RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ACTUALITIÉS THE EU AFRICA PARTNERSHIP IN THE FIGHT AGAINST IUU FISHING

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ACTUALITIÉS THE EU AFRICA PARTNERSHIP IN THE FIGHT AGAINST IUU FISHING MARIA PAPAIOANNOU I. INTRODUCTION The EU Africa Partnership aims to reinforce links between the two continents and bridge the development gap through cooperation. The EU Africa Summits reflect this multidimensional interaction including inter alia the issues of maritime security and fisheries. 1 Besides, fisheries and aquaculture have been identified by the EU as a potential priority for future regional multi-annual programming for the period 2014 20. Given the above, this article seeks to identify Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) activities as a regional and international problem that calls for coordinated action. It then turns to the European framework on IUU that would serve as the base for a strong EU Africa partnership. To this end, this article argues that interregional cooperation is the key for sustainable exploitation, management and conservation of marine resources and environment. II. IUU FISHING; IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM Unscrupulous fishing poses various threats on local, regional and international levels. First of all, fishing piracy results in fish stocks depleting. Although there is no precise figure on the growth of IUU fishing, estimations vary from 11 to 26 million tonnes annually. 2 Consequently, overfishing activities, without respect PhD Panteion University (Gr), President of Appeal Committees, Hellenic Asylum Service. This article is an advanced version of the paper prepared for the International Conference under the theme The European Union and Africa: The Interregional Dynamic organized by the Jean Monnet Chair on EU Relations with LDCs, Department of Political Science and International Relations University of the Peloponnese and Sciences Po Bordeaux, held in Athens, 26 7 September 2014. 1 See in particular, EU Africa Summit. Roadmap 2014 17, paragraphs 14, 57, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/142094.pdf (accessed 1 June 2015). 2 World Ocean Review, Illegal Fishing, available at http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor- 2/fisheries/illegal-fishing/. See also C. Schmidt, Economic drivers of illegal, unreported and African Journal of International and Comparative Law 24.1 (2016): 158 167 Edinburgh University Press DOI: 10.3366/ajicl.2016.0145 Edinburgh University Press www.euppublishing.com/journal/ajicl 158

The EU Africa Partnership in the Fight Against IUU Fishing 159 to the legal catch quotas, in a given maritime region hinder sustainable fisheries management plans particularly in the case of migratory species. Further, IUU fishing distorts competition by treating less favourably the lawful actors that bear extra costs in order to comply with sustainable exploitation, conservation and management controls, fishing licences and access fees. Developing countries, particularly, lack valuable resources based on access fees crucial for their socio-economic development as local communities and small-scale activities are jeopardised. 3 In practical terms, this loss is estimated between US$10 billion and US$23.5 billion per year globally, whereas the West African waters are the most affected representing 37 per cent of total local catches. 4 Last, but not least, the impact of IUU fishing has disastrous consequences for marine habitats and biodiversity. Various forms of fishing, such as the non-selective fishing gear and the killing or injuring of specie, other than fish like shark and sawfish, result in a severe degradation of marine ecosystem. All these parameters depict challenges that surpass the local or regional level and call for coordinated global action. To this end, the EU has become the frontrunner 5 in the combat against IUU beyond European waters as it has adopted a rather progressive regulatory framework. III. IUU FISHING: DEFINING THE PROBLEM The UNCLOS sets the general framework for fisheries management 6 with a view to advancing the conversation of the living resources. 7 Accordingly, the unregulated fishing, 20The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (2005)3: 479 507; B. Le Gallic, A. Cox, An economic analysis of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing: Key drivers and possible solutions, 30 Marine Policy (2006): 689 95. 