii]

---

Lessons learnt

Preparing for negotiations

• Create awareness of the issues and share information and views on the local, regional and continental context before the negotiations start.
• Define common objectives and areas where compromises can be reached. This will lead to an agreed on and focused negotiation strategy.
• Designate and empower national delegations in advance of the negotiations and maintain continuity of participation throughout the process.
• Continue networking between negotiation sessions in order to develop improved cooperation and to adjust or fine-tune common positions.
• Identify funding for participation in meetings. This is vital in order to allow national delegations and interested parties to attend.
• Identify a group coordinator.

During negotiations

• Arrange daily group meetings in order to share and negotiate individual national positions or to adjust strategies as required.
• Promote good levels of consistent attendance in order to ensure your voice is heard.
• Prepare an intervention strategy for the plenary sessions. It is important that as many countries take the floor as possible.

---

Players involved

• The champions/initiators: The leadership role undertaken by key champion countries and their representatives was vital in initiating and maintaining a momentum.
• African Union: The African Union, through the NEPAD and the Partnership for African Fisheries, supported the 2^nd Southern and Eastern African Forum to counter IUU Fishing and was supportive of the process undertaken in Rome.
• African delegates: A number of countries were very active in the African Group meetings, others attended regularly, whilst others only occasionally.
• The chair: Angola, Mozambique and Senegal chaired most sessions although originally the idea was that a different chair would be appointed for each African Group meeting.
• Supporting partners: The external support provided to the African Group before and during the negotiation consisted of technical and legal advice as well as interpretation and translation services from a number of organisations and experts. Their roles consisted of providing a mix of support and encouragement as well as robust advice at critical junctures in the process.

---

Challenges

Some of the main challenges of the process included:

• The organisation and running of the daily African Group meetings – there was some initial hesitation among African delegates towards the ‘African Group’ as the ownership and purpose of the Group was not clear. This was discussed and agreement on its purpose reached, however, some delegates were still hesitant to share views and positions without an official government mandate, preferring to discuss in plenary.
• The level and continuity of attendance – Financial limitations meant that overall African attendance in the Technical Consultation dwindled over time. Continuity in the delegations between sessions and those attending preparatory meetings and actual negotiation in Rome also varied which resulted in significant challenges in moving discussions forward. In the daily African Group meetings attendance often started out with three to four delegates with the numbers growing as plenary meeting approached.
• The appointment of the chair – proved to be somewhat problematic as delegates were reluctant to dominate the process by proposing themselves or one of their co-delegates as chair. This resulted in limited confidence in the position and reduced the ability for coordination of the Group’s interventions in plenary.
• Language barriers – there were barriers in actual language as well as in the technical and legal terminology used in the discussions. There was no official interpretation support for the Group, which meant the delegates had to support each other as best they could.

---

Policy implications  

• Developing a coherent African Voice on fishery issues requires a high level of visible legitimacy throughout the process. A clear mandate needs to be considered, clarified and firmly established.
• Strengthening the role of African experts in contributing to, and supporting, the formulation of positions in international fishery negotiations is required.
• Consolidating the African Voice would benefit from stronger regional dialogue (e.g. in regional fisheries bodies or economic communities) that links into the continental process. Synergies between regional and continental policy processes should be strengthened.

---

The next step

To strengthen the African Voice in international fisheries negotiations the next step will be to identify relevant upcoming international meetings. To prepare for such meetings, the general points outlined in Practical Lessons Learned should be taken into account, while efforts should focus on the following:

• Learning from other regional groups’ negotiation practices, such as the Pacific SIDS.
• Developing research-based positions, ideally, to maximize the influence on the overall shape of an international agreement, not just parts of it or a few Articles.
• Arranging negotiation training courses, and identifying ‘leading states’ and well-trained ‘champion negotiators’ would greatly improve the overall continental negotiating capacity.
• Establishing a greater legitimacy for the African Group, through strengthening the facilitating role of the African Union, NEPAD and their associated programmes and working groups, in both the preparations and through their physical representation at the negotiation.
• Exploring funding mechanisms to support the strengthening and development of the African Voice and to ensure wide African participation in the negotiation process.