A fisheries deal provisionally agreed between the European Commission and Mauritania will hit stormy waters today (6 September) at a working group meeting in the Council of Ministers. 

The deal, signed on 26 July, extended an agreement that was to expire the following day. It maintains the roughly €70 million per year price tag for access to Mauritanian waters for EU fishermen, but adds a host of new restrictions. Conservationists are supportive of the agreement, but Spanish fishermen are hoisting the battle flags.

Although the deal provisionally came into effect on 1 August, member states must approve it before it can formally take effect. The Spanish fishing industry is asking fisheries ministers to reject the deal when they meet in October. Sources involved in the discussions say that Spain is likely to register its objections at the working group meeting today.

The agreement allows EU ships to fish only for demersal – fish that live or feed near the bottom of the sea, including shrimp and tuna – and pelagic (surface) shoals.

Maria Damanaki, the European commissioner for fisheries and maritime affairs, said the deal with Mauritania would ensure more sustainable fishing and be fairer for Mauritanian citizens. “This deal is sustainable, ethical and good value for money,” she said.

Campaigners agree. “It is a very important step in terms of enforcing the UN law of the sea, which was agreed in 1982 but hasn’t been put into place until now,” said Maria Jose Cornax, fisheries director at conservation group Oceana. “There is a binding obligation that the EU cannot get access to third countries’ waters when there is not a surplus in their resources, and this is something the EU hasn’t taken into account until now.”

Campaigners are also pleased that a human rights clause has been included, as well as provisions to increase job opportunities for Mauritanian fishermen. Under the new deal, shipowners’ fees will be substantially increased, which the Commission says is in line with the principles of the Common Fisheries Policy.

But European fishermen who fish these waters are notably less enthusiastic about the proposal. “The deal the Commission has just signed does not make any sense,” said Gerard van Balsfoort of the Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association. “There will be no winners, only losers. The EU pelagic fleet does not get any commercially viable fishing opportunities, and fisheries in the region will not become any more sustainable. Better no deal than a bad deal.”

Sustainability

The upcoming stand-off is part of a larger conflict brewing between campaigners – arguing for sustainability and fairness in the EU’s fishing deals with third countries – and fishermen, who say the restricted arrangements will only result in the fishing opportunities passing to Chinese and other non-EU vessels. Though the annual payment to the Mauritanian government will remain the same, access to fish has been reduced. Fish can now only be caught more than 20 miles from the shore, up from 13 miles in the previous agreement.

There is also a requirement that 2% of the catch must be given to the Mauritanian government. “The EU will pay the same amount of money but for much less fish,” said Balsfoort. He said the restrictions would make the fishing rights worth less to EU fishermen, who might simply avoid the region.

Perhaps anticipating this, the agreement includes a provision that the deal can be renounced if the fishing rights are being under-used.

The pelagic and shrimp fishing vessels have not used this agreement at all since it came into force on 1 August, according to Javier Garat Pérez, the president of the Spanish Fishing Confederation. “It has only been used by the tuna fishing vessels, because for them the conditions have not changed,”? he said. “Most shipowners have decided not to use the agreement.”

But Mauritanian waters are significant for EU fishermen. The first EU-Mauritania agreement was concluded in 1987 and is today financially the most important, accounting for almost half of the whole EU budget as part of the Fisheries Partnership Agreements with third countries. “The fisheries partnership agreements are the right way to address relations as well as sustainability and economic concerns,” said Cornax. “We have to apply the same concerns of sustainability that would apply for European waters, such as respecting maximum sustainable yields.”

MEPs’ concerns

The Commission has been keen to tread carefully with the Mauritania deal after its setback last year when it had to cancel a deal with Morocco which the European Parliament had rejected.

Like the new deal with Mauritania, the Morocco fishing deal was provisionally already in force pending approval by member states and MEPs.

But in December, MEPs rejected the €36m deal by a vote of 326 to 296, with 58 abstentions. The accord had already been provisionally in place for ten months, but had to be annulled after the vote. Carl Haglund, then a Finnish Liberal MEP, who drafted the Parliament’s report on the agreement, said the vote showed that the Parliament “will not accept deals that are unsustainable”.

There is a feeling among many MEPs that the deals set out in northern Africa have historically been exploitative. But many MEPs also said the deal was too costly and would probably be under-used.

In April, Damanaki visited Morocco to start negotiations on a new agreement, but formal talks have not yet begun. She has promised that any new agreement will reflect the Parliament’s concerns.

MEPs have signalled they intend to take an aggressive stance in the approval of both the Mauritania agreement and any new Morocco agreement.