3 See T. Aqorau, Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing: Considerations for Developing Countries, FAO (2000), document AUS:IUU/2000/18; Ousman K. L. Drammeh, Illegal, Unreported & Unregulated Fishing In Small-Scale Marine And Inland Capture Fisheries, FAO (2000) document AUS:IUU/2000/7. 4 D. J. Agnew et al., Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing, Marine Resources Action Group and University of British Columbia (2009). 5 Available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_speech-14-524_en.htm (accessed 1 June 2015). 6 According FAO, fisheries management can be defined as an integrated process of information gathering, analysis, planning, consultation, decision-making, allocation of resources and formulation and implementation, with enforcement as necessary, of regulations or rules that govern fisheries activities in order to ensure the continued productivity of the resources and accomplishment of other fisheries objectives. FAO, FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No 4. Fisheries Management, FAO (1997). See also, R. R. Churchill, The management of shared fish stocks: the neglected other paragraph of article 63 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, in A. Strati, M. Gavouneli and N. Skourtos (eds), Unresolved Issues and New Challenges to the Law of the Sea, BRILL (2006) pp. 1 20. 7 For an analytic review of the current international legal regime see R. R. Churchill and D. Owen, The international framework of fisheries management, in R. Churchill and D. Owen, (eds), The EC Common Fisheries Policy, Oxford University Press (2010); M. Ann E. Palma, M. Tsamenyi and W.R. Edeson, Promoting Sustainable Fisheries: The International Legal and Policy Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, BRILL (2010); R. Warner, Protecting the Oceans Beyond National Jurisdiction: Strengthening the International Law Framework, BRILL (2009).

160 Maria Papaioannou coastal state retains its exclusive rights on fisheries activities in its internal waters and territorial sea 8. Likewise, UNCLOS enables the coastal state to determine the allowable catch in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) based on scientific evidence 9 and in accordance with economic and environmental parameters, 10 while it sets the objective of optimum utilisation of migratory species. It also affirms the freedom of fishing in the high seas 11 subject to conservation measures. 12 In the 1990s, the management and conservation of fish stocks was directly linked to sustainable development. The UNCED adopted the Rio Declaration and Agenda 2, which explicitly refers to the protection, rational use and development of living resources in the seas. 13 Subsequently, given that sustainable development entails food security and food quality, the FAO adopted the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (1993), which is supplemented by the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 14 and applies to all high seas fishing. Beyond sustainability, the conservation of maritime resources has been related to the international peace and security. 15 To this end, the Agreement for the implementation of UNCLOS relating to the conservation and management of migratory fish stocks was adopted in 1995. Based on the precautionary principle 16 and cooperation, the Convention advances the optimum utilisation of fisheries resources within and beyond the exclusive economic zone. The UN Fish Stocks Agreement, 17 which entered into force in 2001, sets minimum conservation standards, flags state s duties, information sharing systems and mechanisms 8 UNCLOS, Article 21. 9 See L. Motos and D. C. Wilson (eds.), The Knowledge Base for Fisheries Management, Elsevier (2006). 10 UNCLOS, Article 61. 11 Article 87. See also F. Orrego Vicuna, The Changing International Law of High Seas Fisheries, Cambridge Uuniversity Press (2004). 12 Article 119. 13 UN 1992. Earth Summit: Agenda 21 the United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, available at www.un.org (accessed 1 June 2015). 14 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, FAO Doc 95/20/Rev 1 (1995), Articles 6.2, 7.1.1 and 7.2.1. 15 Preamble, United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions 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, available at www.un.org (accessed 1 June 2015). 