1

THE FISHERIES INDUSTRY OF THE OECSWITHIN AN ECONOMIC UNION

Peter A. Murray Programme Officer

OECS Environment and Sustainable Development Unit Morne Fortuné

Castries Saint Lucia

Introduction Fishery resources have been an important source of food and livelihood for the people of the Caribbean region (Haughton and Singh­Renton, 2001). Having said this, the wider CARICOM region’s fisheries are “characterised by declining stocks, a deteriorating marine environment which is negatively impacting the habitats, ineffectively managed and still expanding fishing effort by fishers who have traditionally had free access, … generally poor recognition within government administrations of the importance of the fishery sector and especially of fishery divisions that are charged with management and conservation responsibilities of marine resources. This has generally resulted in a lack of clear policy, and of appropriate legal and institutional arrangements for sustainable fisheries management. This has in turn translated into a history of poor levels of funding by governments to fishery departments and a subsequent low level of management capacity” (Haughton and Singh­Renton, 2001). It is further suggested that “the need for effective management within the fishery sectors of the region is urgent and critical if the natural resources base (fish and habitats) and the human resources base (fisherfolk) on which the fisheries depend are to survive, such that valuable harvests may be sustained far into the future" (ibid.).

The fact that fishing can be seen as “hunting blind­folded” impacts on the management of resource use, as well as on the psychology of resource users. Fish stocks, though renewable, are not infinite and need to be managed in a responsible manner if they are to continue to contribute to the nutritional, economic and social well being of the people of the region. Many regional fisheries are organised and conducted in ways that will inevitably lead to overfishing.

OECS Fisheries The general situation of fisheries in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) sub­ region bears many similarities to other emerging small­scale fisheries around the world. The resources that are the most accessible to the fishers, considering their geographic location, capture technology, capital availability and markets are coming under increasing pressure and in some instances already showing signs of collapse. The inshore shallow reef resources fall into this category. On the other hand, the exploitation of offshore pelagic and deep slope resources has some important implications. Demersal deep slope species are slow maturing and stocks are easily depleted, as has already been manifested in Grenada. The exploitation of larger pelagics (tunas, wahoo, dolphin and sailfish) implies higher energy costs and the need for larger, more seaworthy vessels. In addition, the fishery for migratory pelagic stocks is by definition seasonal, with characteristic high and low periods, making financing more challenging both for the lending institution and the borrower. Politically and socially the issue is particularly poignant as such resources have traditionally supplied a large part of the domestic (non­tourist) market.

The demand for fish and fish products is growing in the OECS sub­region as a result of economic growth, population growth and changes in diet and consumption habits (Wilson and Murray, 2001). In light of the growing stress on inshore resources, States are increasingly

2

challenged by the difficulty of answering to their own domestic fish demands, even without the additional demands of the tourist industry. The development of tourism in the sub­region has resulted in demand to which national fisheries have been unable to respond completely and, consequently, growing fish imports (Wilson, 1999 cited in Wilson and Murray, 2001). A number of OECS Governments have put in place statutory entities with responsibility for guaranteeing a minimum and permanent market to fishers, thus effectively subsidising their fisheries and reducing the marketing risk (ibid.). It is questionable whether these State­ marketing ventures are viable in commercial terms. In fact, if completely privatised, they might be forced to adopt very different operational and pricing strategies.

Stressed traditional fishery resources, national market demands and growing imports result in increasing pressure for diversification of the fishery, and this may have implications in the fields of technology, financing, processing, and resource management (Wilson and Murray, 2001). This is against the backdrop of a lack of conclusive biological and catch/effort data on the resources in the sub­region, and limited capability of fisheries departments, making it difficult for resource managers to make confident decisions regarding the management and development of the fisheries.

Current methods of evaluating the contribution of fisheries to the economies of OECS Member States may overlook any incremental economic benefit of the export market, as well as support services to the industry. In fact, it is argued that in addition to the value added as a consequence of export markets, expenditure on the sector such as investment in infrastructure, marketing, subsidies, and the like, could be seen as contributing to the overall value of the industry. Thus from the economic standpoint, fisheries play an important and underrated part in the economies of OECS Member States, providing both full­time, part­time and seasonal employment, contributing significantly both to domestic food security and national Gross Domestic Product (GDP: table 1).

In addition, the position which fish has in the local diet is becoming more significant as countries develop and consumers become more health conscious. The improved good health of the population as a result of increased utilisation of fish and fisheries products can be seen as contributing to reduced expenditure on health services and this should be seen as increasing the true value of the fisheries sector to national economies. In some States the tourist market for fish products is strong, consuming a large amount of fish compared to the domestic market (c.f. Finlay, 1999; George, 1999; Guiste, 1999; Ryan, 1999). This support to the tourism industry needs to be considered when determining the extent to which the fisheries sector contributes to the economies. The intra­regional trade in fish is product specific, and is often focused on added value products such as flying fish fillets.

