IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v49y2014icp1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EU–Mauritania fisheries partnership in need of more transparency

Author

Listed:
  • Corten, Ad

Abstract

The new protocol signed in July 2012 by the European Union and Mauritania under the existing Fisheries Partnership Agreement did not produce the expected results. The main component of this protocol consisted of the access rights for 300,000t/yr of small pelagics. During the first five months after the signature of the protocol, no EU pelagic trawlers used the opportunities created by the protocol. Only after the formal approval of the protocol by the European Council in December 2013, some eastern EU member states started sending their pelagic trawlers back to Mauritania. This resulted in a utilisation of the protocol of 54% for the whole of 2013. Although the EU repeatedly stated that the €70million/yr paid under the protocol provided good value for money, this assertion was hard to maintain considering the limited utilisation of the agreement. The paper analyses why the EU concluded an agreement with Mauritania that was not wanted by their industry and that was therefore only partially used in the end. It describes the decision making process inside the EU; the different parties involved and their different objectives. It is concluded that the EU decision making process suffers from a lack of transparency and that the combination of a business agreement with development aid resulted in an agreement which did not attain either of the stated objectives. It is proposed that in future the two aspects are clearly separated, and that the development component is extended to other countries in West Africa, including those that have no fish to sell to the EU.

Suggested Citation

  • Corten, Ad, 2014. "EU–Mauritania fisheries partnership in need of more transparency," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:49:y:2014:i:c:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14001122
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.04.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trouillet, B. & Guineberteau, T. & Bernardon, M. & Le Roux, S., 2011. "Key challenges for maritime governance in West Africa: Fishery-based lessons from Guinea and Mauritania," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 155-162, March.
    2. Witbooi, Emma, 2008. "The infusion of sustainability into bilateral fisheries agreements with developing countries: The European Union example," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 669-679, July.
    3. Kaczynski, Vlad M. & Fluharty, David L., 2002. "European policies in West Africa: who benefits from fisheries agreements?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 75-93, March.
    4. Gagern, Antonius & van den Bergh, Jeroen, 2013. "A critical review of fishing agreements with tropical developing countries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 375-386.
    5. Stilwell, Jonathan & Samba, Alassane & Failler, Pierre & Laloë, Francis, 2010. "Sustainable development consequences of European Union participation in Senegal's Marine Fishery," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 616-623, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hammarlund, Cecilia & Andersson, Anna, 2019. "What’s in it for Africa? European Union fishing access agreements and fishery exports from developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 172-185.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hammarlund, Cecilia & Andersson, Anna, 2019. "What’s in it for Africa? European Union fishing access agreements and fishery exports from developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 172-185.
    2. Nichols, Rachel & Yamazaki, Satoshi & Jennings, Sarah & Watson, Reg A., 2015. "Fishing access agreements and harvesting decisions of host and distant water fishing nations," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 77-85.
    3. Toumasatos, Evangelos & Sandal, Leif Kristoffer & Steinshamn, Stein Ivar, 2022. "Keep it in house or sell it abroad? A framework to evaluate fairness," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 709-728.
    4. Bennett, Nathan James & Govan, Hugh & Satterfield, Terre, 2015. "Ocean grabbing," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 61-68.
      • Wehner, Nicholas & Bennett, Nathan & Govan, Hugh & Satterfield, Terre, 2015. "Ocean grabbing," MarXiv bm6pf, Center for Open Science.
    5. Brochier, Timothée & Auger, Pierre & Thiam, Ndiaga & Sow, Momar & Diouf, Sidiya & Sloterdijk, Hans & Brehmer, Patrice, 2015. "Implementation of artificial habitats: Inside or outside the marine protected areas? Insights from a mathematical approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 297(C), pages 98-106.
    6. Margaret A. Young, 2017. "Energy transitions and trade law: lessons from the reform of fisheries subsidies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 371-390, June.
    7. Dyhia Belhabib & U Rashid Sumaila & Vicky W Y Lam & Dirk Zeller & Philippe Le Billon & Elimane Abou Kane & Daniel Pauly, 2015. "Euros vs. Yuan: Comparing European and Chinese Fishing Access in West Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-22, March.
    8. John Atta‐Mills & Jackie Alder & Ussif Rashid Sumaila, 2004. "The decline of a regional fishing nation: The case of Ghana and West Africa," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 28(1), pages 13-21, February.
    9. Mark Axelrod, 2017. "Blocking change: facing the drag of status quo fisheries institutions," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 573-588, August.
    10. Ramòn Jiménez-Toribio & Patrice Guillotreau & Rémi Mongruel, 2009. "Global integration of European tuna markets," Working Papers hal-00430014, HAL.
    11. Béné, Christophe & Lawton, Rebecca & Allison, Edward H., 2010. ""Trade Matters in the Fight Against Poverty": Narratives, Perceptions, and (Lack of) Evidence in the Case of Fish Trade in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 933-954, July.
    12. Mulazzani, Luca & Malorgio, Giulio, 2015. "Is there coherence in the European Union’s strategy to guarantee the supply of fish products from abroad?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1-10.
    13. U. Sumaila & Ahmed Khan & Andrew Dyck & Reg Watson & Gordon Munro & Peter Tydemers & Daniel Pauly, 2010. "A bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 201-225, October.
    14. Sunoko, Rahmadi & Huang, Hsiang-Wen, 2014. "Indonesia tuna fisheries development and future strategy," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 174-183.
    15. Mundt, Matthias, 2012. "The effects of EU fisheries partnership agreements on fish stocks and fishermen: The case of Cape Verde," IPE Working Papers 12/2012, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE).
    16. Hubert Zimmermann, 2019. "The European Parliament and the Layered Politicization of the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 237-247.
    17. Bronnmann, Julia & Smith, Martin D. & Abbott, James & Hay, Clinton J. & Næsje, Tor F., 2020. "Integration of a local fish market in Namibia with the global seafood trade: Implications for fish traders and sustainability," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    18. Rammelt, Crelis Ferdinand & van Schie, Maarten, 2016. "Ecology and equity in global fisheries: Modelling policy options using theoretical distributions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 337(C), pages 107-122.
    19. Kaczynski Wlodzimierz, 2011. "The Future of Blue Economy: Lessons for European Union," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 3(1), pages 21-32, January.
    20. Emma Will & Maria Pettersson & Jesper Stage, 2020. "Trade in fisheries services under the WTO and GATS framework," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44(2), pages 161-175, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:49:y:2014:i:c:p:1-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.