16 Analytically, see S. M. Garcia, The precautionary principle: its implications in capture fisheries management 22OCM (1994): 99; S. M. Garcia, The precautionary approach to fisheries: progress review and main issues (1995 2000), in M. H. Nordquist and J. N. Moore, (eds), Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff (2000) pp. 479 560; J. Peel, The Precautionary Principle in Practice: Environmental Decision-making and Scientific Uncertainty, Federation Press (2005) pp. 79 105; B. Sage-Fuller, The Precautionary Principle in Marine Environmental Law, Routledge (2013). 17 For the Agreement see, inter alia, D. H. Anderson, The Straddling Stocks Agreement of 1995: an initial assessment ICLQ (1996): 45; D. A. Balton, Strengthening the law of the sea: the new agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks ODIL 27(1996);M.Hayashi, The straddling and highly migratory fish stocks agreement, in E. Hey (ed.), Developments in International Fisheries Law, Kluwer (1999); M. W. Lodge and S. N. Nandan, Some suggestions

The EU Africa Partnership in the Fight Against IUU Fishing 161 for international cooperation. In this regard, emphasis is given on the role of regional fisheries management organisations with regulative but also enforcement competences in this field. The regional fisheries management organisations 18 represent institutionalised entities aiming at strengthening fisheries management. 19 These organisations have binding and/or advisory competence on fishery conservation with a view to regulate, manage fish stocks and control access. The RFMOs are open both to local countries ( coastal states ) and countries who fish in the region. Evidently, the multiplication of RFMOs depicts the current challenges in the field of sustainable exploitation of marine resources against IUU fishing. With regard to the latter, the international and EU law define Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing 20 as various activities that are grouped according the unlawful act. In this regard, illegal fishing means fishing activities that are either conducted by national or foreign fishing vessels in maritime waters under the jurisdiction of a State, without the permission of that State, or in contravention of its laws and regulations or by fishing vessels flying the flag of States that are contracting parties to a relevant regional fisheries management organisation, but that operate in contravention of the conservation and management measures adopted by that organisation and by which those States are bound, or of relevant provisions of the applicable international law; or by fishing vessels in violation of national laws or international obligations, including relevant regional fisheries management organisations. Further, unreported fishing refers to fishing activities that have not been reported, or have been misreported, to the relevant national authority, in contravention of national laws and regulations or relevant regional fisheries management organisations. Finally, unregulated fishing includes fishing activities conducted in the area of application of a relevant regional fisheries management organisation towards better implementation of the United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks of 1995, 20 IJMCL (2005): 345. 18 RFMOs with exclusive competence on fisheries management are inter alia the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC), the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the North- East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO), the General Fisheries Commission (formerly Council) for the Mediterranean (GFCM), the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), 211 the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 19 See also OECD, Strengthening Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, OECD Publishing (2009); E. Meltzer and S. Fuller, The Quest for Sustainable International Fisheries: Regional Efforts to Implement the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement: an Overview for the May 2006 Review Conference, NRC Research Press (2009); D. Owen, Legal and institutional aspects of management arrangements for shared stocks of marine fish in M. Fitzmaurice and M. Szuniewicz (eds), Exploitation of Natural Resources in the 21st Century. Kluwer Law International (2003): 247 87; K. W. Riddle, Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing: is international cooperationc?, 37 Ocean Development & International Law 3(2006), pp. 265 97; N. Oral, Regional Co-operation and Protection of the Marine Environment Under International Law: The Black Sea, Martinus Nijhoff (2013). 20 EU Regulation, EC No1005/2008, Article.