Offshore resources and larger pelagics are thought to have the best potential for increased exploitation and present an identifiable path for technical and economic diversification. At national levels fishers are becoming both more professional and more committed. The sub­ regional fisheries sector is now managing to attract private investment from persons who, with few traditional links with fishing, are bringing a new level of professionalism to it. In recent years, there has been a significant investment in fisheries infrastructure in the OECS sub­region, contributing to a transformation process in some Member State fisheries (Wilson and Murray, 2001). Grant funded projects have financed, inter alia, the establishment of landing sites, processing infrastructure and facilities for storage of both fish and equipment.

Moves have been made to manage existing resources, but the existing technologies are inadequate to take up the challenge of resource management and the exploitation of new

3

resources. National policy statements and objectives for fisheries need to be further developed and clarified to assist the implementation of national fisheries strategies.

Notwithstanding the strategic approach being taken by OECS Member States via the development and (unfortunately, often ad hoc) implementation of the Fisheries Management and Development Strategy (OECS, 1999), a number of global realities impact on the OECS Fisheries sector. The fisheries of the world are accepted as being over capacity (in terms of capital investment in vessels and gear) and overfished. The consensus among the global scientific community is that the only recourse is to reduce fishing effort and target species at levels high up the food web. It is the prevailing view of the global scientific community that reserving 20%­ 30% of marine production (as marine protected areas or reserves) may also be one of the few mechanisms towards obviating the current global fisheries crisis. It is safe to say that there is likely to be increasing pressure on developing States, like those of the Eastern Caribbean, to reduce fishing effort: often interpreted as the number of fishers. This pressure will not take cognisance of the fact that the developed countries, though having the smaller number of fishers, have the largest effective fishing effort as a consequence of the technical superiority of the fishing platforms (vessels) and gear used.

Stock status As there is little doubt that the nearshore fisheries are most likely over­exploited, the problem is not one of reducing the number of fishers in Eastern Caribbean countries but redistributing them, and arresting uncontrolled capitalisation of fisheries. In attempting to control capitalisation of the fisheries, maximising profitability at the expense of access is likely to generate increased political unease, generated by the potential fishermen who see a profitable fishery from which they are excluded. Given this tenuous situation, the management and development of the fisheries of OECS Member States must be driven by a clear understanding of the role fisheries are to play in the economies of the States.

In the past, fisheries management objectives have been determined principally by biological limitations of the resource and by political pressures. The view has recently been espoused that if management is to be developed from a rationale that includes, inter alia, biological, political, social and economic considerations, then management must appreciate biological, political, social and economic objectives (c.f. Berkes et al., 2001). Economic objectives involve questions of economic efficiency, the relation between marginal cost and marginal value, and the fact that the return on investment should be favourable when compared with alternative investments. The biological objectives involve related questions of stock and recruitment, yield per recruit, and the relation between catch and effort. Optimizing any one of these alone may produce advice that is totally unrealistic for the development of the sector, thus a holistic developmental approach, with combined objectives, must be taken.

Given the increasing international demand for reduction of fishing effort, the issue of global tuna fisheries is of particular concern to OECS Member States. Large offshore pelagic fish are generally considered to hold the greatest potential for development and most Lesser Antilles countries are attempting to increase the effort in these fisheries (Wilson, 1999 cited in Wilson and Murray, 2001), hence, the pelagic fishery is one of the fastest growing in most of these islands. Large pelagics are more important in the Windward Islands and Barbados than in the Leeward Islands, though the latter OECS Member States have all indicated (in drafting their fishery management and development plans) the decision to reduce fishing pressure on their nearshore fishery resources by targeting the offshore pelagics. These pelagic species include the dolphinfish; wahoo, also called kingfish; tunas; and flyingfish.

