Trade Assessment Study Final - Food and Agriculture ... ASSESSMENT STUDY March/Mars 2012 REPORT/RAPPORT : ... Agrotec SpA SmartFish Page 3 of 118 ... (NAMA)

TRADE ASSESSMENT STUDY

March/Mars 2012

REPORT/RAPPORT : SF/2012/6

EuropeanUnion

Funded by

Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Stategy For The Eastern-Southern Africa And Indian Ocean Region

10th European Development FundAgreement No: RSO/FED/2009/021-330

“This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to the views of the European Union.”

Implementation of a Regional Fisheries StrategyFor The Eastern-Southern Africa and India Ocean Region

Programme pour la mise en oeuvre d'une stratégie de pêche pour laregion Afrique orientale-australe et Océan indien

Trade Assessment Study(TAS)

SF/2012/6

This report has been prepared with the technical assistance ofLe présent rapport a été réalisé par l'assistance technique de

March/Mars 2012

l’UnionEuropéene

Financé par

Erik Hempel and Brent Larsen

Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Strategy (IRFS) for ESA-IO Trade Assessment Study FINAL REPORT

Agrotec SpA SmartFish Page 2 of 118

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................. 5

SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 7

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 9

2. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................11

2.1. Work programme and approach...................................................................................................... 11 2.1.1. Phase I – Desk study .......................................................................................................................11 2.1.2. Phase II – Field missions .................................................................................................................11 2.1.3. Phase III – Report and finalization ..................................................................................................13

2.2. Brief review of on-‐going and completed interventions .................................................................... 13 2.2.1. Strengthening Fishery Products Health Conditions in ACP/OCT Countries ....................................13 2.2.2. TradeMark Southern Africa (TMSA)................................................................................................13

2.3. Data collection method ................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1. Trend analysis in overall trade........................................................................................................14 2.3.2. Direction of trade data ...................................................................................................................14 2.3.3. Informal trade.................................................................................................................................15

2.4. Trade barriers.................................................................................................................................. 15 2.4.1. International barriers......................................................................................................................15 2.4.2. Regional resources..........................................................................................................................17

3. KEY FINDINGS ON TRADE PATTERNS............................................................................18

3.1. Fisheries production ........................................................................................................................ 18

3.2. Main product forms......................................................................................................................... 20

3.3. Fisheries trade................................................................................................................................. 23 3.3.1. External trade .................................................................................................................................23 3.3.2. Direction of trade ...........................................................................................................................27 3.3.3. Import and export products ...........................................................................................................28 3.3.4. Intra-‐regional trade ........................................................................................................................30 3.3.5. Export prices ...................................................................................................................................32 3.3.6. Terms of trade ................................................................................................................................35 3.3.7. Informal trade.................................................................................................................................36



3.4. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 37

4. ECONOMIC AND TRADE RELATED ISSUES....................................................................38

4.1. Utilities and infrastructure............................................................................................................... 38 4.1.1. Fresh water.....................................................................................................................................38 4.1.2. Energy .............................................................................................................................................38 4.1.3. Transport infrastructure .................................................................................................................38

4.2. Economic constraints....................................................................................................................... 39 4.2.1. Terms of trade issues......................................................................................................................39 4.2.2. Import dependency – cost of production .......................................................................................40 4.2.3. Administrative and human resource capacity ................................................................................40 4.2.4. Access to capital – a limiting factor ................................................................................................41

4.3. International trade issues ................................................................................................................ 42 4.3.1. Trade liberalisation .........................................................................................................................44 4.3.2. Non-‐Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) .......................................................................................45 4.3.3. Rules of Origin ................................................................................................................................46 4.3.4. SPS and institutional issues.............................................................................................................47 4.3.5. Other institutional requirements....................................................................................................50 4.3.6. Rules negotiations – subsidies to fisheries .....................................................................................51

4.4. Bilateral agreements and issues ...................................................................................................... 52 4.4.1. Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA).......................................................................................52 4.4.2. Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPA) ........................................................................................52 4.4.3. Other bilateral agreements ............................................................................................................53

4.5. Economic integration and the Tripartite Negotiations ..................................................................... 53 4.5.1. Brief overview.................................................................................................................................53 4.5.2. COMESA and Tripartite negotiations..............................................................................................54 4.5.3. Issues in Tripartite Trade Rules for Fish Products...........................................................................55 4.5.4. SPS, NTBs and trade facilitation......................................................................................................56

4.6. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 59

5. KEY ISSUES AND POINTERS ..............................................................................................61

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE............................................................................................64

ANNEX 2: WORK PROGRAMME AND PEOPLE MET............................................................67

ANNEX 3: AIDE MEMOIRE..........................................................................................................71

ANNEX 4: REFERENCES...............................................................................................................72

ANNEX 5: COUNTRY STUDIES...................................................................................................74



LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Capture landings of selected African countries (Volume in tonnes)......................................19 Table 3.2. Regional aquaculture production (Volume in tonnes)...........................................................19 Table 3.3. Regional production of processed seafood (Volume in tonnes)............................................20 Table 3.4. Regional seafood production (Volume in Tonnes).................................................................22 Table 3.5. Regional imports and exports: “fish trade balance” (Cif value in US$ 1000) .........................24 Table 3.6. Regional exports (Fob value in US$ 1000) .............................................................................25 Table 3.7. Regional imports (Cif value in US$ 1000)...............................................................................26 Table 3.8. Regional fish imports (imports into the region).....................................................................27 Table 3.9. Regional fish exports 2008 (exports from the region) ...........................................................28 Table 3.10. Regional imports by commodity group (US$ 1000)...............................................................29 Table 3.11. Regional exports by product groups (US$ 1000) ...................................................................29 Table 3.12. Regional exports by product groups 2008 (Tonnes/US$ 1000) .............................................29 Table 3.13. Regional exports to the ESA-‐IO region in 2008......................................................................30 Table 3.14. Regional imports from the ESA-‐IO region in 2008.................................................................30 Table 3.15. Prices and demand gap for tilapia in some countries............................................................31 Table 3.16. Regional exports of fish: Unit price (US$/kg).........................................................................33 Table 3.17. Terms of trade .......................................................................................................................36 Table 4.1. Commitments and SPS Institution .........................................................................................44 Table 4.2. EU Fisheries Partnership Agreements currently in force (by 13 May 2011) ..........................53 Table 4.3: Partners to the Tripartite Negotiations and RECs ..................................................................54

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.1. Regional total production by environment............................................................................18 Fig. 3.2. Production of processed products in the region (Volume in tonnes) .................................21 Fig. 3.3. Regional import and export volumes.....................................................................................23 Fig. 3.4. Exports of the 19 countries in the region ..............................................................................25 Fig. 3.5. Imports by the 19 countries of the region .............................................................................26 Fig. 3.6. Unit prices of exports by continent .......................................................................................32 Fig. 3.7. Unit prices: comparison of world, African, and regional averages ........................................33 Fig. 3.8. Unit export prices for the largest exporters in the ESA/IO region .........................................34 Fig. 3.9. Regional unit export and import prices (US$ per kg).............................................................35 Fig. 4.1. Quality Control Pyramid.........................................................................................................48



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACP African Caribbean and Pacific states BMU Beach Management Unit BRIC Brazil, Russia, India, China CA Competent Authority CIF Cost, Insurance and Freight COMESA Common Market for East and Southern Africa CTTFP Comprehensive Trade and Transport Facilitation Programme DFID Department for International Development DG SANCO Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs EAC East Africa Community EBA Everything But Arms EC European Commission EDF European Development Fund EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EPA Economic Partnership Agreements ESA Eastern and southern Africa EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FOB Free On Board FPA Fisheries Partnership Agreements FTA Free Trade area FVO Food and Veterinary Office GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs GHP Good Hygiene Practice GMP Good Manufacturing Practice GDP Cross Domestic Product GSP Generalised System of Preferences HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points HS Harmonised System ICT Information and Communications Technology iEPA Interim Economic Partnership Agreements IGAD Inter-‐Governmental Authority on Development IRFS Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Strategy (SmartFish) IO Indian Ocean IOC Indian Ocean Commission IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IGAD the Inter-‐Governmental Authority on Development IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated IMF International Monetary Fund LCD Least Developed Countries LTA Lake Tanganyika Authority LVFO Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization MFN Most Favoured Nation NAMA Non-‐Agriculture Market Access NTB Non-‐Tariff Barriers OCT Overseas Countries and Territories PMU Project Management Unit



PRP Pre-‐Requisite Programmes REC Regional Economic Communities RoO Rules of Origin PRP Pre-‐Requisite Programmes RSA / SA Republic of South Africa RTFP Regional Trade Facilitation Programme SACU Southern Africa Customs Union SADC Southern African Development Community SFP Strengthening Fishery Products Health Conditions in ACP/OCT Countries SME Small and Medium scale Enterprises SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement SSOP Standard Sanitary Operating Procedures SVE Small Vulnerable Economies SWIOFC Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission TAC Total Allowable Catch TAS Trade Assessment Study TBT Technical Barriers to Trade ToT Terms of Trade TMSA TradeMark Southern Africa ToR Terms of Reference VAP Value Added Products UK United Kingdom US$ United States Dollar



SUMMARY The region included in this study comprises 19 countries: Burundi, Comoros, DR Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. All countries, except Tanzania, are members of

COMESA and the tripartite negotiation process for one large Free Trade Area (FTA) for 26 countries. Some countries belong also to other regional organizations such as the East African Community (EAC), the Inter-‐Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the Indian Ocean Commission

(IOC) with their own FTAs. Thus many sides have to be heard in trade related discussions. The fisheries sector is important to most of the countries in the region. As a group, the countries

produce about 1.9 million tonnes of fish and seafood every year, representing about 23% of Africa’s total fishery production. Aquaculture plays a minor part in fish production, but is expected to become increasingly important as a source of animal white protein for the region in the future.

The most important product forms produced include frozen whole fish, dried fish and smoked fish. There is very little value-‐added production in the region, except for some production of canned tuna

in Seychelles, Mauritius and Madagascar, frozen shrimp in Madagascar, and frozen Nile perch fillets in Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya.

The region exported fish products worth US$882 million in 2008, and imported fish products worth US$534 million in 2008. Consequently, the region as a whole had a trade surplus in fish of some US$348 million. However, this picture varies substantially from country to country.

Intra-‐regional trade is poorly developed, although important quantities of fish enter especially DR Congo from neighbouring countries. In total, only 4.3% of the value of fish imports comes from the

region, while only 1.2% of the value of exports goes to countries in the region. From the point of view of food security, intra-‐regional trade should be encouraged and expanded. In recent years

some positive signs are seen as tilapia products are now traded on a larger scale and also red tuna meat and processed products based on tuna bi-‐catch are traded intra-‐regionally.

The countries of the region face a number of economic and trade related issues, including poorly developed infrastructure such as roads, ports, air transport links etc. Most of the countries are dependent on imports for a number of items, not least equipment to develop a broader fisheries

production and trade. Lack of access to capital for investments and operations is a seriously limiting factor with regard to such development, and keeps the countries as raw materials based trade dependent economies.

In addition, the countries face a number of barriers to international trade. These barriers include complex trade agreements and international trade regimes, which in general do not favour

developing countries. International barriers relevant to trade in fish products include the Doha round unresolved issue of subsidies to fisheries. However, the key issue to be addressed is related to



the stipulations of the SPS and TBT agreements of the WTO. There is still a way to go before all

countries are compliant with the SPS agreements and the EU food safety regulations. The shortcomings are found for some countries both at the institutional level, e.g. lack of an EC approved Competent Authority (CA) and limited laboratory capacity, and in the private sector where the need

for compliant own control systems is not fully comprehended or correctly implemented. At the present time, the countries of the region are engaged in negotiations with the EU regarding

Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) and Fishery Partnerships Agreements (FPAs). However, most of the countries have not yet signed these agreements, as they are difficult to reach agreement on and often are uncertain in terms of benefits to the developing countries.

Intra-‐regional barriers to trade are not so much a matter of the contents of the FTA agreements signed at REC level – the texts and even protocols are WTO compliant, but the lack of or insufficient

and often varying degrees of implementation is a real issue. Both bound and actual commitments on tariff reduction vary. So some issues regarding trade liberalisation under GATT prevail, whereas tariffs on fish products traded intra-‐REC are removed, tariffs on inter-‐REC and regional external trade

vary between the FTAs. More substantial constraints persist for the Non-‐Tariff Barriers (NTB) to trade, including food safety issues under the SPS and TBT agreement issues, such as; technical specifications, labelling, and packaging requirements; and not least trade facilitation issues as border

crossing procedures are found in different and non-‐compliant versions, leading to informal trade.

The Tripartite negotiation procedure, involving all the countries, was finally launched in June 2011. It aims to establish, in the first round, an FTA. The benefit of this more wide-‐scoped approach is that the various initiatives and measures to be implemented to resolve outstanding GATT and NTB issues

are now being addressed in large programmes and in a coordinated manner. The approach has received positive support from the development partners, and has produced small scale concrete improvements for border crossing procedures and for reductions of transaction costs e.g. in terms of

better axel load control systems. However, the Tripartite FTA is still in process and political willingness to implement agreed measures is a key to its success.