162 Maria Papaioannou by fishing vessels without nationality, by fishing vessels flying the flag of a State, not party to that organization, or by any other fishing entity, in a manner that is not consistent with or contravenes the conservation and management measures of that organisation, or it is inconsistent with State responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources under international law. Evidently, IUU fishing is a multidimensional problem that can be addressed only through a holistic approach of fisheries management through the active engagement of all stakeholders. To this end, the role of RFMOs becomes crucial in setting common standards, monitoring policies enforcing measures and advancing interregional cooperation. IV. EU FISHERIES POLICY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THIRD PARTIES A. The Common Fisheries Policy The regionalisation of fisheries management under UNCLOS allowed for enhanced cooperation between states, particularly in regions in which common fisheries policies already applied, e.g. EU. The European fisheries policy dates back to the Treaty of Rome. The function of the common market required the implementation of a Common Agricultural Policy in order to regulate the trade of agricultural products. Initially, fishing products fell under the European CAP. 21 Through the years, it has undergone substantial modification and developed as an autonomous European policy. 22 The adoption of exclusive economic zones (EEZ) under the UNCLOS and the accession of new member states (particularly UK, Ireland, Denmark) with significant fishing fleets necessitated a holistic European approach on fisheries management. Further, the EU exclusive competence regarding the conversation of marine biological resources advanced policies in this field. 23 In 2014, a new Common Fisheries Policy 24 became effective aiming at managing European fishing fleets and conserving fish stocks. The reform of the CFP covers all the main elements of the CFP (including fisheries management, international policy, market and trade, funding), including its financial aspects through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 25. In this regard, the fight against IUU fishing has been inextricably linked to the achievement of the 21 Article 38, Treaty establishing European Economic Community (1957), available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/ (accessed at 1 June 2015). 22 See, inter alia, R. Churchill and D. Owen (eds), The EC Common Fisheries Policy, Oxford University Press (2010); R. J. Long and P. A. Curran, Enforcing the Common Fisheries Policy, John Wiley (2008). 23 Article 3.1.d TFEU. 24 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. 25 Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

The EU Africa Partnership in the Fight Against IUU Fishing 163 objectives of the CFP as the EU steps up its role of honest broker for sustainability and conservation of fish stocks 26 and promotes good governance in global level. B. The EU Regulation as a catalyst in the fight against IUU The Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 27 (hereafter, the IUU Regulation) was adopted on the 29 September 2008 and entered into force on 1 January 2010. It establishes a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, designed to cover all aspects and to promote better ocean governance, which lies upon the shared responsibility of all stakeholders 28. With regard to third parties, the Community sets strict terms and conditions by introducing a certification scheme and an absolute prohibition of fishery products obtained from IUU fishing within the EU. Accordingly, the import of fishery products into the Community is allowed upon appropriate certification that demonstrates the legality of the products concerned. This certification scheme apply to all the Community imports and exports of marine fishery products even those transported or processed in a country other than the flag State before reaching the territory of the Community or placed under a transit procedure. 29 In addition, it sets an analytical scheme of port inspection upon prior notice and authorisation to access designated ports 30, while it introduces a community alert system 31 and sanctions measures. Inevitably, the IUU Regulation entails external policy aspects whereas cooperation with third countries and RFMOs represents the cornerstone for an effective Community system. The IUU Fishing Information System aims to serve as a platform for cooperation between various stakeholders under the guidance of the European Commission. More analytically, the Community IUU system is fully aligned to developments within RFMOs. Catch certificates, re-export certificates and related documents validated in conformity with catch documentation schemes adopted by RFMOs and that comply with the requirements of the IUU Regulation may be accepted for the species concerned. Moreover, the Commission ensures the transmission and 26 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/reform-leaflet_en/ (accessed 1 June 2015). 27 Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU Regulation). 28 Currently, the responsibility of states and RFMOs is under review before the ITLOS. More analytically, an Advisory Opinion is pending upon request of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) regarding the obligations of the flag State in cases where IUU fishing activities are conducted within the Exclusive Economic Zone of third party States, the extent of flag state liability for IUU fishing activities conducted by vessels sailing under its flag, liability of states and/or agencies issuing fishing licenses and the rights and obligations of the coastal State in ensuring the sustainable management of shared stocks and stocks of common interest, especially the small pelagic species and tuna. ITLOS, Case No.21: Request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC); See also M. Becker, Sustainable fisheries and the obligations of flag and coastal states: the request by the sub-regional fisheries commission for an ITLOS advisoryoopinion, 17 AJIL (2013)19. 29 See IUU Regulation, Chapters II III. 30 Ibid., Articles 4 7. 31 Ibid., Chapter IV.