4

Table 1. OECS Fisheries – Economic summary (Landos and Kumar, 2004)

Anguilla Antigua & Barbuda

BVI Dominica Grenada Montserrat. Nevis St. Kitts St. Lucia SVG

Average annual tonnage of fish

200 1824 5.1 1300 2248 32 249 351 1604 771

No. of landing sites

4 25 16 32 43 2 7 7 17 36

Number of fishermen

400 1,200 887 2,891 1,949 60 240 ? 2137 2,500 full and part time, plus

500 vendors, gutters etc. Represents 5% of

workforce. Contribution of fishing industry to GDP

2.6% 1.8% 4% 1% 1.7% 0.6% 8.98 ? 0.8 2%

Current three main fish/crustacean/ shellfish exported

Various to St Martin Price US$2­5

lb

Lobster, red snapper

N/A N/A Various to USA/Marti nique Price

depends on demand

N/A Occasional conch and lobster to French

Territories Price EC$9­

12 /lb

Conch and lobster

Price EC$7­ 12/lb

NA Price EC$4­

6 /lb

Dolphin fish, red snapper Price EC$ 7­

25 /lb

Modern fishing vessels (exc. Pirogues)

No No No No Yes No No No No Yes

Modern refrigerated transport vehicles

No No No No Yes No No No No Yes

Modern processing facility

No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

5

International management The stocks of migratory pelagic species targeted by OECS Member States may not be accessible to the individual national fisheries during certain periods or in particular areas of its distribution; additionally, samples from different areas may represent different components of the stock. This means that there is a need for the determination of how management among countries can be co­ ordinated, within a common policy framework, providing support to national, zonal, and sub­ regional fisheries resource management, to allow for sustainable development of the pelagic fisheries of OECS Member States. Given that research efforts of ICCAT appear to always exclude or, at best, marginalise the pelagic species targeted by OECS Member States possibly reducing the relevance of the decision made, Member States of the OECS need to consider the extent to which they will continue expansion of their pelagic fisheries. This must be done against the back­drop of the recommendations by ICCAT’s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics that in general for most of the highly migratory pelagic species, with the exception of skipjack tuna and “small tunas” (which include blackfin tuna, the mackerels, and wahoo), there should be a reduction of overall catch or fishing effort to anything from 1991­ 1995 levels (depending on the species) in addition to some size limits on individual species (ICCAT, 2001, 2002, 2003).

ICCAT’s ability to have its Member States place (economic) sanctions on non­Members that fail to adhere to its management measures is consistent with current international law: specifically, the provisions of the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, adopted by the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on 24 November 1993 (a.k.a the Compliance or High Seas Agreement); the Agreement for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, adopted at New York on 4 August 1995 (a.k.a. the UN Fish Stocks Agreement); and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing (FAO, 1995).

Investment and financing In each of the OECS Member States there already exists at least one development finance institution lending at subsidised rates (typically 3­5% lower than the commercial banks) and, in principle, these funds are available for investment in the fisheries sector. Grenada, Dominica and St Lucia have lines of credit specifically for fisheries sector investments (Finlay, 1999; Guiste, 1999; George, 1999). Commercial banks are also lending into the fisheries sector, but under more stringent loan conditions. Overall, there is a high rate of delinquency and defaulting on repayments by fishers who borrow from the banks. Thus the commercial banks will only invest with caution and real guarantees. So although funds may be available, they are in reality difficult for fishers to access. Particular problems from the fishers’ viewpoints include: 1. High initial fees (commissions, inspection fees); 2. Cost or unavailability of insurance; 3. Difficulty in the provision of sufficient guarantees and collateral.

In some instances loan ceilings of the development finance institutions are too low (typically around EC$ 45,000 per loan) to facilitate diversification, particularly the acquisition of higher technology investments. Recently though, there are some signs that both the banks and the development finance institutions are improving their attitude towards the sector (George, 1999; Ryan, 1999; Wilson, 1999 cited in Wilson and Murray, 2001); in addition, in at least one OECS Member States fishermen’s cooperatives have been known to provide credit to members for the purchase of engines or equipment (Sarah George, pers. comm.). The improving attitude of banks

6

and development finance institutions is more closely associated with the appearance of a new generation of investors rather than a change in the behaviour of existing operators with the sector.

Technology and Infrastructure Most of the inshore and coastal fishing in the region is carried out in open or half­decked vessels, powered by conventional outboard motors. There is a transformation under way and the more traditional wooden vessels are being replaced by more seaworthy 7­10m glass fibre vessels powered by outboard engines rarely smaller than 75HP and often over 115HP (Murray et al., 2004).

Figure 1 More seaworthy vessels can mean more diversified fisheries

The level of safety, the range and carrying capacity of the present fleets is of particular concern. Typically fuel is the most significant (around 50%) of direct operating costs. In some areas moves have been made to manage existing resources through modification of existing gears (mesh size regulations). However, the existing technologies are often not easily adaptable to meet the challenge of resource management and the exploitation of new resources (Wilson, 1999 cited in Wilson and Murray 2001).

The distribution of fisheries infrastructure is very uneven across the sub­region. Grant funded projects have financed the establishment of landing sites, processing infrastructure and facilities for storage of both fish and equipment (Murray, 1999a). OECS Member States appear unified in the opinion that the development of physical infrastructure, particularly port and storage facilities is a vital part of modernisation of the fishery, encouraging private sector investment (Wilson, 1999 cited in Wilson and Murray 2001). This has contributed to the use of more seaworthy vessels, more consistent operating patterns, and more diversified fisheries (ibid.).