In conclusion, the study identifies a number of important remaining issues, and indicates pointers that the national authorities may apply when addressing these issues and challenges aiming to develop national fisheries strategies.



1. INTRODUCTION The present assignment is the ‘Trade Assessment Study (TAS)’ part of the Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Strategy (IRFS) for ESA-‐IO countries, launched in February 2011 and now referred to as the SmartFish programme. It has the overall objective of contributing to an increased level of

social, economic and environmental development and deeper regional integration in the ESA-‐IO region through the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. This assignment falls under Result Area 4 of the programme, which is involved with issues of regional trade development.

The programme is financed by the European Union (EU) under the 10th European Development Fund (EDF 10) with a total financial contribution of Euro 21 million. The IRFS programme is implemented

by the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) in collaboration with the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA), the East Africa Community (EAC) and the Inter-‐Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD). Other regional institutions involved include the Southern African

Development Community (SADC) and regional fisheries management organizations, such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC), the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO), and the Lake Tanganyika Fisheries Authority (LTA).

The first phase of the Programme is planned to be implemented over a period of 31 months (March 2011-‐September 2013).

The immediate objective and activities of the TAS are:

A regional trade assessment is made to examine past and present catch and trade data to see

precisely what products and what product forms countries have produced and/or exported. Identify any on-‐going export development initiatives and identify major constraints that have hampered regional trade development to date.

During the briefing discussion at IOC headquarters, Mauritius, the immediate objective was refined

to focus the effort on:

1. A brief discussion of existing and on-‐going development partner funded activities in the

fisheries development and trade areas to avoid overlaps. 2. A definition of the countries to be included in the TAS limited to 19 COMESA members 3. Historic and present trade flows, using compatible statistical sources, with a distinct

COMESA intra-‐Regional trade perspective. However, without losing sight of the important international (extra-‐COMESA) trade flows.

4. Discuss key issues related to the rules based trading system of WTO and the on-‐going

regional integration efforts. In this context the study team1 will identify constraints related to exiting barriers to trade both originating from the existing regional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) e.g. for IOC members and SADC and common market for EAC. Also the

1 Mr. Erik Hempel and Mr. Bent Larsen both Senior Trade Analysts



status and obligations under exiting Interim Economic Partnership Agreements (iEPA) signed

with the EU will be discussed. 5. More technical aspects related to compliance with the SPS and TBT agreements including

also the EU-‐regulations on food safety and for aquaculture development will also be

considered. It was agreed to maintain close coordination with the almost simultaneously executed SmartFish

interventions to optimize the use of funds, namely:

• The Trade Strategy Development workshop programme

• The Market (Supply & Demand) Study

As a means to achieve this the it was agreed that the TAS would avoid a too detailed focus on trade flows in specific fish products, and rather look at larger product groups to identify trends and opportunities. The main TAS output is an analysis of the key issues, both as regards the barriers to

intra-‐regional trade under the WTO rules based trading system, and on more technical parameters as food safety issues. On this basis it aims to identify realistic elements to be used for development of future national level strategies.

The report contains a section on methodology as applied, and performance against the ToR is indicated by quoting the individual activity, when found suitable, followed by related findings and a

discussion thereof. Since the substance matter is composed of two main areas: an analysis of trade flows, and the identification of barriers to trade; one chapter is devoted to each. One chapter summarises the key findings and issues and lists the indicative proposals that may contribute to

resolve the issues. A list of the actual work schedule with people consulted, a list of relevant development partner funded interventions, and a set of individual country statistics are included in annexes.



2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Work programme and approach The study was divided into three interrelated and at times overlapping phases:

• Phase I – Desk study

• Phase II – Field missions

• Phase III – Report and finalization

2.1.1. Phase I – Desk study This phase was initiated from the consultants’ home offices before departure to the field. Data were collected in three broad groupings – the phase covers in general activities under points a), b) and c) of the ToR (see sections 2.2 and 2.3 below for general methodology applied):

I. Existing and on-‐going development partner funded activities in the areas of trade in fisheries

products, with a view to glean important information on fisheries development and trade

initiatives, meta data on economic development relevant to the countries, and to avoid overlaps (see section 2.2 below and annex 4);

II. Statistics on trade flows globally and by direction between ESA-‐IO countries and internationally (see chapter 3); and

III. Samples of and the status of Regional Economic Communities (REC) initiatives with their protocols, including also intentionally and bilaterally binding agreements originating from the WTO rules based trading system, such as Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA), Fisheries

Partnership Agreements etc. This phase was carried out partially from the home office before departure to the field, while in the

field, and between field missions (the latter division of field activities into two mission visits was necessitated to optimize the coordination process with the Trade Workshop programme). This lead to the identification of key issues related to barriers to trade caused by the different stages of

development and implementation practices of the RECs and other external agreements (see chapter 4). Preliminary identification of and contact with important players to meet while in the field was also carried out.

2.1.2. Phase II – Field missions

The two senior advisors worked separately and together for periods of the assignment (see Annex 2

for details).

The first (joint) mission was initiated from 16th June to 2nd July 2011, and the second (joint) mission from 17th July to 1st August 2011. The key activities carried out were:



a) A briefing session with the IOC responsible officer and also to agree a work plan with the PMU

b) Produce a draft outline of the report to be agreed with PMU. The objective was to discuss

the ToR and agree adaptations (see Chapter 1 for result and was accomplished on 18th June). c) Selection of countries to be included in the study was done prior by the PMU, and included

19 countries in total:

IOC COMESA EAC IGAD

Comoros DR Congo Burundi Djibouti

Madagascar Malawi Kenya Eritrea

Mauritius Swaziland Rwanda Ethiopia

Seychelles Zambia Tanzania Somalia

(Reunion as observer) Zimbabwe Uganda Sudan

The selection corresponds to the sub-‐set of COMESA/EAC/IOC/IGAD member countries that the IRFS ESA IO programme covers. Based on this list and the criteria quoted below, six countries were

selected for team visits, and agreed with the PMU.

Criteria:

1. Countries hosting important regional organisations 2. Countries that have substantial fisheries production either inland or marine 3. Countries that have some fish product trade regionally and/or internationally

4. Countries that have some import of fish products.

Based on a combination of the above the following countries were selected2:

1. Mauritius, (and IOC) 2. Djibouti (and IGAD) 3. Seychelles (also IOTC)

4. Zambia (and COMESA) 5. Uganda 6. Tanzania (and EAC)

Following the selection of countries a concrete work plan and team travel programmes were agreed with the PMU. Smaller adjustments to the plan became necessary due to availability of flights and

organisations/ people to be consulted and the need to organise workshops. The plan needed smaller adaptations (see Annex 2 for details of the actual work programme). Data collection and collation was continued in the field.

2 Time permitting either Madagascar or Reunion was to be visited. Due to the rather complicated and often very time consuming routings in the Indian Oceans and the continental parts of Africa, Madagascar and Reunion were excluded from visits also due to their relative limited importance in inter-regional trade and their lack of presence in REC organisations.



d) Meetings and/or telephone interviews with programme focal points, government officials,

regional trade integration organisations (COMESA, EAC, IGAD, IOC, and LVFO), and industry representatives were executed.

e) Before Mr. Larsen left Mauritius a debriefing was held on 29th July 2011, and an Aide

Memoire (attached as Annex 3) was handed over to the IOC and the PMU.

2.1.3. Phase III – Report and finalization A general template of the report was agreed shortly after the briefing meeting with the PMU. The reporting was initiated in the field, and a first draft of the report was handed over to the IOC and PMU before leaving Mauritius on 31st August.

2.2. Brief review of on-going and completed interventions This section contains only a brief description of the key programmes that address issues relevant to

fisheries strategy development and/or to improve integration into the rules based trading system. It is noted that not only interventions directly involving the 19 individual countries are considered, but also initiatives aimed at regional economic integration (a more comprehensive list is found in Annex

4).

2.2.1. Strengthening Fishery Products Health Conditions in ACP/OCT Countries ACP Secretariat: Funded by EuropeAid with contributions from UK and The Netherlands; 2002-‐2010.

Budget Euro 48 million. This large scale project covers all ACP regions including also ESA-‐IO countries. The main purpose was

to build and improve the trade capacity of the participating countries within fish products by enhancing compliance with the WTO SPS agreements. The immediate objective was to assure compliance with the valid EU food health and safety regulations, both for public section control and

inspection authorities and also for the private sector operators in fisheries, aquaculture and processing/storage.

2.2.2. TradeMark Southern Africa (TMSA) Programme wholly funded by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). Implementation from 2009-‐2014. Budget: British £100 million.

TMSA is a follow on from the Regional Trade Facilitation Programme (RTFP) funded by DFID between 2003 and 2009. The overall TMSA goal is 'Sustained rapid, inclusive growth and poverty reduction in

the SADC and COMESA regions'. The purpose of the programme is 'To improve southern Africa’s trade performance and competitiveness for the benefit of poor women and men'. TMSA is hosted by the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). The main, but not exclusive,

beneficiary is the Tripartite of Regional Economic Communities COMESA, East African Community (EAC) and Southern African Development Community (SADC). The programme supports the strategies of the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to deepen economic integration, and

increase trade, infrastructure and growth in the Southern Africa regions. TMSA also directly assists the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group in Geneva to negotiate the Doha Development Agenda so as to allow LDCs to fully benefit from the multilateral trading

regime.



2.3. Data collection method A key problem in making an analysis of statistical data for a fairly large group of countries is to assure

a high degree of data compatibility and consistency of the data. The analyses aim to establish three different key aspects relevant to fisheries development and trade (the analysis of the data is presented in Chapter 3):

• Trend analysis in overall trade

• Direction of trade

• Informal trade

2.3.1. Trend analysis in overall trade An assessment of the sustainability of the different fisheries is carried out by consulting the existing FAO annual production statistics database, and where possible this has been supplemented by Total Allowable Catch (TAC) data from regional projects and organisations, such as the IOTC and LVFO, and

comparing these with production data. However, due to the lack of TAC data for most fisheries, this analysis is not comprehensive.

The historical trend analysis is carried out to establish a history of global volumes and values of fish product traded (import and export figures at aggregate level) nationally, regionally and extra-‐regionally. The key data source is the FAO annual production statistics (FAO FishStat J database). As

these are collected in a fairly consistent manner by the concerned national level fisheries authorities and verified by FAO; it is the best possible source. Aggregation is done at the chapter level (HS 2002 2-‐digit level). Where deemed feasible the data analyses are supplemented by data and views as

expressed in recently completed interventions. The trend analyses are supplemented by economic indicators at the Meta level. The source used is

‘Economic Development in Africa Report 2011’3.

2.3.2. Direction of trade data These data are needed to establish, at a point in time, a more detailed level of trade for product groups and indicates who trades which products, with whom. This analysis is carried out to identify the potential to increase intra-‐regional trade in known product groups. The statistical data are

sourced from the COMESA COMSTAT database at the Harmonised System 6 digit level (HS2002 -‐ called the sub-‐heading level).

The origin of these data is the national customs service that collects the information from export documents (at FOB, price levels) or imports (at CIF prices). The HS system is universally applied in a consistent manner as the HS codes are defined by the World Customs Organisations (WCO). Original

data are collected at the 8-‐digit level and are reported to the national statistical bureaus for aggregation at the HS 6-‐digit level, who in turn reports these data directly to COMESA COMSTAT. There is no checking or verification procedures applied, but the data are in general considered

reliable and have a reasonable coverage for most the 19 countries, which are part of this study.

3Sub-title: ‘Fostering Industrial Development in Africa in the New Global Environment’. This publication is the product of joint work between UNCTAD and UNIDO.



However, it is noted the data are missing from important producer and exporter countries and in

particular Tanzania as a non-‐member of COMESA. In the latter cases data have been extracted from the FAO database, though it is realised that the application of different exchange rates may raise some concerns, but there are no alternative sources as access to the national statistical bureaus has

not been possible. Aside from the indications resulting from the direction of trade analysis more simplistic economic indicators as price per unit are also calculated to indicate the simplistic terms of trade for fish products4.

The statistical data analysis has been supplemented by data gleaned from reports of recent interventions and interviews with industrial players (SMEs and larger players) to identify fairly new

products that may have scope to increase intra-‐regional trade and even support the food security situation of the region.

2.3.3. Informal trade By its very nature, it is difficult if not impossible to get verifiable data on informal trade – or rather trade that is not registered by formal customs procedures. Informal trade is typically conducted by

small scale traders using simple means of transport to carry the load of traditionally processed fish products across the border. In order to avoid taxation, the quantities per traded batch are reduced to a low weight. This trade is mostly in terms of dried, smoked/cured or salted products as these do

not require a cold chain. It is noted that also fresh products are at times traded this way. The point of sale is quite often a merchant across the border that may accumulate products bought from several small scale traders and transport these to nearby towns or other markets. The source of data

used to assess (not calculate) this kind of trade are recently completed interventions and information gathered though interviews, for example from the ACP FISH II project.