164 Maria Papaioannou dissemination of the IUU Community vessel list, namely the list of vessels that engage in IUU activities, to the FAO and to regional fisheries management while it integrates in them IUU vessel lists adopted by RFMOs. 32 Thereby, exchange of information and harmonisation of sanctions against offenders enhance the uniform implementation of IUU measures. Further, cooperation with third countries includes administrative as well as policy aspects. In particular, third countries should adopt and implement the catch certification provisions, introduce a framework for exchange of information and adhere to monitoring provisions such as the conduct of on-the-spot audits by the Commission or a body designated by it to verify the effective implementation of the cooperation arrangement. 33 Non-cooperating third countries are identified by the Commission if they fail to discharge the duties incumbent upon it under international law as flag, port, coastal or market State, to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. Upon notification, a consultation phase is initiated in order to assess measures by third countries that may lead to a remedy to the situation or additional sanctions through its identification as a non-cooperating third country and the adoption of emergency measures. 34 Due to the fundamental role of international cooperation, the EU has focused on the dissemination of IUU Regulation to third countries and international forums (for example FAO, ACP, APEC, CTA, ASEM, ASEAN) 35. Several seminars at regional levels and bilateral meetings have been also organised to provide detailed information on the Regulation and answer questions on its future implementation as well as current developments. Although at its first steps, the IUU Regulation had been regarded as a paper tiger, 36 numbers speak for themselves. Since its entry into force, more than 90 third countries, which represent 99.99 per cent of total EU imports, have adhered to the EU standards by adopting the necessary legal instruments, procedures, and appropriate administrative structures for the certification of the catches by vessels flying their flag according the EU Regulation. 37 Since 2010, the Commission has investigated more than 200 cases involving vessels from 27 countries for which sanctions have been imposed by the flag and coastal states concerned against almost 50 vessels, amounting roughly to e8m. 38 Recently, pursuant to Article 31(3) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission reviewed the compliance of certain states, which have received prior formal warnings, with their international obligations as flag, port, coastal or market 32 Ibid., Articles 29 30. 33 Ibid., Article 20. 34 Ibid., chapter VI. 35 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/info/information_note01_en.pdf 36 Explanatory Statement on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, Doc.: A7-0144/201. 37 EC, Question and Answers on the EU s fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, 14.10.2014, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_memo-14-584_en.htm (accessed 1 June 2015). 38 Ibid.

The EU Africa Partnership in the Fight Against IUU Fishing 165 States, and identified Belize, Cambodia, Guinea 39 and Sri Lanka 40 as a noncooperating third states. Practically, Member States authorities may refuse import of fisheries products when the trade ban enters into force 3 months after the Commission decision has been published in the EU s Official Journal, which becomes mandatory upon the European Council s implementing decision. Given that in 2013, only from Sri Lanka the EU imported 7,400 tonnes of fish with a total value of e74m, this ban has a decisive effect on this country as trade sanction. Analysis affirms that the IUU Regulation has a catalytic effect in the fight against IUU. Not only does it sets a rigid legal framework within the Community but also its extraterritorial application ensures the implementation of common standards globally while it strengthens cooperation between various stakeholders. V. EU AFRICA; THE QUEST FOR COMMON ACTION The first Africa EU Summit in Cairo in 2,000 intensified dialogue and cooperation between the two continents. Human development, food security, sustainability and environmental protection are major challenges requiring common action. Thus, the Joint Africa EU Strategic Partnership 41 defines the long-term policy orientations between the two continents, based on a shared vision and common principles, while the EU also maintains sub-regional and bilateral relations with African countries. In this context, the Pan-African Programme (PanAf) based on Regulation (EU) No. 233/2014, establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (DCI) for the period 2014 20, was issued in line with the conclusions of the Brussels Summit and the Joint Declaration, according which the fight against IUU is set not only as a fisheries policy but also as a development and environmental one. 42 The integration of these development considerations has been much debated and long expected as fisheries has major implications for developing countries. 43 Further, the EU develops Fisheries Partnerships Agreements (FPAs), which establish a legal, economic and environmental framework for fishing activities carried out by EU fishing vessels in the waters of third countries that are 39 2014/170/EU: Council Implementing Decision of 24 March 2014 establishing a list of noncooperating third countries in fighting IUU fishing pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. OJ L 91, 27.3.2014, pp. 43 7. 40 2014/715/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 14 October 2014 identifying a third country that the Commission considers as a non-cooperating third country pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, OJ L 297, 15 October 2014, pp. 13 22. 41 It was first adopted in Lisbon in 2007. In 2014, the fourth EU Africa Summit took place in Brussels. For the outcome documents see European Council, The Africa EU Strategic Partnership, Doc. 16344/07 (Presse 291), available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ (accessed 1 June 2015). 42 See PanAfrican Programme 2014 2020, available at http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/ (accessed 1 June 2015). 43 A. Hudson, Case Study: The Fisheries Partnership Agreements, ODI Working Paper (2006), available at http://www.odi.org/ (accessed 1 June 2015).