Marketing. Trade and Subsidies The primary marketing and distribution of fish in the sub­region is characterised by: • Direct sales to the consumer; • Sales to many small traders, who will sell to the consumer with little further processing; • Sales to State supported marketing organisations at a guaranteed price.

7

The national markets appear to be strong enough to be able to absorb all of the current production (Wilson and Murray, 2001) ­ the position of fish has in the local diet is reported as becoming more significant as countries develop and consumers become more health conscious. If a weakness exists it is in the internal distribution of fish products, the failure of which has been known to lead to spoilage and dumping (Wilson, 1999; Wilson and Murray, 2001). On average throughout the OECS, domestic consumption is focused upon inshore species, particularly small pelagics and shallow reef demersals.

In some States the tourist market for fish products is strong, consuming significantly more fish (by weight and by value) than the domestic market (cf. George, 1999). Most of the fish consumed by the tourist industry is imported from North America. The intra­regional trade in fish is product specific, and is focused mainly on added value products. There is recognised potential for the partial substitution of imports through the local production of further processed added value fish products, based on national production (Wilson and Murray, 2001). At present the processing industry in the sub­region is somewhat underdeveloped, with the notable exception of two Member States (Landos and Kumar, 2004).

The government intervenes directly in the purchasing of fish products in some States, providing a guaranteed price (independent of time of day or quantity) and the capacity to purchase and store large quantities of fish, even during peak production periods. In guaranteeing a minimum and permanent market, governments are effectively subsidising their fisheries and reducing the marketing risk (Wilson and Murray, 2001). Some of the same State marketing ventures are also closely involved with the importing of fish products. It is considered unlikely that these State marketing ventures are viable in commercial terms (particularly if importing were to be opened up to private operators) and, if completely privatised, they would be forced to adopt very different operational and pricing strategies (ibid.).

The EU, by way of the French Departments, provides OECS States with its most lucrative and traditional export market for fish. But realising the full potential from EU (and other) export earnings in OECS States is severely constrained by non­tariff barriers to trade. To access European markets, particularly those of the Caribbean Departments of France, fish exporters have to meet ever more stringent product quality standards (CEC, 1991). This is primarily the case because on the one hand European consumers are ever more concerned about the quality (from both a health and food safety point of view) of the fish they eat and the conditions under which it is produced while, at the same time, the fish processing and marketing industries have to meet increasingly stringent phytosanitary, hygiene, and quality control standards in line with EU regulations. Issues of food safety, product identification (species, origin etc), traceability (from catch to consumption), and ecolabels are becoming increasingly important in the marketing fish products in Europe. Wholesale adoption of these standards may very well require significant retooling and/or retrofitting of existing fishing entities, whether platform or plant. In the former instance, this may even beg the question of the suitability of vessels currently in use, and may require that consideration be given to changing both the physical nature of these vessels and the way in which they are being utilised at present.

A significant proportion of the abovementioned export trade, to the Caribbean Departments of France, is in conch which has been suppressed in recent years due to restrictions imposed by CITES as well as the EU trade restrictions. Although this has reduced foreign exchange earnings, and encouraged fishers away from the conch fishery, it should in all fairness be stated that this has been seen by some as being to the benefit of the resource which was under severe pressure.

8

Fisheries remains an important economic sector in the WTO/OECS member states due to its contribution to employment, foreign exchange earnings and overall GDP (c.f. Chaitoo, 2002; Landos and Kumar, 2004 and others). The agricultural sector in the six independent Member States have experienced overall declines ranging from 0.1% to 6.8% in 4 of the years since accession to the WTO (Chaitoo, 2002). The countries of the OECS are committed toward free trade at the various levels as evidenced by their participation in regional, hemispheric and global trade negotiations. The six independent member countries have gone a long way in meeting their obligations under the various WTO agreements relating to agriculture. Ironically, while fisheries products are often classified within the agriculture sector, they are not included specifically in the Agreement on Agriculture (WTO, 2002). Having said that, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), including Article XVI GATT 1994, GATT Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Article 1, Article 3.1, Article 27, Article 6, Annex VII, GATT all are of relevance to OECS fisheries.

OECS governments have, over the years, facilitated investment in the sector through subsidy schemes and tax holidays, which have given concessions including import duty reduction on capital equipment, rebates on the duty paid on fuel and tax exemptions. Across Member States, subsidies vary in their degree, the inputs that are covered, and the method of implementation (Wilson, 1999 cited in Wilson and Murray 2001). They may have long term cost implications and possibly negative effects on other sectors of the economy if investment capital is in short supply.