2.4. Trade barriers

2.4.1. International barriers Barriers to trade are related to issues that fall under the multi-‐lateral WTO rules based trading

system, especially the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) that regulates the trade in goods for the WTO member countries. The TAS has made use of the WTO-‐agreements5 that impact

on the trade in fish products with the benefitting 19 countries. More recent developments in the WTO Doha round on trade negotiations are only considered if progress is relevant to fisheries (e.g. discussion on subsidies in agriculture and market access for industrial products and equipment). The

more relevant agreements for fish products are the Non-‐Agriculture Market Access (NAMA) rules, where all fish products belong, the SPS and TBT agreements, and trade facilitation issues such as transport costs and border crossing issues.

Other important international agreements are bilateral by nature, meaning that the 19 countries have agreed the trading rules with major trading blocs such as the EU, the USA and Japan, etc. The

agreement with the EU was until 2007 based on derogation from the basic WTO Most Favoured

4 An improvement in a nation's terms of trade (the increase of the ratio: export value/import values) indicates that the country theoretically can buy more imports for any given level of exports. The output ratio is exchange rate neutral. 5 There are more than 60 WTO sub-agreements



Nation principle, under which the country has extended to all trading partners equal terms under

the rules. The derogation allowed the ACP countries (to which the 19 countries belong) to export duty free products including fish products to the EU, where demand was and remains substantial. Duty free access waived an EU customs tariff of up to 24% on processed fish products. As a result the

competitive edge for the ACP countries processors was substantially improved. However, as the duty level (customs tariff) in the EU is being reduced, the value of this duty free preference is being eroded gradually and will theoretically disappear when such trade is fully liberalized.

There are some restrictions in terms of the origin of the value addition in any one final transformed product traded. The importing partner specifies a percentage level for the final product value that

has to originate from the exporting country to establish economic origin (also including accumulated origin for regional raw and intermediary input); these Rules of Origin (RoO) vary from trading bloc to trading bloc and even between individual countries. Despite the fact that RoO originally was a means

of protection from tax fraud committed by industries from the importing bloc itself, today they act as trade deflection and protective devices of a more technical/economic nature for producers of similar products based in the importing bloc.

RoO can be very complicated, and hence the EC is presently trying to harmonize and simplify these, but with 27 member countries there are many concerns to balance. Since the RoO are still

important, a more detailed description is included. In this context the application of food safety measures that refers to the SPS agreement are also included in the analysis. The latter measures are

universally known as the application of Standard Sanitary Operating Procedures (SSOP for USA) or Pre-‐Requisite Programmes (PRPs for EU) and are both based on HACCP principles. These measures are there to assure the end consumer receives safe food and to assure that only approved

enterprises export to the EU market. Due to the termination of the derogation by the WTO in 2007, the EU has aimed to put the trade

rules in a broader context of economic cooperation with the partner countries. The new context is named Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) these are comprehensive and include both trade issues and development support. The EC prefers to negotiate EPAs with trading partner groups of

countries rather than with individual countries. However only a few final EPAs have so far been signed, and only a few interim EPAs (that is EPAs that are not fully negotiated and typically only includes one or two countries rather than a grouping) have been signed. The EPA status in

commented upon because trade rules are a key element. There are other bilateral agreements that have an impact on production of raw fish and processed

products at the same time. These are in the case of EU known as Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPA). The main point is that part of the EU fleet operating under an FPA, which is always with an individual county, gets access to fish resources in the EEZ of a partner country (but not with in the

territorial 12 NM coastal zone) on a sustainable fishery basis. It is stipulated that the EC specified volume of catch of tuna per year under the valid protocol will be compensated by an economic contribution to be used for development purposes. In addition it is the intension that the EU catch

should be landed for processing in the partner country for processing to retain value addition locally, and to promote socio-‐economic development. The FPAs are also included in the analysis.



2.4.2. Regional resources As a way of integrating the many developing countries and LDCs in the international economic system and the multi-‐lateral rules based trading system, the formation of regional economic

communities (REC) or integration groupings have been established. These serve the purpose to encourage further south-‐to-‐south trade. In the present situation such trade is an important

parameter for attaining a higher level of food security. The RECs are from the onset conceived as WTO compliant and receive assistance in establishing rules based trade regimes. They are also the groupings that the EU negotiates EPAs with.

The history of the formation of RECs is long. It started with the creation of a Southern African Customs Union (SACU) to replace the colonial trading system. Whilst the SACU has been

implemented, the level of success for other groupings has been lower. The SADC, with a membership of 13 countries, has signed a Free Trade Area (FTA) agreement with an associated protocol on fish trade. The EAC, with 5 member countries, has signed an FTA as well, but full

implementation is not yet in place, and the protocol is not yet agreed. The Indian Ocean countries have signed an FTA between the five countries (four members plus one observer country) and it is implemented, but at different levels and speeds for the individual countries. IGAD has not

negotiated an FTA, not even a PTA. Since 2005 COMESA-‐EAC-‐SADC has embarked upon a tripartite negotiation to establish a comprehensive FTA. This Tripartite grouping FTA is expected to be the one to last in the long term.

A draft COMESA wide fisheries development strategy is discussed at the moment. The issues and constraints under the RECs FTAs relate to the same WTO agreements as mentioned above. An

important constraint for intra-‐regional trade development related to the varying level of tariffs that are in practice at the moment. Likewise, the RoO for fish products are not yet defined, an underlying reason being that other economic sectors such as agriculture and textiles play more important roles.

These aspects are analysed in more detail. Finally, supply side constraints form important barriers to trade, intra-‐regionally and internationally.

These constraints include poor standards of physical infrastructure such as roads, railroads, ports and airports. Thus, getting the products to markets or to the processing facilities has limitations and in general does not allow an intra-‐regional marketing of frozen or chilled products. The same issues

are related to the often poor quality and inconsistency in the supply of utilities, energy supply, and treatment of waste and waste water drainage. At the factory level most processing in African capital owned enterprises today is fairly simple, with only little value addition. However, there are some

notable exceptions for enterprises owned by international capital. These constraints and also limitations in quality control and general management vary between to 19 countries and will be considered.



3. KEY FINDINGS ON TRADE PATTERNS A single statistical annex for each country is attached. This gives more detailed information on the individual country’s performance. However, in this study the main emphasis is on regional development, and consequently a regional analysis is presented.

In compiling this information, mainly official FAO and COMESA statistics have been used. In addition to what has been reported officially, there may be a considerable amount of unregistered

production and trade, but no reliable figures exist for this. The tables shown here therefore only tell part of the story, but the information is the best available.

3.1. Fisheries production In order to get an overview of the role of fisheries and fish trade in the region as a whole and in each individual country, a few very simple tables have been compiled. An overview of the total fish

production (i.e. catches and landings plus aquaculture production), production of processed seafood, seafood exports and seafood imports is given in this section.

Fig. 3.1. Regional total production by environment

Source: FAO FishStat

The total production of the 19 countries6 covered by this study amounts to almost 1.9 million

tonnes, or about 23% of Africa’s total fish production.

6 Burundi, Comoros, DR Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

Volume in to

nnes

Aquaculture

Marine areas

Inland waters



A special characteristic of the region’s fisheries production is that the greatest part (76.4%) comes

from inland freshwater fisheries. Thus, the lakes, rivers and water reservoirs in these countries are contributing very importantly to the total fisheries production. On the other hand, this could also mean that the marine fisheries potential may not be fully

exploited. Thus, many of the coastal states in the region may have important potential for increasing their production in marine areas.

Table 3.1. Capture landings of selected African countries (Volume in tonnes) Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Uganda 223,086 226,813 247,310 377,328 427,575 399,491 551,110 502,250 476,654

Tanzania 343,026 330,986 356,523 366,080 379,408 338,118 333,056 331,301 321,151

DR Congo 235,177 241,965 238,730 240,337 239,605 239,558 238,970 238,970 238,970

Madagascar 137,109 144,838 145,107 149,719 148,169 155,526 166,371 138,600 144,599

Kenya 165,420 145,581 121,328 128,100 148,558 159,907 136,213 140,058 144,451

Zambia 67,520 67,630 70,833 72,850 71,052 65,446 79,418 85,043 93,221

Seychelles 53,873 63,617 87,104 101,846 109,452 93,443 65,888 69,497 81,489

Sudan 59,008 58,608 60,608 64,608 60,608 58,608 67,467 70,603 73,898

Malawi 41,187 41,971 54,209 57,196 60,407 74,287 68,000 71,719 70,945

Somalia 31,900 29,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000

Comoros 12,180 13,102 14,115 14,935 15,070 15,070 19,676 29,989 20,450

Burundi 9,064 11,150 14,897 14,055 15,000 15,950 16,900 17,966 17,900

Ethiopia 15,405 12,315 9,228 10,030 9,475 9,915 13,278 16,795 17,072

Zimbabwe 14,585 13,713 13,200 13,455 12,872 12,950 13,000 13,102 13,152

Rwanda 7,263 7,612 8,427 8,212 8,186 8,800 9,438 9,438 9,438

Mauritius 11,045 10,762 11,001 10,321 10,255 9,124 8,272 6,888 8,113

Eritrea 8,880 7,852 6,689 7,404 4,027 8,813 1,932 1,665 3,030

Djibouti 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,571 1,299 1,229 1,206 1,058

Swaziland 142 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 143

Region total

1,436,770 1,428,585 1,490,479 1,667,746 1,746,360 1,696,375 1,820,288 1,775,160 1,765,734

Source: FAO FishStat J

Table 3.2. Regional aquaculture production (Volume in tonnes) Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Zanzibar 81,860 111,830 94,640 71,860 73,620 76,760 84,850 107,925 102,682

Uganda 2,360 4,915 5,500 5,539 10,817 32,392 51,110 52,250 76,654

Madagascar 8,449 10,413 10,267 9,603 10,296 16,533 14,943 14,486 9,696

Zambia 4,520 4,630 4,501 5,125 5,125 5,210 5,876 5,640 8,505

Tanzania 1,300 2,630 2,002 3,013 3,012 3,272 4,045 5,217 5,722

Kenya 1,009 798 1,012 1,035 1,047 1,012 4,240 4,452 4,895

DR Congo 2,744 2,965 2,965 2,965 2,965 2,970 2,970 2,970 2,970

Zimbabwe 2,285 2,213 2,600 2,955 2,452 2,450 2,500 2,602 2,652

Sudan 1,000 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,950 2,000 2,200

Malawi 568 642 666 733 812 1,500 1,500 1,700 1,620

Mauritius 59 56 33 350 400 443 175 246 437

Rwanda 435 612 1,027 386 386 400 388 388 388

Seychelles 282 234 1,084 1,175 772 704 368 289 300

Burundi 100 150 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Swaziland 72 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 73

Ethiopia 15 15 15 25 25 25 25 25 25



TOTAL 107,058 143,703 128,112 106,564 113,529 145,471 175,140 200,390 219,020


Aquaculture plays a very minor part in the region’s fish production. In 2009, the combined aquaculture production of the 19 countries amounted to almost 220,000 tonnes, of which Zanzibar

accounted for about half, and Uganda about 35%. However, there is uncertainty about these figures.

Aquaculture production accounts for about 11.6% of the region’s total fish production. However, aquaculture production is now growing rapidly, and the region has a considerable potential to increase farmed production. Therefore, this is an activity that merits promotion in the whole region.

Over time, aquaculture is highly necessary if the region is to produce enough fish for its growing population.

3.2. Main product forms The regional production of (processed) fish products has been declining over the past five years. In 2004, the regional production of processed products amounted to over 465,000 tonnes, but in 2008

it had declined to just 332,000 tonnes.

Table 3.3. Regional production of processed seafood (Volume in tonnes) Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Seychelles 90,634 111,552 135,278 135,002 146,529 143,278 101,243 98,736

Mauritius 36,062 40,199 43,929 47,132 52,910 74,634 59,857 57,220

Uganda 37,940 45,149 27,694 50,105 57,262 54,627 49,833 44,203

Kenya 63,169 62,008 59,118 62,680 48,913 38,058 38,309 37,699

Tanzania 101,885 96,568 104,494 99,968 99,230 91,120 57,550 31,150

Madagascar 29,611 30,050 36,681 34,969 24,345 31,484 27,903 22,070

Zambia 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Sudan 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 11,266 12,954

Zimbabwe 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300

Somalia 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Rwanda 975 530 670 840 685 690 690 690

Ethiopia 154 154 138 137 200 300 300 300

TOTAL 395,230 421,010 442,802 465,633 464,874 468,991 374,251 332,322


Some countries (Burundi, Comoros, DR Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Malawi, Swaziland) have registered

no production of processed products at all. This is probably not the case, as there is production in most countries, but apparently this has not been registered.

Of those countries that have registered production, Seychelles is has the largest production volume, with around 100,000 tonnes per year, mainly canned tuna. Mauritius also has a large production of canned tuna, while Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya have a significant production of fresh and frozen

fish fillets for exports. Madagascar’s production is mainly frozen shrimp and canned tuna. Looking at the regional production of processed products, i.e. products that are traded from the

region, it is noted that the production of frozen products increased significantly until about 2003.



Since then there has been a decline in total production and also in the production of frozen

products. Traditional products like dried and salted products showed increases in production until 2007, when the production volume dropped. Production of frozen crustaceans has in general increased, but the

volume is relatively low, although the value is high. The largest product groups included prepared and preserved tuna (canned tuna), produced mainly

by Seychelles and Mauritius, and various salted and/or dried freshwater fish, which is an important product on the African continent. However, the production of dried and salted freshwater fish has declined significantly over the past five years, from almost 117,000 tonnes in 2005 to just 63,200

tonnes in 2008. Products for the international markets vary from sub-‐region to sub-‐region and depend very much on

the resources of the individual region.

