Introduction

The number and types of agreements, their modalities and specificities by fishery, as well as those that are imposed by each access-requesting partner, partly explain the lack of systematic monitoring and/or in depth evaluation of the fisheries agreements in most of the countries of the sub region.

However, sought levels of fishing pressure, the impact of foreign fleets on the development of national fleets and on-shore industries, and the penetration of international markets must be assessed on a regular basis to ensure the favourable development of any given agreement. Evaluations, along with the implementation of the conclusions are crucial before signing or renewing any agreement.

The importance of monitoring is recognized in most bilateral agreements (EU Agreements, south-south agreements, etc.) as well as in certain agreements between governments and private operators. But too often, it is about the monitoring of indicators that are important for the country requesting access, allowing it, if necessary, to withdraw from the agreement. Generally, in West Africa, fisheries agreements are little monitored, and even less so in the interest of the resource providing countries.

Issue-problem

The monitoring and evaluation of trade agreements requires a systematic approach and a synopsis of technical information, pertaining to areas as varied as international commercial law, the dynamics of world markets, the sustainable management of naturally fluctuating resources, as well as a coherent policy for the development of the national fisheries sector.

This complexity is typical of international agreements hinged on trade diplomacy and must be tackled through a systematic approach, the implementation of appropriate evaluation methods and the use of simple and precise criteria and indicators for monitoring.

The European Union carries out systematic ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of their agreements. Although these reports are confidential, the specifications and terms of reference describing evaluation criteria are actually available on the Internet. Whatever the content of these reports, it is important to note that an evaluation is a targeted activity, carried out according to precise criteria, mostly serving the interests of the country that is implementing it. A comparison between the quantities and value of the catches of a foreign fleet and those of a national fleet, for instance, will be crucial for the coastal country, but less important for the distant water fishing nation that will be more concerned with indicators such as competition risks, indicated by the total number of licenses targeting the same resources or selling on the same markets.

The same applies to the monitoring of new European Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs) such as the one reached with the Seychelles in January 2005, and which are currently negotiated by certain SRFC member countries. For each measure of the agreement protocol, FPAs advocate a systematic utilization of a matrix of indicators. Indicators primarily set out to monitor points of interest for the DWFN, such as queue time at the harbour (landing obligation), surveillance (competition by IUU fishing) or the development of national fleets (GRT, access rights competition), etc. SRFC member countries will need to develop their own evaluation & follow up tools simply to be in a position to conduct successful negotiations, or re-negotiations, as the case may be.

Objective

As part of the project, to strengthen the capacity to implement monitoring and evaluation methods in support of preparing negotiations, and, in the longer term, to allow for an optimal evolution of negotiated agreements. A manual on the techniques and tools for fisheries agreement monitoring and evaluation will be published. Its intent is to facilitate the implementation of standardized procedures and analyses of the links, issues and impacts of the different measures proposed in the various access protocols.

Approach

Monitoring and evaluation methods that can be opted for are reviewed and explained in a Technical Guide, structured around five methodological aspects:

1. Methodologies assessing the links between resource potential and fishing effort, 2) Methodologies assessing the links between fisheries and market prices,
2. Methodologies assessing the socio-economic impacts,
3. Methodologies assessing the environmental impacts and
4. Criteria, methods and indicators for monitoring and evaluation.

A set of technical appendices will produce lists of established indicators and industry-specific variables, allowing the development of assessments in the absence of country-specific information.

The initial design of the Guide will be directed & overseen by a Working Group. The final version will be professionally edited, published, printed and distributed to national administration services that are preparing the negotiations or otherwise collaborating in the setting up of allocations and access rights strategies.

Expected Results

The capacities of technical support services to the Department of Fisheries within SRFC countries will be reinforced thanks to the technical tools made available through the Guide on Methods for Monitoring and Evaluating Agreements. This tool will enable better informed technical positions, and hence better management of the overall granted access.

Every country will be in a better position to develop and adapt its own set of indicators, and thus monitor the impact of each agreement as an engine of their own development, based on important criteria, aiming at sustainable management of their fisheries and inscribing them into overall national policies.