The Ministerial Declaration from the WTO 5 th Ministerial Conference in Doha (November 2001) commits WTO members to undertake negotiations: “to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countries” (extract from Para 28 of the WTO Ministerial Declaration). According to the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), a subsidy has 3 basic elements: (i) a financial contribution (ii) by a government or any public body within the territory of a Member (iii) which confers a benefit. All three of these elements must be satisfied in order for a subsidy to exist. However, it can be contested (a) whether there can be a subsidy without a charge on the public account, or (b) whether other forms of government intervention that do not involve an expense to the government but which nevertheless distort competition should be considered to be subsidies. Given such contentions, the ASCM notes that subsidies do require a financial contribution. It has listed the types of measures that represent a financial contribution, e.g., grants, loans, equity infusions, loan guarantees, fiscal incentives, the provision of goods or services, the purchase of goods etc (see also Grynberg, 2003).

The aforementioned decision taken by the international community is of some importance to OECS Member States given that heightened subsidies disciplines, if crafted without sufficient understanding or consideration of the particular circumstances of artisanal fishers could affect the development efforts of all small vulnerable coastal states in the fisheries sector (Murray, 2005). Those involved in artisanal fisheries are normally low­income groups and, in a number of OECS States women play an increasingly important role in this sector. OECS governments either have or are considering specific programs to assist these groups, which often include direct assistance for the purchase of monetised inputs. This type of government assistance to low income, low technology fishers to raise income levels by expanding into monetised activities for the domestic and specialty export market is vital to the development efforts of these countries and raising the standard of living of what are often very low income groups. As a result any disciplines that may be developed on fisheries subsidies must be crafted so that they exempt government programs to raise income levels of artisanal fishers.

9

For several years a group of large, marine product exporting, countries have pursued the issue of fisheries subsidies in the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment and, following the Ministerial Conference in Doha, in the Rules Negotiating Group. The argument that has been advanced, though not universally supported, is that fisheries subsidies have had deleterious effects upon sustainable fish catches (see Grynberg, 2003; Ram­Bidesi, 2004; Commonwealth Secretariat, 2005). It is not only that these issues are not necessarily an appropriate subject matter for the WTO and are probably best addressed in other, more appropriate, fora such as the FAO but in the context of most OECS member countries “subsidies” are necessary developmental incentives for the industry (c.f. Rankine et al., 2005)

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) The OECS Heads of Government, in the Castries Declaration of 24 November 1989 (cited in Murray, 1999b), resolved “to establish a regional regime for the regulation and management of the pelagic resources in the Lesser Antilles region...”. They also agreed to “take all possible measures ... to prevent the use of indiscriminate fishing methods in their exclusive economic zones”. OECS Heads of Government further resolved “that Member States, acting individually and collectively, [would] take whatever action possible within relevant regional and international organizations that would contribute towards the global restriction of harmful fishing practices”.

A common policy towards fisheries Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance (MCS) has already been espoused as exemplified by the signing of the OECS Common Fisheries Surveillance Zones Agreement (CFSZA) by OECS Member States in February 1991. The CFSZA provides for fisheries officers, police, and coastguard officers from other OECS Member States to be authorized officers for the purpose of the enforcement of all the fisheries laws of the OECS States (Murray, 1999b). The agreement pertains to the “fishery waters, the waters within the fishery limits and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as the case may be of the participating Member States”. It is of note that in the harmonized fisheries acts, the fishery waters are defined as “the waters of the exclusive economic zone, territorial sea, and internal waters ... and any other waters over which (the country) claims fisheries jurisdiction”. Given that most targeted species are usually harvested within the boundaries of the territorial sea, the enforcement and other provisions of the CFSZA are pertinent to the management of most fisheries of the OECS Member States (Murray, 1999b).

Safety­at­sea Recently, the importance of safety issues is clearly recognized in the OECS Fisheries Management and Development Strategy and Implementation Plan with its overall goal of “a well developed and diversified regional fisheries sector, reflecting … fishers safety …(and), resulting in social and economic well being of fishers and the wider community” (OECS, 1999; parentheses mine).

Minimum safety standards have been proposed based on vessel classification by length over all corresponding to size categories stipulated under a proposed group insurance scheme for OECS vessels (Moore et al., 1991). Cognisant of the limited carrying capacities of the majority of fishing vessels operating in the region, the suggested safety equipment included an amount, “believed to be affordable to fishermen, stowage of which aboard their vessels should not pose any problems” (ibid.). To varying extents Member States incorporated the proposed equipment into their regulatory framework, however in most cases this was limited to the minimum required with provision being made by for upgrade. Notwithstanding the “affordability”, fishermen in the main still do not utilise the equipment and hence, legislating for the equipment has not led to increased safety­at­sea (Murray et al., 2004).