Fig. 3.2. Production of processed products in the region (Volume in tonnes)


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Volume in to

nnes

Meals

Fish, prepared or preserved

Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc.



Table 3.4. Regional seafood production (Volume in Tonnes) Commodity (Commodity) 2005 2006 2007 2008

Octopus, dried, salted or in brine -‐ 2 2 2

Miscellaneous demersal fishes, salted or in brine, nei 772 644 32 41

Lobsters nei, whole, frozen 700 53 81 96

Sea-‐cucumber, dried, salted or in brine 317 224 193 196

Cephalopods nei, frozen 200 200 200 200

Spiny lobsters (Panulirus spp.), whole, frozen 281 344 336 207

Crustaceans and molluscs, fresh, frozen, dried, salted, etc. 772 638 368 289

Freshwater fishes nei, smoked 868 753 900 618

Crustaceans nei, frozen ... ... 750 862

Freshwater fish fillets, nei, frozen 11,527 11,098 9,049 1,018

Crabs nei, frozen 742 833 1,194 1,181

Fish meat, whether or not minced, frozen, nei 1,398 3,693 1,954 1,181

Fish, dried, salted or smoked 1,200 1,300 1,300 1,300

Fish nei, dried and salted 1,457 1,166 2,384 1,763

Octopus, frozen 1,423 1,624 1,740 1,796

Emperors, frozen 4,605 3,257 2,848 2,261

Tilapia fillets, frozen 6,514 2,749 2,763 2,744

Fish meals, nei 6,984 11,110 10,943 9,198

Tuna loins, prepared or preserved 3,759 23,415 13,482 10,635

Nile perch fillets, frozen 13,769 11,846 11,910 11,826

Shrimps and prawns, frozen, nei 13,443 11,556 12,523 12,044

Tuna meal 10,934 14,181 13,881 13,054

Freshwater fishes, dried, whether or not salted, nei 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Freshwater fish fillets, fresh or chilled, nei 24,159 19,483 18,332 21,784

Freshwater fishes nei, frozen 41,076 29,349 55,986 25,503

Marine fish, frozen, nei 95,902 93,444 58,215 58,998

Freshwater fishes nei, dried, salted, or in brine 116,983 114,147 57,645 63,206

Tunas prepared or preserved, not minced, nei 60,147 71,585 54,604 70,319

Fish body oils, nei ... 73 -‐ -‐

Miscellaneous freshwater fishes, prepared or preserved, not minced, nei -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Sharks nei, frozen 3 -‐ -‐ -‐

Shrimps, prawns, prepared or preserved, nei 9 -‐ -‐ -‐

Skipjack prepared or preserved, not minced, nei 24,596 20,000 20,222 -‐

Tunas nei, smoked -‐ 6 138 -‐

Shark fins, dried, unsalted ... ... ... ...

Tuna loins and fillets, frozen 334 218 276 0 0

TOTAL 464,874 468,991 374,251 332,322




3.3. Fisheries trade

3.3.1. External trade Some of the countries in the region are engaged in an active external trade, while others have very little trade in fish products. The region exports fish worth approximately US$882 million per year

(FAO 2008), while it imports fish worth about US$ 534 million (FAO 2008). In other words, the region as a whole has a foreign trade surplus (in fish) of about US$ 348 million. However, both exports and

imports stagnated or declined in the past few years, probably as a result of global economic problems.

Through most of the period covered by this study, the import volume has been greater than the export volume. At the same time the export value has been greater than the import value. In other words, the region imports large volumes of cheap fish (mostly for human consumption), while it

exports smaller volumes of expensive fish. The fish trade in the region as a whole therefore serves to contribute to food security while at the same time providing much needed foreign exchange.

Fig. 3.3. Regional import and export volumes


While some countries have a deficit in their foreign trade in fisheries products, others show a

substantial surplus. Among the countries with the largest surplus are Tanzania, Uganda and Madagascar. These countries are all exporting high value products (fresh and frozen Nile perch fillets, shrimp), mainly to Europe. The countries with large deficits include especially Mauritius and

DR Congo. In the case of Mauritius, the tuna that is caught in the area is registered as imports for the country’s tuna cannery, and that creates a big deficit. For DR Congo, the situation is quite different. DR Congo does not produce enough fish for domestic consumption, and therefore has to import

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

197 6 197 8 198 0 198 2 198 4 198 6 198 8 199 0 199 2 199 4 199 6 199 8 200 0 200 2 200 4 200 6 200 8

Value in US$ 100

0

Volume in to

nnes

Export volume

Import volume

Import value

Export value



large amounts. Because much of the DR Congo trade is informal, it is estimated that the actual trade

deficit is much larger than official statistics indicate, perhaps as much as US$ 200 million.

Table 3.5. Regional imports and exports: “fish trade balance” (Cif value in US$ 1000) Country (Country) Imports Exports Trade balance

Burundi 36 207 171

Comoros 1,392 14 -‐1,378

Congo, Dem. Rep. of the 88,769 391 -‐88,378

Djibouti 2,239 101 -‐2,138

Eritrea 315 861 546

Ethiopia 1,857 508 -‐1,349

Kenya 9,937 75,594 65,657

Madagascar 28,093 160,537 132,444

Malawi 1,765 294 -‐1,471

Mauritius 306,052 214,987 -‐91,065

Rwanda 1,787 94 -‐1,693

Seychelles 63,584 97,155 33,571

Somalia 3,745 4,597 852

Sudan 1,970 674 -‐1,296

Swaziland 4,050 203 -‐3,847

Tanzania, United Rep. of 3,959 188,218 184,259

Uganda 1,051 134,554 133,503

Zambia 8,935 1,295 -‐7,640

Zimbabwe 4,776 1,453 -‐3,323

TOTAL 534,312 881,737 347,425 Source: FAO FishStat j

The largest exporter is Mauritius, followed by Tanzania, Madagascar and Uganda. These countries all

export valuable products, such as shrimp, tuna and Nile perch fillets to overseas markets. These countries also have a relatively diversified export structure, with a number of different products exported to a number of different countries.

The large exporters are all characterized by having relatively concentrated exports to a few markets.

Only four countries account for 89.6% of the value of the export from Mauritius, for example. In the case of Madagascar, just one country (France) accounts for 83.8% of the value of the country’s exports. Uganda is faring a little better: three countries account for 64.4% of the country’s export

value.



Fig. 3.4. Exports of the 19 countries in the region


Table 3.6. Regional exports (Fob value in US$ 1000) Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mauritius 36,659 63,193 68,414 75,027 84,202 109,424 160,250 196,799 214,987

Tanzania 99,012 114,327 119,513 134,345 117,569 144,646 131,057 168,640 188,218

Madagascar 38,075 127,809 152,828 86,152 73,499 132,840 162,275 186,358 160,537

Uganda 30,986 51,020 87,955 88,362 103,670 143,258 146,951 125,890 134,554

Seychelles 113,465 122,150 162,733 210,869 180,167 191,901 199,423 197,763 97,155

Kenya 38,874 49,181 56,263 57,706 53,142 61,873 55,938 61,869 75,594

Somalia 2,298 3,444 3,479 3,395 9,790 4,592 4,602 3,276 4,597

Zimbabwe 4,308 3,479 2,434 2,596 2,480 1,819 4,673 3,021 1,453

Zambia 465 320 892 912 1,862 3,523 362 399 1,295

Eritrea 2,116 849 867 2,222 729 1,039 745 1,510 861

Sudan 594 588 806 814 1,108 932 330 ... 674

Ethiopia 13 19 49 51 100 121 384 863 508

DR Congo 586 334 327 433 446 419 393 402 391

Malawi 143 71 122 75 78 357 1,554 259 294

Burundi 132 183 163 137 162 173 214 228 207

Swaziland 2,585 1,565 2,609 2,069 5,981 2,187 399 64 203

Djibouti 18 73 77 128 57 24 142 156 101

Rwanda ... ... ... ... ... 57 1 21 94

Comoros 0 0 ... 1 4 7 0 0 ... ... 14

Ethiopia PDR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region total 370,329 538,605 659,532 665,297 635,049 799,185 869,693 947,518 881,737


0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Value in US$ 100

0

Volume in to

nnes

Volume

Value



Table 3.7. Regional imports (Cif value in US$ 1000) Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mauritius 41,885 53,485 129,642 93,759 117,233 146,111 214,748 229,956 306,052

DR Congo 26,217 35,663 38,565 38,708 45,437 54,778 62,475 71,040 88,769

Seychelles 11,588 15,455 23,619 67,469 75,821 78,510 95,755 81,959 63,584

Madagascar 6,745 8,631 13,651 16,819 14,190 18,791 33,727 58,881 28,093

Kenya 4,614 5,219 2,955 3,474 5,112 7,329 8,108 11,189 9,937

Zambia 1,700 2,066 2,467 4,463 5,561 7,234 7,598 10,411 8,935

Zimbabwe 8,621 3,896 2,221 1,681 3,378 2,658 5,165 3,486 4,776

Swaziland 8,859 6,293 6,400 11,091 15,325 11,472 6,668 5,358 4,050

Tanzania 450 771 164 613 615 545 1,077 2,321 3,959

Somalia 100 29 313 392 906 835 4,068 129 3,745

Djibouti 792 495 516 798 1,127 1,343 2,300 1,954 2,239

Sudan 855 449 584 304 296 572 2,269 2,899 1,970

Ethiopia 249 97 513 715 398 623 1,080 898 1,857

Rwanda 113 120 173 136 28 37 455 3,031 1,787

Malawi 585 392 305 714 1,017 480 1,384 1,208 1,765

Comoros 335 439 229 623 859 709 735 463 1,392

Uganda 101 53 109 1,068 561 850 374 798 1,051

Eritrea 117 258 305 998 638 191 492 233 315

Burundi 55 98 116 70 125 37 138 41 36

Region total 113,981 133,909 222,847 243,895 288,627 333,105 448,616 486,255 534,312


Fig. 3.5. Imports by the 19 countries of the region


0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Value in US¤ 100

0

Volume in to

nnes

Volume

Value



The largest importers in the region are Mauritius, DR Congo and Seychelles. Mauritius and Seychelles

represent a special case in that large amounts of tuna are transhipped in these countries, but this is registered as imports and exports, while in reality it does not constitute “true” imports. This is also reflected in the fact that the two main statistical sources, FAO and COMESA, differ in how they

report the imports of Mauritius. FAO reports a large amount (US$306 million in 2008) while COMESA reports much less (US$ 755,000 in 2008). While COMESA reports all imports into Mauritius as coming from UAE, FAO does not report on the direction of trade. Looking at the composition of the

trade, FAO has included frozen whole tuna in the total figures, while this is not included in COMESA’s figures.

For imports the picture is similar to exports: most countries get their imported fish from very few supplying countries. In the case of DR Congo, 51.9% is imported from Namibia and 38.8% from Norway. Both these countries supply mainly small pelagics.

3.3.2. Direction of trade The COMSTAT data base gives figures for exports and imports by destination and origin, respectively.

However, these figures do not match well with the FAO statistics and the COMESA statistics may be incomplete. Although the COMESA statistics may be incorrect, they still indicate the direction of trade to some extent.

Table 3.8. Regional fish imports (imports into the region) Origin US$ % of value

Namibia 35,793,095 23.7%

Spain 35,652,796 23.6%

France 32,014,982 21.2%

Norway 26,703,483 17.7%

Tanzania 1,993,191 1.3%

UAE 1,714,761 1.1%

Thailand 1,702,669 1.1%

Netherlands 1,639,372 1.1%

China 1,602,809 1.1%

Morocco 1,039,388 0.7%

Others 11,232,608 7.4%

TOTAL 151,089,153 100.0% Source: COMSTAT

According to COMESA statistics, the region as a whole (i.e. the 19 countries included in the study) imported fish and fish products worth some US$ 151 million in 2008. It is difficult to say how much this represented in volume, since the statistics are incomplete on this issue. The amount reported by

COMESA constitutes only 28% of the amount reported by FAO. The main reason for this seems to be that tuna “imports” into Mauritius and Seychelles have not been included in the COMESA statistics. In 2008, Mauritius’ tuna imports amounted to US$206 million, while tuna imports into the Seychelles

amounted to US$61 million.



Four countries accounted for 86.2% of the total value of imports into the region. These were:

Namibia, Spain, France and Norway. These countries supplied mainly frozen fish. A large number of countries supplied smaller amounts of fish for imports into the region, but it must

still be said that the region depends on relatively few suppliers of fish, and only one of the countries in the region (Tanzania) were among the ten most important suppliers.

Table 3.9. Regional fish exports 2008 (exports from the region) Destination US$ % of value

France 172,909,690 24.9%

USA 133,679,130 19.3%

Netherlands 69,288,289 10.0%

Italy 62,642,162 9.0%

UK 43,935,478 6.3%

Reunion 43,604,824 6.3%

Belgium 32,268,016 4.7%

Israel 23,802,242 3.4%

Germany 22,940,407 3.3%

Hong Kong 11,830,871 1.7%

Others 76,219,972 11.0%

TOTAL 693,121,080 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT

Exports of fish and fish products from the region amounted to US$ 693 million in 20087. In other words, the region as a whole had a surplus of US$ 542 million. Thus, the fisheries sector is an important source of foreign exchange earnings for the region.