166 Maria Papaioannou not in a position to fully exploit their fish stocks sustainably by themselves. Bilateral fisheries partnership agreements (FPAs) with third countries encourage sustainable fisheries and cover aspects relating to the management of resources, fleet monitoring and surveillance and the development of fisheries. Through FPAs, the EU gives financial and technical support in exchange for fishing rights, mainly with African states. 44 For instance, recently the EU Senegal FPA granted fishing rights to 38 EU boats in Senegalese maritime zones in return for a e8.69m payment by the EU while e750,000 will be invested annually into developing the local fisheries sector. 45 Similarly, EU Guinea-Bissau renewed have signed a new three-year fisheries Protocol under the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement which allows up to 40 EU vessels to operate therein in return for a financial contribution of e9.2m a year by the EU. Based on the principles of resource sustainability, good governance, and local development, the allocation of funds will support local fisheries, enhance monitoring, control and surveillance capacity, encourage scientific cooperation and improve sanitary controls. 46 Undoubtedly, the FPAs represent the external dimension of the EU s Common Fisheries Policy and intend to secure the EU fleet operation beyond EU waters. Underpinning these governance agreements is the inclusion of development considerations. Although not a panacea, development policies balance the economic interests with sustainability clauses and enhance good governance of the oceans. Additionally, the role of the EU in the fight against IUU fisheries is reinforced through its participation in RFMOs. Promoting the IUU Regulation overseas, the EU becomes a key partner for the African region since it enhances the implementation of common standards. Moreover, coordinated action, as cited above, allows information sharing and the harmonisation of IUU vessel lists. Since African RFMOs often cope with the lack of capacity or effective participation of developing states, 47 EU becomes the driving force against IUU fishing activities. VI. CONCLUSIONS The IUU fisheries activities have disastrous consequences on environment, economy and human development. Taking into account its phenomenal extent, cooperation in local, regional, interregional and international level along with the active engagement of all stakeholders becomes necessary. In this context, EU Africa partnership serves as the base for coordinated action. Given that 44 There are 20 fisheries agreements in force, 16 of which with African countries. See, analyticall, http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm (accessed 1 June 2015). 45 EU and Senegal sign Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement, 20 November 2014, available at http://ec.europa.eu (accessed 1 June 2015). 46 EU Guinea-Bissau renew sustainable fisheries cooperation, 24 November 2014, available at http://ec.europa.eu/ (accessed 1 June 2015). 47 E. Franck, K.Van den Bossche, Regional Issues and Ocean Law: The African Region, in Harry N. Scheiber, Jin-Hyun Paik, Regions, Institutions, and Law of the Sea: Studies in Ocean Governance, Martinus Nijhoff, 2013, at. 411.

The EU Africa Partnership in the Fight Against IUU Fishing 167 fisheries represent a shared endeavour and a shared problem, 48 the long- awaited ITLOS Advisory Opinion 49 gains significant importance regarding the allocation of international responsibility to flag/coastal states and international organisations along with their member states. This shared responsibility of state/non-state actors determines the effectiveness of fisheries policies and sets the framework for the future EU Africa joint action and beyond. 48 I. Plakokefalos, The Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission Submits a Request for an Advisory Opinion to ITLOS, SharesProject (2013), available at http://www.sharesproject.nl/ (accessed 1 June 2015). 49 Op.cit n.28