10

Over the years, the coast guards of OECS Member States have had to perform marine search and rescue operations targeting fishermen who are lost at sea. There is also the view that often the vessels concerned might not have been actually engaged in fishing activities at that time, or may not even actually been active commercial fishing vessels (Sarah George, pers. comm.). Notwithstanding, the OECS Heads of Government (the Authority) have expressed concern about what they consider to be an unacceptably high incidence of distress cases and loss of life at sea. The abnormally high expenses incurred as a result of the extended Search and Rescue (SAR) missions have led to consideration being given to down­scaling such activities owing to the inability of OECS Member States to finance such operations (ibid.). This had (and still has) implications for Safety­at­sea and the continued confidence of fishers that in the event of a distress situation adequate provisions were being made for their safety.

A recent collaborative project between the FAO, OECS Member States and Secretariat, and the Government of Barbados has begun to facilitate the implementation of pertinent provisions of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries so that fishing will be made a safer activity (FAO, 2001). In developing common standards for the design, construction, measurement and the equipment of fishing vessels which can/will subsequently be incorporated into fisheries regulations, the initiative can facilitate enhancement of fishing effort diversification programmes while promoting greater co­operation between individual national fisheries and maritime authorities. However, it must be recognised that the creation of standard specifications for the design and construction of fishing vessels and the establishment of efficient fishing vessel inspection services is only one approach to the safety of life and property at sea (Fitzpatrick, 2001).

OECS Member States need to improve the performance of fisheries management to ensure, that in every aspect, the principles set out in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the provisions therein are applied (ibid.). The general trend in relation to fishing vessel design, construction and safety is to arrive at international, regional or sub­regional agreements on minimum standards to be adopted (ibid.). In attempting to reach such standards OECS need, inter­alia, to take into consideration:

• the size ranges of fishing vessels to which the standards are to be applied; • prevailing weather conditions (common to the negotiating States); • distances that the vessels may operate from safe havens; • as well as, the type of fishing operations to be carried out.

The OECS Member States have an opportunity to develop suitable minimum standards and a common approach to their implementation through technology exchange and a harmonized system of fisheries rules and regulations in relation to fishing vessels (Murray et al., 2004)

Whither Economic Union and Fisheries Development? Establishment of an economic union is regarded as the way forward to enable Member States to compete more beneficially in today’s world of international trade and economic liberalisation, and thereby provide answers to the nagging problems and challenges of vulnerability and equitable development (Sandiford, 2005). To achieve these objectives members of such a union would need to consider, inter alia:

• the establishment of common customs tariffs and common commercial policies towards countries and territories not parties to the agreement;

• the abolition of the obstacles to the free movement of persons, services and capital;

11

• the progressive harmonisation of investment and development policies, including industrial development and development planning;

• the progressive harmonisation of taxation policies and incentive legislation in order to promote the equitable distribution of industries among Member States; and

• a common policy toward agricultural development, of which fisheries development is traditionally considered as a sub­set

Perhaps the area of greatest potential for OECS States to increase the benefit flows from fishery resource exploitation is in developing local employment creating and value added processing, both to meet national and regional demands, as well as to generate foreign exchange earnings on international markets. States will have to work towards the progressive harmonisation of development, investment and industrial policies. This would include a common policy towards development planning, which will need to have as its ultimate objective the co­ordination of development plans, as well as the introduction of special measures for securing the establishment and distribution of industries equitably among States. Account would have to be taken of all relevant factors including the need for the continued and progressive development of these States, so as to facilitate complementarity, avoid unnecessary duplication and thereby more expeditiously achieve the basic aims of the Union.

The common industrial policy, which should include the fisheries industry, should have among its objectives:

(a) sustainable utilisation as efficiently as possible of the natural and human resources; (b) increase of production and productivity in industry by ensuring the rational development of the units of production; (c) encouragement of production of products which can be economically produced but which are currently imported from outside; and, (d) ensuring that a fair proportion of the returns to industry accrue to residents.

To achieve these objectives, there would be need to agree to the harmonisation of incentives extended to encourage fishing industry activity. The removal of restrictions on the movement of capital belonging to residents would also be necessary, as would be the adoption of a common policy towards movement of capital. Such an industrial policy would need to speak to the modernisation of all aspects of fisheries development to include primary and value added products under four broad areas • policy, legal and institutional reform; • fisheries resources management; • financial options, incentive regimes and insurance; • production, product development and marketing.