The markets were more varied, and no one market accounted for more than 25% of the total exports. Even so, it should be pointed out that France and the USA represent very important markets

for the region, with 24.9% and 19.3% of the total exports, respectively. Only one country in the region (Réunion) was among the ten largest export markets, but Réunion is

possibly just a transhipment station for exports to other countries (France).

3.3.3. Import and export products Imports from the 19 countries in the region consist mainly of fresh, chilled, and frozen fish, i.e. non-‐processed products or products that have been subjected to minimal processing, such as gutting, for example. In fact, this group accounted for over 80% of total imports in 2008. The main reason for

this is probably the large amounts of frozen tuna that are registered as imports into tuna canning countries such as Seychelles and Mauritius. Other products that are important in the import trade include dried, salted or smoked fish (6%) and prepared or preserved (canned) fish (5%).

The composition of exports shows a much different picture. The largest product group exported is prepared or preserved fish (including canned fish), accounting for 40% of total exports. However,

7 COMSTAT gives this figure of US$693 million for 2008, while FAO FishStat gives a figure of US$882 million. Time has not allowed a more detailed examination of these differences.



fresh, chilled or frozen fish also constitutes a large group in exports, accounting for 39% of the total.

The region also exports a considerable amount of high value live and fresh molluscs and crustaceans. This group accounts for 16% of total exports. The main exporter or fresh and frozen crustaceans (shrimps, mainly) is Madagascar.

Table 3.10. Regional imports by commodity group (US$ 1000) Commodity (Commodity) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 1065 435 320 168 139

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 4,232 4,874 3,655 3,357 3,275

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 169 167 162 138 204

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 11,513 11,824 12,047 14,292 20,252

Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen 245,728 280,148 360,037 355,913 266,228

Fish, prepared or preserved 13,224 12,764 18,222 15,847 17,209

Inedible 8,809 6,855 8,380 9,946 12,392

Meals 11,640 7,489 7,126 6,828 9,904

Oils 123 138 68 169 89

Sponges, corals, shells 385 452 452 687 605

TOTAL 296,888 325,146 410,469 407,345 330,297


Table 3.11. Regional exports by product groups (US$ 1000) Commodity (Commodity) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 1,527 2,077 2,075 3,397 4,250


Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 41 194 502 1,147 1,339




Inedible 4,054 5,360 6,668 8,301 15,124

Meals 2,258 5,532 6,898 6,384 2,081

Oils ... 4 226 1,604 3,163

Sponges, corals, shells 1,040 1,135 899 886 1,064

TOTAL 635,049 799,185 869,693 947,518 881,737


Table 3.12. Regional exports by product groups 2008 (Tonnes/US$ 1000) Commodity Tonnes US$ 1000 % of volume % of value

Aquatic plants 14,089 4,250 6.4% 0.5%

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 16,962 142,544 7.7% 16.2%

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 59 1,339 0.0% 0.2%

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 18,370 14,768 8.4% 1.7%

Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen 85,841 344,731 39.2% 39.1%

Fish, prepared or preserved 75,846 352,673 34.6% 40.0%

Inedible 767 15,124 0.4% 1.7%

Meals 4,606 2,081 2.1% 0.2%

Oils 687 3,163 0.3% 0.4%

Sponges, corals, shells 1,880 1,064 0.9% 0.1%

TOTAL 219,107 881,737 100.0% 100.0%




3.3.4. Intra-regional trade Although intra-‐regional trade is important for some of the countries in the region, the value of this trade is relatively low compared to the total value of both exports and imports. Only 1.2% of the

total export value is exported to countries within the region, while 4.3% of the value of imports comes from the region, according to COMSTAT figures.

Table 3.13. Regional exports to the ESA-IO region in 2008 Partner US$ % of total export value

Burundi 7,486 0.0%

Comoros 174,558 0.0%

Congo DR 1,597,097 0.2%

Ethiopia 91,556 0.0%

Kenya 634,723 0.1%

Mauritius 1,259,228 0.2%

Rwanda 139,713 0.0%

Seychelles 26,809 0.0%

South Africa 2,556,451 0.4%

Sudan 792,185 0.1%

Tanzania 161,965 0.0%

Uganda 136,600 0.0%

Zambia 779,366 0.1%

SUM 8,357,739 1.2%

Source: COMSTAT

Table 3.14. Regional imports from the ESA-IO region in 2008 Country US$ % of total import value

Burundi 74,853 0.0%

Congo DR 26,329 0.0%

Ethiopia 54,764 0.0%

Kenya 79,093 0.1%

Madagascar 98,735 0.1%

Mauritius 501,104 0.3%

Rwanda 95,965 0.1%

Seychelles 442,777 0.3%

Somalia 2,248 0.0%

South Africa 977,315 0.6%

Tanzania 1,993,191 1.3%

Uganda 512,310 0.3%

Zambia 1,024,547 0.7%

Zimbabwe 544,168 0.4%

SUM 6,427,400 4.3%

Source: COMSTAT

From the point of view of regional integration, this situation is lamentable. Efforts should be made to expand the inter-‐regional trade, and from the statistics presented, it is clear that there is ample room for improvement.

There is only little statistical information available on trade by product and direction in between the 19 ESA-‐IO countries that this report encompasses. For some Southern African (SA) countries there



exists information on prices and demand gaps for 2010, but none otherwise on historical trade

flows. Tilapia based products are among the major products traded between these countries. Fresh whole

round and frozen gutted tilapia constitute increasingly important products in this trade. Such products are marketed mostly in Zimbabwe, Zambia, South Africa, and Mozambique, but markets in Namibia and Angola are also actively trading tilapia. The limiting factor to rapid growth in this trade

is the scarcity of cold chains. This limitation pushes the unit costs up. Whole frozen tilapia is rapidly gaining popularity, and as a result there has developed a shortfall in

supplies (see volume deficits and price ranges in these regional markets in the table 3.15 below). Zambia and DR Congo are the main markets with combined supply shortage of some 40,000 tonnes in 2010. In addition, the Zambian market has recently shown strong demand also for fresh whole

round fish, which is produced at lower cost. Recently, it is noted that imports of frozen whole tilapia from China into the region is substantial and

sells at prices well below the local production cost. However, new information indicates that the Chinese Government has embarked upon a programme to reduce direct and indirect subsidies making such products less competitive. An additional small advantage for local aquaculture in these

regional/local markets is that local producers are in a better position to make product adaptation to the local consumers’ taste. In Ghana, for example, traders have developed localized taste for their

own production, and the imported Chinese tilapia now tends to be seen as inferior.

Table 3.15. Prices and demand gap for tilapia in some countries

Country

Indicative Retail Price range per kg whole gutted frozen

tilapia Approx. current shortfall per

annum (tonnes) Namibia US$3.00 – 4.50 >5,000 South Africa US$4.50 – 5.50 >10,000 Botswana US$4.50 – 6.00 >5,000 Mozambique US$4.00 – 4.50 >10,000 Angola US$7.00 – 9.00 >10,000 Zimbabwe US$3.00 – 4.00 >7,500 Zambia US$2.50 – 5.00 >20,000 Malawi US$2.50 - 4.00 >10,000 DRC US$2.00 – 2.50 >20,000

Source: INFOSA in collaboration with National Liaison Officers in the SADC Member states mentioned, updated 2010. Note that these are conservative figures.

Prices vary for a number of reasons; in major towns and cities prices tend to be higher. In some cases, farmed fish has been noted to attract higher prices than wild fish. It is noted that prices are very high in Angola and in some markets in the DR Congo, but the cost of distribution can also be

high.



Another recent trend for new product types is emerging. By-‐catch from tuna is transformed into

minced frozen fish meat and also into frozen ready-‐made dishes8. Since these products are low cost, small markets have developed in the East African coastal cities. Producers are also marketing red tuna meat, which has only limited value in external export markets, but is appreciated in eastern

Africa as well. There is no information on historical trends or even recent volumes marketed for these new intra-‐regionally marketed product types.

3.3.5. Export prices One interesting aspect of the region’s external trade is the unit export price, i.e. the average FOB prices for all products exported from the individual country. The analysis reveals some interesting

facts about the trade and the region. First of all, Africa as a whole is pretty much following global trends, and African export prices are

more or less the same as prices achieved by other continents (see Fig. 3.6).

Fig. 3.6. Unit prices of exports by continent


The second interesting observation one may make, is that the 19 countries of the region as a group seem to achieve higher average export prices than both the world average and the African average (Fig. 3.7). Until the mid-‐1980s, the region’s export prices were significantly higher that the world and

Africa averages. However, throughout the 1990s the region’s average export prices fell considerably, and even approached world and African averages. Since 2000 the region’s exports prices have increased steeply again, and are now well above the averages.

8 Information from interviews with producers in Seychelles and Mauritius

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

US$ per kg Africa

Americas

Asia

Europe

Oceania



Fig. 3.7. Unit prices: comparison of world, African, and regional averages


Table 3.16. Regional exports of fish: Unit price (US$/kg) Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Congo DR 18.56 109.00 48.11 74.33 419.00

Burundi 45.75 27.17 10.54 27.00 21.63 16.46 17.54 17.25

Malawi 1.78 4.69 3.41 2.79 2.13 2.66 8.09 8.65

Eritrea 5.24 4.56 3.73 2.63 3.81 10.21 4.93 8.52

Madagascar 4.07 4.65 2.76 2.56 5.44 4.83 6.18 7.04

Comoros 4.00 3.50 7.00

Seychelles 2.35 3.22 4.43 4.50 3.81 4.25 4.84 6.15

Djibouti 2.43 6.42 5.33 6.33 4.80 4.73 2.60 5.94

Uganda 2.95 3.44 3.33 3.24 3.64 3.98 3.94 4.93

Mauritius 2.31 2.36 2.30 2.52 2.98 3.03 3.77 4.32

Kenya 2.65 2.29 2.85 2.87 3.06 3.53 3.48 3.34

Tanzania 2.05 2.17 2.26 1.91 2.46 2.77 2.68 2.62

Swaziland 1.38 2.17 1.29 2.44 1.48 0.44 0.67 2.09

Somalia 1.75 0.97 1.32 2.16 1.29 1.54 1.34 1.31

Zimbabwe 3.70 3.38 4.89 3.23 3.23 5.80 2.10 0.98

Ethiopia 1.73 1.53 1.59 0.60 1.19 0.93 1.14 0.85

Sudan 1.09 0.52 0.41 0.38 0.34 0.84 0.72

Zambia 0.31 1.15 1.48 1.86 2.72 1.37 1.44 0.71

Rwanda 1.50 0.23 0.28

Reg. average 2.59 2.92 2.95 2.81 3.33 3.62 3.93 4.02


It is difficult to point to one or a few reasons for this development. Average exports price developments depend of course on the composition of the product range exported, as well as on world prices for the various commodities. In recent years, fish prices have increased more or less

steadily, and this will also have influence the average export prices of the region.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

US$ per kg

Global

Africa

ESA/OI



Several countries that achieve very high export prices have a very low volume of exports. For

example, nine countries (Burundi, Comoros, DR Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland and Sudan) all had exports of less than 1,000 tonnes in 2008.

Of the countries with a large export volume, it is worth noting that these countries’ unit export price is closer to world averages. The main reason for this is that these countries export commodities that compete on the world markets.

For most of the period studied, the prices achieved by these countries were well above the world average. The main reason for this is that the products exported were mainly high value products. In

the case of Madagascar, the main export product is shrimp, which is a high value commodity. For Uganda and Tanzania the main export product is Nile perch, which is also a high value product. For Mauritius, the main export product is tuna, which is not necessarily a high value product, but it is

also exported as fresh high-‐value loins to some extent. A more detailed analysis of each country’s performance would be necessary to draw any valid

conclusions about what can be done to improve the performance, though.

Fig. 3.8. Unit export prices for the largest exporters in the ESA/IO region


0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Global

Tanzania

Mauriqus

Uganda

Madagascar



Fig. 3.9. Regional unit export and import prices (US$ per kg)


3.3.6. Terms of trade In economics and international trade, the Terms of Trade (ToT) coefficient is a simple measure of the

trade performance of a country. The ToT is calculated by dividing the country’s average export value by its average import value.

ToT = Average export price/Average import price

Consequently, a high ToT coefficient indicates a high surplus in trade. Scores over 1.0 indicate a surplus, while scores of less than 1.0 indicate a deficit. The ToT coefficient is consequently a simple standard measure of trade performance.

When the individual country figures are examined, some major differences appear. Some countries have a substantial surplus in their foreign trade with fisheries products, while others run a significant

deficit. Uganda and Tanzania both show substantial surpluses, and have a ToT of 128.0 and 47.5,

respectively. This implies that they are exporting considerably more than they are importing. Madagascar and Kenya also have healthy ToTs (5.7 and 7.6, respectively). Burundi, with a ToT of 5.75, appears to be doing well, but the total trade volume is very low, so this coefficient means little

in this case. Countries with very low ToT scores are Congo DR (0.0) and Comoros (0.01), which indicate very

unfavourable trade performances. In the case of Comoros, the trade volumes are low, and accordingly the coefficient carries less meaning. But for DR Congo, the imported volume is large, and

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Import prices

Export prices



the ToT coefficient is consequently more meaningful. In addition, it is estimated that DR Congo also

has a very substantial informal import of fish, which likely makes the situation even more negative. For most countries it would be desirable to achieve a high ToT. Thus, the ToT can be used as an

indicator of where improvements in external trade performance should be sought.

Table 3.17. Terms of trade Country Imports Exports Trade balance Terms of Trade

Burundi 36 207 171 5.75

Comoros 1,392 14 -‐1,378 0.01

Congo, DR 88,769 391 -‐88,378 0.00

Djibouti 2,239 101 -‐2,138 0.05

Eritrea 315 861 546 2.73

Ethiopia 1,857 508 -‐1,349 0.27

Kenya 9,937 75,594 65,657 7.61

Madagascar 28,093 160,537 132,444 5.71

Malawi 1,765 294 -‐1,471 0.17

Mauritius 306,052 214,987 -‐91,065 0.70

Rwanda 1,787 94 -‐1,693 0.05

Seychelles 63,584 97,155 33,571 1.53

Somalia 3,745 4,597 852 1.23

Sudan 1,970 674 -‐1,296 0.34

Swaziland 4,050 203 -‐3,847 0.05

Tanzania 3,959 188,218 184,259 47.54

Uganda 1,051 134,554 133,503 128.02

Zambia 8,935 1,295 -‐7,640 0.14

Zimbabwe 4,776 1,453 -‐3,323 0.30

TOTAL 534,312 881,737 347,425 1.65


3.3.7. Informal trade Informal trade of fisheries products is widespread in Africa, although by its very nature this trade is

difficult to document and verify. While informal trade was the subject for another recent study9, no specific study of informal trade in the ESA-‐IO region has been done in connection with the present study.

In Southern and Eastern Africa, informal trade is thought to be particularly widespread in artisanal fisheries. In Tanzania, for instance, Dagaa is carried across borders in small quantities of 20-‐40 kg to

avoid taxation. Formalising this trade would help to increase customs revenues, facilitate more accurate data

collection on trade flows and monitor compliance with sanitary and technical standards. At the same

9 ACP Fish II: Action Planning for Improved Regional Fish Trade for Sustainable Fisheries Management. Programme Activity 2.2.



time, cracking down on informal trade could also greatly slow down trade flows because of the

cumbersome and lengthy border procedures in many African countries. This can pose a particular problem for perishable fisheries products where cold chains are not well developed.

Putting an end to this trade would contribute to controlling the illegal fisheries, and thus protect the stocks from over-‐fishing and from landing under-‐sized fish.

But it is also important to bear in mind, however, that informal trade can provide important income and employment sources for many families and in particular women who play a particularly important role in this economic activity. Thus, measures to formalise this trade will need to ensure

that the associated livelihoods are not undermined, but rather improved, for instance by speeding up transactions and reducing hassle at the borders.

3.4. Conclusion The main conclusion of this analysis is that the region exports expensive fish and imports cheap fish. In other words, the fish trade is of great importance to the region, both in terms of earning foreign

currency, and in terms of supplies of food.

It is also clear that intra-‐region trade is poorly developed. From the point of view of food security, such intra-‐regional trade should be developed.

The region depends on very few, large trading partners. This fact indicates that the region, -‐ and individual countries -‐, are vulnerable to changes in these few partners. If one major importing country stops buying products from the region, this would have serious consequences for the

region’s exports, and consequently for the economy. A recent trend for intra-‐regional trade is the emerging trade in tilapia based products, and also to

some extent red tuna meat. If this trend can be sustained by improvements in infrastructure and other trade facilitation aspects it bodes positively for the future.



4. ECONOMIC AND TRADE RELATED ISSUES This study deals with 19 countries that are at different level of development, have different geographical characteristics and varying degrees of resource endowments. The latter is true for natural, technical as human resource endowments. However, listing the differences is not likely to

point towards a fruitful path for further integration and the establishment of a trade regime favouring liberalisation. This chapter therefore aims to identify areas of common concern within physical, economic and rules based trade issues; both at the level of commitments towards

international trade rules, bilateral agreements and regional economic and trade integration efforts.

4.1. Utilities and infrastructure

4.1.1. Fresh water For some countries fresh water is in amble supply (DR Congo, Zambia), whereas for others

(Seychelles, Mauritius, Eritrea) fresh water sources are limited. Where water resources are limited, the first use is for drinking water supply, secondly for agriculture and thirdly for industrial processing. In the latter cases the cost of processing increases as the water needs more

comprehensive cleaning. This is also the case in water abundant countries such as Madagascar, were process water used in part of the industry is desalinated salt water.

4.1.2. Energy Energy supply is in most countries supplied to the provinces/districts via a power grid. However, coverage is not very good and industry tends to cluster around the capitals, except in cases where the primary production is located in the provinces as for example the fisheries around the African

lakes. In many cases the supply is not stable and frequent power failures are experienced. Hence there is often a need to establish emergency or back-‐up power production units, which add risks to the production, increases the cost of production and reduces competitiveness.

In addition, in most countries power supply is subsidised i.e. electricity is sold at prices below the cost of production. It may help competitiveness in the short run, but in the longer term the

enterprises will have to face international energy prices, and so risk losing the competitive edge.

4.1.3. Transport infrastructure Road infrastructure varies a lot between the countries. As a general rule the quality of the roads degenerate with distance from the capital areas. Poor road conditions delay delivery of exports, which for perishable products like fish is detrimental to the quality of what is delivered. In some

countries geography such as mountain ranges, dry arid areas or severe rain causes trouble for road infrastructure. The net result is slower delivery and higher transport costs for the trade in fish products.

Maritime transport is the main mode for moving goods between the island nations and continental Africa. In general the port infrastructure on the islands and on the continental coast is operable, but

improvements can be made regarding handling and storage capacity. Especially cold and chill



storage capacity is limited; this reduces the option of completing cold chains and the marketing of

frozen fish products. Infrastructure for civil aviation is currently undergoing rapid change in many countries, often driven

by the tourism sector. However only a few airports can accommodate the larger carriers that allows tourists and goods to flow easily. There is often a lack of chill and cold storage capacity at the airports. .

In terms of telecommunication the countries internally have established infrastructure based on cellular telephony and satellite technology. Though such systems in general are efficient,

connectivity to the Internet and mobile telephony is often not available full time. Rates can also be high compared to more developed countries, but rates may drop over the coming years due to technological improvements and increased competition. In some countries government regulations

and controls limit access to the internet and telephony, which excludes enterprises from being competitive and even from participating in international and intra-‐regional trade.

4.2. Economic constraints

4.2.1. Terms of trade issues A simple ToT calculation was provided in the previous chapter for trade in fish products. However, there are other factors that influence the ToT for fish and other products. The foreign exchange regimes vary substantially between the 19 countries, and the Governments pursue different policies.

In the extreme cases (as for example Zimbabwe) international currencies are now used for trade in fish products. In other cases the national currencies follow a major currency, such as US$, Euro, or South African Rand, which historically, (until the commencement of the depreciative trend of the

dollar in recent year,) may have served as a protective mechanism with a positive impact on the balance of payments. However, growth in Euro based trade, mostly originating from the dynamic sectors including export of fish products, has led to an undervaluation of a depreciating local

currency against the Euro. In addition, the economies will now suffer more from the dollar peg. If the present exchange rate policies and regimes are maintained, the terms of trade will be affected

negatively by several factors:

The pegging of local currencies to the US$. A weak dollar reduces the value in local

currency of exports to non-‐US$ currency trade, and increases similarly the local currency cost of imports of goods and services.

Local interest rates that vary substantially further increase the cost of trade compared to

financing costs with international rates, which are historically low at this time due to the international financial crises.

Remittances of foreign currency by expatriate labour to their countries of origin drain

foreign reserves. The move of Zimbabwe to an international currency to some extent mitigates the negative

impact.



In a way it may advisable to initiate discussions on the potential shift towards a basket system

supported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). If realised, such new basket system should be tailored to include interest rate concerns.

4.2.2. Import dependency – cost of production Due to the limited industrial capacity of the countries, and their reliance on their own natural

resources, there is a high dependency on imports. Imports of food items, energy, construction material and industrial input and even human resources are real needs of the economies. The high cost of both international and domestic transport of imported inputs adds significantly to the cost of

domestic production:

Most agricultural products are imported at high cost and loss of foreign exchange.

Energy (in terms of diesel) and other inputs to production are all imported. The cost of any further local value added is comparatively more expensive than in most other countries.

Generally imports and exports enter the country via a few border crossing points, sea

ports, or via the national airport. Due to inefficiencies and differences in the handling of border procedures, queuing occurs frequently. Congestion is seen in port areas, where the vessels queue up in the waiting area. Delivery times are up to several months, thus adding

to the cost of production. The mechanisms for controlling SPS related aspects of import and export of agricultural

and fish products are not sufficient for national protection in many cases and far below the more restrictive requirements applied by EU, USA and Japan.

Domestic transportation from the point of entry to the actual site of use further adds to

the transportation cost. However, cost of transport varies a lot between the countries as some are landlocked and others have easy access to sea ports.

4.2.3. Administrative and human resource capacity In many cases the administrative capacity are centralised in the national capital, which to some

extent has left the outer regions/districts with little administrative capacity. Some countries have embarked upon a programme to establish development hubs in the provinces/districts. These hubs will be equipped with administrative services and facilities for education and health. Important

aspects of such programmes are to simultaneously speed up the decentralisation process and reduce the cost of delivering social, educational and health services, which otherwise cost several times more than in countries with less dispersed land mass and population.

However, the lack of a sufficient pool of trained civil servants limits the pace and penetration of the decentralisation process. Limited administrative and human resource capacity is causing additional

problems:

Regulations and procedures related to trade are handled at the central level, which

complicates matters at the province level. Remoteness and dispersion of islands and population increase the per capita cost of

delivering basic social services such as education and health.



There is a shortage in the number of academically and vocationally trained people in

business relevant areas including general management, financial control and Information and Communications Technology (ICT). This constitutes a bottleneck to further local participation in development of the private sector and capacity building within the public

sector.

4.2.4. Access to capital – a limiting factor Due to a fairly low level of diversification in the economies (limited industrial base, limited supply chains, and little value added generation), most of the countries are trade dependent. Access to

capital is a must to stimulate investment into production or service oriented commercial activities. The financial markets are in some cases non-‐existent or in their infancy. Simple stock trading may exist, but only a limited number of companies are listed for trading of their stock, and there is in

most cases no securities market against which to assess the value of the stock. Where they exist, holding companies provide leasing type arrangements so that local investors can

use this facility as a catalyst for inward investment into different sectors of the economy. Only larger corporations often controlled by international capital so far have accessed this source of funding.

Capital should be easily accessible through local and international investment banks to provide supplementary financing and act as an incentive for local investors to engage in equity investment.

However, the banking systems are not yet developed to act as true investment banks; most banks are only commercial (financing trade) and offer loans for construction activities and allow establishment of depository accounts. In addition, the cost of long and short term loans is too high,

often 3 times as high as international levels.

Access to investment and even operating capital is constrained by quite restrictive collateral

requirements of up to 200% of the credit asked. As it is difficult to get a title deed on land, or concession to rent suitable areas for aquaculture, such collateral is virtually impossible to establish for a prospective borrower. It is easier and less costly for both local and international investors to

source financing outside the countries. The borrowers are predominantly large enterprises, and the small and medium sized enterprise (SME) segment is virtually excluded from access to capital via commercial banks for reasons given above. Systems using commercial banks as an instrument for

export guarantees and financing schemes are generally not in operation.

Commercial banking, therefore, is not conducive to local development and limits access to capital for

domestic investment:

• The banking system is not very developed at the province/district level, and does not

provide a viable mechanism for local payments as the transaction charges are high and transfer times too long, e.g. for payments from processing companies to the fishermen.

• Household financial surpluses are only able to be deposited in low interest bank accounts

and so are generally held as cash. Hence, such funds are not available for the development of local investment.



• Collateral requirements imposed by banks are very difficult to meet, especially since only

buildings and other non-‐property assets can act as collateral.

• Access to investment capital is restricted by high local interest levels that are not competitive with banks in Europe and Asia.

In most countries it is rather simple to establish a business with or without a local partner. However, the economic benefits vary between the countries as in some, an environment free of corporate

taxation is presently shared indiscriminately with locally owned enterprises, whereas in other countries the government restricts foreign ownership, collect high taxes and prevents repatriation of

operating profits and financial assets. Limited access to capital (for investment as well as for working capital) is a severe obstacle to development of business, and hence to the building of value added production based on their own resources.