The success of such an industrial policy would require that States: • put in place the appropriate institutional arrangements through which implementation

strategies including inter­Ministerial and inter­sectoral linkages, in keeping with the subregional policies, can be designed, monitored and revised as appropriate;

• facilitate intersectoral dialogue, information dissemination and cooperation (including between agriculture and health, tourism, trade and bureaux of standards);

• enhance infrastructural, technological and human resource capacities and re­focus the fisheries development programmes to ensure relevance and effective treatment of emerging production, trade and environmental issues;

12

• upgrade and construct the necessary infrastructure and networking linkages to facilitate domestic, regional and extra­regional marketing of fisheries products; and,

• establish and strengthen institutionally the relevant industry associations and their constituent members to facilitate wide representation of stakeholders and partnerships between government agencies and the private sector to address issues of supply, distribution and consumption.

Such an overall approach to the further development of the fisheries industry would need to be supported by the special and differential treatment provisions of the ASCM for Least Developed Countries (especially with regard to any existing disciplines on fisheries industry subsidies), as well as Part II of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. Concomitant with this, States need to ensure levels of environmental quality that maximize opportunities within the fisheries sector for economic and social development for present and future generations without compromising the integrity and sustainability of biological diversity, environmental and cultural assets.

Bibliography Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. McConney, R. Pollnac and R. Pomeroy, 2001. Managing small­scale fisheries: alternative directions and methods. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. 308p.

CEC 1991. Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products. Amended by the following measures: Council Directive 95/71/EC of 22 December 1995; Council Directive 97/79/EC of 18 December 1997.

Chaitoo, R., 2002. Report on the status of implementation of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture in CARICOM States. CARICOM/IDB Project – Implementation of WTO commitments in the Caribbean Community. 61p.

Commonwealth Secretariat, 2005. The emerging architecture of a WTO fisheries subsidies agreement and the interests of developing coastal States. Background document. Commonwealth Smal States Trade Experts Meeting, Marlborough House, London, 31 January – 4 February 2005. SSTEM(05)19: 24p.

CRFM, 2003. Report of the 2002 Joint Meeting of the CRFM Large Pelagic Fisheries Working Group (CRFM LPWG), the CRFM Reef and Slope Fisheries Working Group (CRFM RSWG), the CRFM Reef and Slope Fisheries Working Group (RSWG) and the CRFM Small Coastal Pelagic Fisheries Working Group (CRFM SCPWG). CARICOM Fishery Report No. 10. 179p

Delaney, R. and P.A. Murray, in press. The importance of emotional intelligence to fisheries management. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Instit. 55

FAO, 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome, 41p.

FAO, 1996. Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions. Elaborated by the Technical Consultation on the Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries (including Species Introductions). Lysekil, Sweden, 6­13 June 1995. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 2. FAO. Rome. 54p.

FAO, 2001. Final Report of the project. FAO Technical Cooperation Programme

13

TCP/RLA/0069, Development of Standards for the Construction and Survey of Small Fishing Vessels. Saint Lucia, 27 – 30 November 2001. 66p

FAO Fishery Development Planning Service, 1996. Integration of fisheries into coastal area management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 3. FAO, Rome. 17p.

FAO Fishery Resources Division and Fishery Policy and Planning Division, 1997. Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 4. FAO, Rome. 82p.

FAO Fishing Technology Service, 1996. Fishing Operations. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 1. FAO, Rome. 26p. 6 annexes.

Finlay, J. 1999. Grenada Profile. Background paper prepared for the Symposium on the development of a Fisheries Management and Development Strategy for the OECS Region. Administrative Centre, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, April 14­16, 1999.

Fitzpatrick, J. 2001. Procedures for the Inspection of a Fishing Vessel. FAO Technical Cooperation Programme TCP/RLA/0069, Development of Standards for the Construction and Survey of Small Fishing Vessels. Saint Lucia, 27 – 30 November 2001 TCP/RLA/0069­WP­01. 63p.

George, S. 1999. Fisheries Sector Review for Saint Lucia. Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, Natural Resources Management Unit, and Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry and the Environment. Castries, St. Lucia. 42p.

Gorez, B. and B. O'Riordan, 2003. A Report on the Future of the European Union­ACP Countries Fisheries Relations. 75p.

Grynberg, R., 2003. WTO Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations: Implications for Fisheries Access Arrangements and Sustainable Management. 21P.

Guiste, H. 1999. Country Paper on the Fisheries Sector of the Commonwealth of Dominica. Background paper prepared for the Symposium on the development of a Fisheries Management and Development Strategy for the OECS Region. Administrative Centre, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, April 14­16, 1999.