4.3. International trade issues There is a difference between the countries within the area with respect to which rules determine

the trade. Countries that have become members of WTO are bound by the commitments subscribed to resulting from the membership. This group includes 14 of the 19 countries, four are in the accession process and one (Eritrea) has not commenced the application process (see table 4.1

below). Being a member of WTO means that the country has to abide to commitments made under that

rules-‐based trading system, but WTO membership implies that the country now trades on equal terms with 153 countries accounting for 97% of world trade. The rules are laid down in a set of sub-‐agreements10 that regulates the various aspects of trade and trade policy options. Only a few of

these are important for trade in fish products and will be commented upon below (Table 4.1). Non-‐WTO members have severe limitations in defining their own trade rules. Firstly, this group of

countries are all in the accession process, meaning that they will have to abide by the WTO rules; otherwise their membership will be questioned. In addition, their trading partners are WTO members and as such have to apply the WTO rules, thus non-‐members will have to comply also to

the Non-‐Tariff Barriers (NTB) to trade, such as hygiene and sanitary conditions of the SPS agreement, and the stipulations of the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) agreement as quota restrictions, technical specifications, packaging requirements and labelling.

Becoming a WTO member is a long resource requiring and time consuming process11. Staying a member is also costly as some form of representation in Geneva is needed to be informed and

10 Marrakesh Agreement; GATT1947; GATT94; Agreement on Agriculture; SPS Agreement; Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (expired); TBT Agreement; TRIMs Agreement; Agreement on Anti-dumping (Implementation of Article VI of GATT94); Agreement on Customs Valuation (Implementation of Article VII of GATT94); Agreement on Pre-shipment Inspection; Agreement on Rules of Origin; Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures; Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures; Agreement on Safeguards; General Agreement on Trade on Services and; Agreement on TRIPS. 11 In the case of the Seychelles the request for membership was submitted in 1996, and in 2011 only one of nine steps of accession still needs completion before the Protocol of Accession can be signed, expected in 2014 or



heard. Inside the country there is a need to display a suitable institutional set up with trained staff,

which is also costly, in particular for small economies with just a few tradable products, e.g. small island economies that trade mostly in tourism and fisheries.

almost 20 years after the request. Other countries have put the application process on hold (Somalia and Sudan).



Table 4.1. Commitments and SPS Institution

No REC/Country WTO FTA FPA iEPA Approved

CA

No of export

enterprises

IO

1 Comoros Accession Y Y

2 Madagascar 1995 Y Y Yes 74

3 Mauritius 1995 Y Y Yes 16

4 Seychelles Accession Y Y Y Yes 12

5 Reunion (incl. Mayotte) via France na na na Yes see France

COMESA

6 DR Congo 1997 Y Yes 2

7 Malawi 1995 Y

8 Mozambique 1995 Y Yes 79

9 Zambia 1995 Y Yes 26

10 Zimbabwe 1995 Y Yes 1

EAC

11 Burundi 1995 Y

12 Kenya 1995 Y Yes 12

13 Rwanda 1995 y

14 Tanzania 1995 Y Yes 16

15 Uganda 1995 Y Yes 24

IGAD

16 Djibouti 1995

17 Eritrea ? Yes 2

18 Ethiopia Accession

19 Sudan Accession

Source: WTO, SFP-‐ACP Programme, FVO (DG SANCO) webpage

4.3.1. Trade liberalisation A key aspect of the WTO ‘raison d’être’ is the goal to liberalise trade worldwide. The agreement that

guides and regulates the trade liberalisation process is called the ‘General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). The essential part of GATT is to remove customs duties/tariffs as quickly as possible following an agreed time-‐bound schedule for binding tariffs. However, the rules allow some

concessions given to economies that are weak (mostly LDCs), or not yet ready to change this source of government revenue to another form of taxation less harmful to economic development (e.g. Value Added Tax). Custom duties add directly to the cost of production, when imported equipment

and machinery is needed, rendering the production less competitive. If tariff schedules cannot be removed completely due to national economic sensitivities, then gradual reduction over a longer period is possible, and it is also possible for a country to identify sensitive products, where bound

tariffs do not have to schedule. Other aspects covered by GATT include trade facilitation issues as customs procedures, documentation and administration.



It is noted that for fish products there is no real economic argument for keeping up a customs defence, as these consumer goods just become more expensive. Countries that still keep a custom duties on fish products, use the argument that duties help protect a small national production

and/or assist the development process of so-‐called infant (new processing) industries. The latter argument is hazardous to apply, as such industries indirectly receive a subsidy and will not be encouraged to optimise the production system, with the built in risk of being unprepared when the

defence is removed.

4.3.2. Non-‐Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) Market access for fish products, when traded internationally, falls under the WTO sub-‐agreement called ‘Non-‐Agricultural Markets Access (NAMA)’. The current Doha round negotiations have agreed

modalities12 for the reduction of bound tariffs based on a formula approach; that is, all members of WTO will commit to the reduction of their bound rates for all industrial and fisheries products. The levels and rate of reduction will be agreed and could differ by sector (even if a uniform rate is agreed

for all industrial tariffs, it is likely that different rates for fisheries products will be agreed) and level of development. It is most likely that Special and Differential treatment will result in differing rates of reduction for developing countries; least-‐developed countries are unlikely to have to make any

reductions in bound rates.

For most of the 19 countries 100% of their industrial and fisheries tariffs are bound. This means that all tariff lines will be affected by the outcome of the negotiations. However, in most cases the simple average bound rates of industrial tariffs are substantially higher than the average rate applied.

Therefore, WTO members would have to agree on a relatively high level of reduction before the applied rate in the countries would be affected.

Hence, the impact of NAMA negotiations on most of the countries’ applied tariffs (and therefore import prices and tariff revenue) under the Doha Round is likely to be nil or negligible. However, as bound rates approach and equate to applied rates, future negotiations and reductions will result in

the reduction of actual tariff rates leading to substantial losses in government revenue. In addition, because the bound rates of the importing countries (e.g. EU markets) will also be

reduced, the value of the preferences (now mostly duty free) will erode and reduced relative market access is to be expected (compared with competing non-‐least-‐developed country countries). However, the extent of this preference erosion is likely to be small as most of the countries’ exports

(fresh and frozen fish13) enjoy zero (in EU) and low (3.5%14 in Japan), MFN rates and so effectively, the countries have no preference for most of its current exports. The exception to this is canned tuna where MFN rates in the EU are 24%, GSP rates are 12% and EBA (which ACP countries enjoy) is

zero provided that origin is established (see section 4.3.3) otherwise the MFN rate applies.

12 Annex B, Doha Work Programme, Decision Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004 (WT/L/579) 13 Excludes yellow-fin tuna for non-industrial processing which attracts an MFN and GSP rate of 22% - EU TARIC Database 14 EU Market Access Database



It is noted that the Doha round of trade negotiations has been stalled on the issue of NAMA market access negotiations for quite some time. The main obstacle is for industrial goods (machinery and equipment). The point of disagreement includes the tariffs applied by the developed countries that

constitute de facto barriers for such equipment originating from the more developing countries (BRICS15plus Mexico, Chile, and Argentina). There is virtually no disagreement around trade in fish products.

4.3.3. Rules of Origin In general there are not any important issues left regarding WTO compliant Rules of Origin (RoO) for fish products. In order to receive preferential treatment with a trade partner (e.g. EU markets) a product must be genuinely from the partner country. Hence the need for establishment of RoO by

the importing partner. RoO determines the share of the economic value of a final product that comes from the exporting partner, and hence originates from there.

Parts of the RoO for fish products are complicated in comparison with those valid, for instance, for textiles. Thus for reasons of clarification the main ways of conferring origin are briefly described. To avoid trade deflection in fish products, generally, there are three ways to confer origin:

• Wholly obtained. Fish caught by the nationally registered fleet (or if the fish is produced in

aquaculture) in own waters, that is within the customs territory – 12 nautical miles, are by definition wholly obtained and are automatically conferred origin. If the catch is made outside that limit (but still within the 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)) origin depends

on vessel (registration and flag) ownership and crew composition on the vessel – which have to be EU and/or ACP registered. If such a vessel is properly licensed under a Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) then the catch is considered wholly obtained as well. If not, or

if the catch is by a vessel from a third country, then the catch cannot be conferred origin, unless there is a derogation from the RoO (such as in Mauritius). In general raw fish, and their derivative products, caught in a non-‐originating situation cannot get preferential

treatment in EU markets.

• Substantial transformation. This criterion requires that the raw material and any inputs used undergo substantial transformation during processing. The final processed product exported

may then change tariff heading in the HS system. That being the case the final product can obtain origin, and it is not levied with a 24% import duty.

• Value addition. This criterion is a less transparent and a little difficult to apply. Essentially the

result is that the exporting country adds value to the raw and intermediary products, so that the combined national share of the economic value of the final product reaches the percentage stipulated by the importer’s RoO. The formulas used to calculate the percentage

can be complicated. In short, fresh or frozen products that are based on fish caught in the territorial waters of ESA –IO

countries by an own fleet, or by vessels that are properly licensed under FPAs are wholly obtained.

15 Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa



The same is valid for aquaculture products produced in inland rivers and water bodies. Industrial

products as for example canned tuna are more complicated, and either of the two criteria (substantial transformation and value addition) will apply to establish origin.

The important aspect is that originating product enters duty free and thus has a competitive advantage, a clear benefit for ACP countries. Transformed industrial type products (canned tunas, tuna lions) involve intermediary inputs that may originate outsides EU/ACP countries, and it can be

questionable if the final product will comply with the origin criteria. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that the fish raw material is wholly obtained. If part of the raw material in a batch of canned tuna does not meet the criteria (for instance is caught by a third country registered vessel

without derogation), then the whole batch will not meet the RoO criteria and cannot have origin conferred. Implicitly, the non-‐originating fish is determined Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fish16, which will lead to two clearly unlawful situations:

1. Tax fraud is committed against the importing trading partner (e.g. EU countries) as such fish

has no legal right to gain duty free access.

2. Such malpractices implicitly lead to overexploitation of fish resources. The catch is not fished according to the approved sustainable fisheries management plans where national fleets or licensed fleets from partner countries abide to sustainable fisheries practices.

In such cases the export processing plant will be fined and shut down, and the vessel impounded if

identified.

4.3.4. SPS and institutional issues The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) sub-‐agreement serves the main purpose to secure that food produced and traded for human consumption is safe to eat from a quality point of view – i.e. that

the products are produced under compliant hygienic and sanitary conditions, and that the product can be traced back to the fishing ground and catching vessel or aquaculture installation.

This is the single most important agreement regarding the export and trade in food products including fish products. Each WTO member country has to have a unit (located within the Ministries of Fishery, Agriculture or Trade or similar) responsible for inspecting and controlling the production

of and trade in food and feed products, live animals and plants. The unit should be staffed by professionals with formal education in food related sciences (veterinary doctors, food scientists, marine biologists, chemists, biochemists, chemical engineers etc.). In addition, the staff should have

received training in control and inspection procedures in accordance with SPS and Codex Alimentarius procedures. The unit will carry out control and inspection of imports at border points and in the export producing enterprises (vessels, factories, cold stores, transport, and aquaculture

operations). Some of the major trading blocs/countries have requested very particular institutional set-‐ups in

exporting countries, before export to the concerned bloc is possible. So if an ESA-‐IO country wants

16 See Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. Council Regulation (EC) 12098/2008



to export to the EU, the main institutional concern is whether the country has had its EU-‐requested

body, the Competent Authority (CA), approved by the EU. Once approved, the CA is able to provide the guarantees under the food health certificate on behalf of EU to the national enterprise applying to become EU exporters. This certificate is needed for all exports to EU, and it is noted that the same

regulations17 are mandatory for EU’s own enterprises to comply with. The approval procedure for the CA can be time consuming, as it involves one or more inspections by

the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of DG SANCO, EC. During these FVO inspections it has to be demonstrated and documented that the CA applies correctly the various stipulations set out in the food safety regulations. When all requirements are met, the CA is authorised, and there are

presently 12 countries in the region with an approved CA (see table 4.1). The CA is subsequently authorised to approve, on behalf of the EC, local enterprises that have applied for a permission to export.

The CA inspects the enterprises (fishing vessels, port infrastructure, processing plants, cold stores, transport services and aquaculture operations) that have submitted a request to become exporters.

The CA monitors whether the company’s own control system has an easily understandable manual, based on HACCP principles, and that the underlying prerequisite programmes (PRPs) are implemented. A designated quality control team should be in place and should have received

training. It is the team’s responsibility to establish quality control manuals (PRPs manuals and HACCP plans) for each product line and keep records to prove that a coherent own control system is in place

and implemented correctly. If the procedures applied are carried out correctly and recorded in an orderly fashion, then the enterprise will get an approval in terms of an EU exporter number. Later inspections by the CA and/or the FVO may suspend/ remove the approval temporarily until the

critical points raised are responded to. The HACCP based system can be illustrated as below (see the pyramid).

Fig. 4.1. Quality Control Pyramid

17 European Regulations : CE/178/2002, CE/852/2004 et CE/853/2004

HACCP

Pre-Requisite Programmes

Factory Design



From recent ACP programmes on food safety18 there was found significant confusion in fish

processing companies with regard to operating procedures and the roles of good manufacturing practice (GMP), good hygiene practice (GHP), sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOP) and prerequisite programmes (PRP) to ensure food safety. If these practices and their manuals for own

control are not in place and regularly approved by the CA, the company will lose the export permit temporarily until the corrective measures have been implemented and inspected again. The operating procedures require that factory lay-‐out and design favours a situation where the flows of

raw and intermediary materials, staff, and wastes are continuous so that cross contamination is avoided. The PRPs constitute up to 14 different areas to be checked and have to be organised in an easy to understand manual clearly specifying the correct procedures at any position19.