Haughton, M. and S. Singh­Renton, 2001. Sustainable fisheries development and management in the Caribbean. Pp 159­177 IN Paul, C.L. and J. Opadeyi (eds). Land and water resources management in the Caribbean. CLAWRENET of PROCARIBE, the Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI), University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago. 254p.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 2001. Report for the biennial period, 2000­01. Part I (2000) – Vol. 1 English Version. ICCAT, Madrid, Spain.447p

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 2002. Report for the biennial period, 2000­01. Part II (2001) – Vol. 1 English Version. ICCAT, Madrid, Spain.567p.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 2003. Report for the biennial period, 2002­03. Part I (2002) – Vol. 1 English Version. ICCAT, Madrid, Spain.216p.

14

Landos, J. and N. Kumar, 2004. Technical assistance inputs to enhance sanitary standards and capacity in the supply chain for marine products for human consumption in Eastern Caribbean States. Prepared for the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. Special Advisory Services Division, Commonwealth Secretariat, London. 146p.

McConney, P., 2000. Seeing past the vision for fisheries in the OECS region. Pp 7­13 IN OECS Fisher 2000. OECS Natural Resources Management Unit, Castries, St. Lucia.

Moore, G.K.F., H. Walters and D. Robin, 1991. Report prepared for the Governments of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States on the Implementation of Harmonized Fisheries Legislation in the OECS Region. GCP/INT/466/NOR Field Report 91/8. 73p.

Murray, P.A., 1998. Fishing in the OECS: The Way Forward. An NRMU Brief. OECS Natural Resources Management Unit, St. Lucia. 8p.

Murray, P.A., 1999a. Some Perspectives in Investment and Financing for Fisheries in the OECS. IN Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, 1999. Symposium on the development of a Fisheries Management and Development Strategy for the OECS Region. Administrative Centre, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, April 14­16, 1999. Symposium Report. Natural Resources Management Unit, Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, Castries, St. Lucia. 8p.

Murray, P.A., 1999b. The relationship between integrated fisheries management and marine biodiversity: what frameworks are already in place? Pp 77­85 IN Natural Resources Institute (ed.), 1999. Proceedings of the Caribbean Workshop on Marine Biodiversity, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 27­29 October. Natural Resources Institute, United Kingdom. 143p.

Murray, P.A., 2005. Structure and issues affecting the fisheries industry of the OECS. Presented at the OECS Workshop on Trade and Fisheries, November 3 – 4 2005, Saint Lucia. 23p.

Murray, P.A, T. Phillips and J. Lewis, 2004. Status of fishing vessel safety in the Caribbean Community. Presented at the Regional Workshop on safety of indigenous fishing vessels in the Caribbean, St. Lucia, December 7 – 10, 2004. International Maritime Organisation. 15p.

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), 1999. OECS Fisheries Management and Development Strategy and Implementation Plan. OECS Natural Resources Management Unit, Castries, St. Lucia. 47p.

Ram­Bidesi, V,. 2004. Cross – Cutting Issues on Fisheries Trade in Small Island Developing Economies. Draft Paper for the FAO Panel on Trade, Agriculture and Sustainable Development in Small Island Developing States New York, 6 October 2004. Marine Studies Programme, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. 13p.

Rankine, L.B., G. Seepersad and R.H. Singh, 2005. The Effects of Liberalization and Trade Related Policies on Fisheries and Measures Required for their Sustainable Development in the CARIFORUM / CARICOM Region. Special Report presented at Senior Officials Meeting on Fisheries Issues for the Caribbean in WTO and EPA Negotiations, 21­22 March 2005, Bridgetown, Barbados. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism Secretariat, Belize City Belize, C.A. 31p.

Ruckes, E., 1996. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: implications for Caribbean States. Http://www.fao.org/fi%2a/sids/caribf.htm. 9p.

15

Ryan, R. 1999. Fisheries Status Report 1997. Background paper prepared for the Symposium on the development of a Fisheries Management and Development Strategy for the OECS Region. Administrative Centre, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, April 14­16, 1999.

Sandiford, W., 2005. OECS Economic Union and the free movement of workers. Fedon Books, St. Georges, Grenada. 204p.

Singh­Renton, S., R. Mahon, and P. McConney, 2003. Small Caribbean (CARICOM) states get involved in management of shared large pelagic species. Marine Policy 27:39­46.

Wilson, J.D.K., and P.A. Murray, 2001. The Changing face of fisheries in the Economies of OECS Member States. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Instit. 52: 300­312.

World Trade Organisation (WTO), 2002. Negotiations on Agriculture – Overview. TN/AG/6. Committee on Agriculture Special Session. December 2002. 89p.