This confusion is not uncommon as there is considerable overlap in these programmes and all have the same basic aim of ensuring the “best practice” operation of the factory in producing high quality

and safe foods. In some instances, company manuals do have significant duplication, most commonly in having both

a SSOP (USA) and a separate PRP (EU) to comply with these two main market requirements. As alluded to above, there is considerable overlap in these programmes (e.g. cleaning and sanitation, pest control, personal hygiene, employee health, labelling, etc.) and detailing both programmes in

the company manual thus provides for two sets of procedures for those common areas. Having this duplication causes confusion and, importantly, suggested a lack of knowledge/understanding of

these programmes and their importance for the factories in question. This is not ideal when the company is inspected by third parties (buyer, inspector, auditor etc.).

The golden rule must be to make it easy for third parties to examine a company’s operations. This means clarity of link between manuals (what you say you do) and records (what you do). It also means that the organisation of the manual should follow a structure that is easily recognisable by

third parties, e.g. buyers, inspectors and/or auditors. Once the PRP manual is in place the HACCP plan approach is not too complicated to add. In a simple

way this approach just identifies the hazards and their critical control points at given positions in a factory, what to control/measure at that point, how to control and clear identification of limit values, a description of measures to take to mitigate the hazard, and finally a detailed and

systematic recording of the activities, findings and mitigating steps carried out. Thus the HACCP system is de facto a control of the PRPs and the plan is not a separate additional system.

The CA will inspect the PRP manual and the HACCP systems records and reporting, and will offer advice on how to improve if so needed. The CA should understand his role as a partner for

18 The “Strengthening Fishery Product Health Conditions in ACP/OCT Countries”. Implemented by the ACP Secretariat. Funded by EDF in the period 2002-2010 19 For details on PRPs see: ‘Prerequisite Programmes Manual, The foundation for HACCP’, by Dr. John Ryder, SFP-ACP programme, Brussels, November 2010



improvement in food safety own control systems (rather than a role as a policeman). The enterprises

will have to learn to use the CA as an advisor as well. For the ESA-‐IO countries this issue of complying with the SPS requirements, and, particularly for EU

directed exports compliance with the EC regulations on food safety and own control systems, is the key constraint. Compliance is a must for an exporter to EU markets, but if the enterprise is approved as an exporter to EU markets implicitly, and due to the fundamental principles of WTO……

1. Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle – no discrimination of other nations 2. National Treatment Principle -‐ means treating foreign and local products equally.

….the enterprise has to apply the same strict procedures for fish products to be traded intra-‐regionally and even locally. It is a requirement that national legal regulations clearly reflect the WTO

(and also EU in that case) principles and apply these equally to all trading partners. The latter is not always the case for the ESA-‐IO countries. In countries where exports of fish products

play an important role, the CA and the enterprises’ own control systems are elaborated in full (see table 4.1 for a list of approved enterprises per country). For some of the continental importing counties the control and inspection activities are fewer and the staff poorly equipped.

The size and ownership of the operation is also important; typically larger enterprises with foreign

investment do have fully compliant systems, whereas many SME operators are not fully aware of the importance of these issues. A focus on the SME segment is justified as assistance provided to these enterprises in most cases will have a more elaborate development effect. Such enterprises are in

most cases locally owned and have fewer resources than the large companies. The SME segment is characterised by being less capital intensive, and generally employ staff with less training in risk management procedures20. In many cases SMEs have to lump general management staff with quality

control procedures -‐ a manger/owner that controls his/her own enterprise. This is of course not according to the book, but in such cases assistance should be granted to help the enterprise keep operating in a compliant fashion under the economic framework available. Finally the socio-‐

economic impact from support to the SMEs is a key point as sustainable jobs created at this level may grow into larger numbers over time.

4.3.5. Other institutional requirements In order to carry out analyses of collected samples from imports and exports there is a need for

access to an accredited laboratory. This laboratory can be limited to carry out process water analyses, chemical analyses e.g. of heavy metals, or bio-‐chemical analyses. The degree of sophistication varies a lot between the laboratories in various countries. However, it is not a

requirement that the laboratory is publicly owned, it can by private, as long as it is accredited to carry out the analyses requested. It is also an option to make use of regional accredited laboratories located in a different but nearby country, or even to have samples tested at laboratories in the

importing countries (e.g. Europe).

20 Final Report and Sixth Quarterly Report’ By Module Coordinator Bent Larsen, SFP-ACP Programme, ACP Secretariat, Brussels, November 2010



4.3.6. Rules negotiations – subsidies to fisheries Within the on-‐going (almost stalled) Doha round, a key issue directly related to fisheries constitutes a blocking stone. Under the WTO the Rules Committee negotiates inter alia the sensitive areas of anti-‐dumping, subsidies, fisheries subsidies and regional trade agreements.

The first Doha Ministerial Conference launched negotiations to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, and at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 2005 there was broad

agreement on strengthening those disciplines. In effect this would include a prohibition of certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. The challenge now, facing the negotiators, is to develop stronger rules, while respecting the important policy concerns

of WTO members, particularly developing and least-‐developed countries. There is an apparent risk that over-‐fishing will deplete fish stocks in the oceans. It is estimated that

Governments have contributed to this problem by providing nearly $16 billion annually in subsidies to the fisheries sector. This support keeps more boats on the water and fewer fish in the sea, and it involves subsidies given directly in terms of lower diesel prices to fishing vessels, engine

reconfigurations, development of new and more efficient fishing gears, but also indirect subsidies to fleets that operate over long distances and can carry fish back to the country of registration to supply a local processing industry.

An informal grouping of members calling themselves the ‘Friends of Fish’ say that subsidies have led

to over-‐capacity and overfishing. Another group of countries has expressed scepticism over the link between subsidies and over-‐fishing. Many developing countries are asking for flexibility in granting subsidies to their fisheries sectors, in particular smaller island states with limitations for other

economic sectors to grow. Since the November 2007 edited versions of texts on Anti-‐dumping and Subsidies and Countervailing

Measures (SCM) have been circulated. For fisheries subsidies, the texts proposed an entirely new set of sector-‐specific disciplines, contained in a proposed new Annex VIII to the Agreement on SCM. Focus was on a prohibition category covering inter alia, subsidies for construction of new fishing

vessels and subsidies for fishing operating costs. LDCs would be exempted from the new disciplines, and other developing Members would have substantial flexibilities, especially for subsidies to subsistence-‐type fishing in their territorial waters. Improvement in fisheries management was asked

as corollary. The discussion has revolved around a roadmap of questions raised by the different groupings. Since

then new proposals for disciplines and text have been brought forward. Thus there is no final agreement on the texts for fisheries subsidies. A final text, depending on the

wording, may have an effect on particularly Small Vulnerable Economies (SVE), such is the case the IO states, which depend on near coast fisheries.



4.4. Bilateral agreements and issues

4.4.1. Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) Since the end of 2007, when the EU derogation on the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle expired, a replacement type agreement, called an EPA, has been negotiated with the ACP countries.

The EPA is conceived to be much broader in scope than the older type Lomé conventions for development assistance. In fact, the EPAs encompass all aspects of a partnership approach including economic and trade cooperation at the heart of the agreements.

The EPAs are not designed to be negotiated with individual partner countries but with Regional Economic Communities (REC). This way the EU deals with well-‐defined groups of countries that may

share common interests, and who themselves have embarked upon a process of further economic and trade integration under WTO conditions. The EU sees itself as a propelling engine towards this goal.

However, there are some obstacles that the EU internally has to overcome first. This involves a process of simplification and harmonisation of RoO. As 27 countries have to agree on such new

rules the process can be lengthy. For fish products there are no important disagreements on RoO issues. Whereas the criterion of wholly obtained remains unchanged, a small problem however is related as to which of the other two criteria to confer origin should be applied towards transformed

products. The ACP countries favour the Substantial Transformation criterion and the EU favours the value addition criteria. With still more and more regional sourcing also conferring origin, Substantial Transformation seems an easier method to use as a change in HS heading is fairly easy to establish.

Unfortunately the progress on EPA negotiations has so far been slow. In fact only one EPA in Africa exists and that is with a single country, South Africa. As full EPAs with RECs are complicated

negotiations, and as RECs are changing function (see section 4.5 below), the EU has embarked on negotiating Interim EPAs (iEPA) in the interim. Such iEPAs are less comprehensive in scope and time and have focussed more narrowly on trade aspects. An iEPA has been signed with Seychelles and

Mauritius, who on their part have made it open to other ESA-‐IO countries to join on the same basis.

4.4.2. Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPA) The Rules Committee negotiations have to be seen in the context of the bilateral fisheries agreements that IO states have entered into. Important in this context are the Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPA) that some states have signed with the EU. Under these agreements EU fleets

(mostly Spanish, French and Portuguese) have access to tuna quotas in the EEZ of the said country (see table 4.2 below). A certain volume of tuna can be caught in a specified period, against a financial contribution to the government for development of the fisheries sector and the economy in

general.



Table 4.2. EU Fisheries Partnership Agreements currently in force (by 13 May 2011)

Country Expiry date EC contribution per year Financial ratio for fisheries

policy development Comoros 31.12.2010 (renewal

procedure still in process) 390 000 € 60 %

Madagascar 31.12.2012 1,197 000 € 80 % Mozambique 31.12.2011 900,000 € 100 % Seychelles 17.1.2014 (revised

protocol signed 18.01.2011)

3,355, 000 € (as from 18.01.2011)

66 % (as from 18.01.2011)

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm (source of tables above : updated data from DG MARE website on Fisheries Agreements; EUR-LEX/ PRE-LEX, 13 May 2011 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm ; http://eur-lex.europa.eu ; http://ec.europa.eu/prelex

An important provision is that the EU fleets shall land all or a fairly substantial part of the quota in

the country, so that the country can benefit from its own resources and generate value addition products. In some cases the FPAs are associated with a derogation allowing the landing of fish from vessels registered in non-‐originating countries (that is from vessels not from the country’s own fleet

or from the EU fleet fishing under the FPA licence). A problem in this regard is that the EU fleets do have a vested interest in bringing raw material back to EU for processing in own their factories. This may be a reason why the derogation on originating raw material is not signed until after the annual

fishing campaign is terminated.

4.4.3. Other bilateral agreements Some marine fisheries countries (Indian Ocean states and Tanzania) have made fisheries relevant

agreements with countries such as Japan, Australia and New Zealand. However, as these are more limited in scope and impose fewer restrictions on trade compared to the EU FPAs, they do not pose issues of importance.

4.5. Economic integration and the Tripartite Negotiations

4.5.1. Brief overview This study encompasses four RECs (COMESA, EAC, IOC, and IGAD). These have existed for a varying

number of years and they house from 4 to 19 full members. Their purposes differ, but are first and foremost trade and development coordination and cooperation related. For the sake of completion and comparison a fifth regional organisation, SADC, is included in table 4.2 below, and finally the

partners to the on-‐going Tripartite Negotiations are listed as well. A total of 27 countries participate in the groupings, and of these all are partners to the Tripartite Negotiations. It is seen that some countries are member of up to three regional organisations and some only of one. There is no

problem for a country to be member of more than one REC; it may, however, prolong the discussions as more sides have to be heard and considered and agreed commitments respected that at times can be conflicting.

There are historic reasons for membership in the regional organisations. Their scope and purpose also differs to some extent. However, there are some common characteristics. RECs aim to assist the

process of trade liberalisation and further economic integration. They are all, except IGAD,



acknowledged as WTO compliant, and hence, can be partners to e.g. EPA negotiations as the WTO

rules apply. In addition they are able to raise a voice of some substance in international discussions and debate (not just on trade). Though WTO rules form the basis, there are marked differences as to the degree and quality of how the associated commitments are implemented, not least of the time

frame involved for implementation. EAC, IOC and SADC all have agreed and implemented Free Trade Areas (FTA), and EAC has signed a protocol for the establishment of a Customs Union, but no instruments of ratifications are in depository. There is a difference in how the agreed principles and

stipulations are implemented, in particular in the important area of trade facilitation and actual interpretation of Certificates of Origin (CoO).

Table 4.3: Partners to the Tripartite Negotiations and RECs

Country Tripartite members COMESA EAC IGAD IOC SADC

Angola X X

Botswana X X

Burundi X X X

Comoros X X X

Democratic Republic of the Congo X X X

Djibouti X X X

Egypt X X

Eritrea X X X

Ethiopia X X X

Kenya X X X X

Lesotho X X

Libya X X

Madagascar X X X X

Malawi X X X

Mauritius X X X X

Mozambique X X

Namibia X X

Rwanda X X X

Seychelles X X X X

South Africa X X

Sudan X X X

Swaziland X X X

Tanzania X X X

Uganda X X X X

Zambia X X X

Zimbabwe X X X

Total 26 19 5 6 4 15

Sources: Web-‐pages of the individual organisations. Note: In the Tripartite geographical coverage area only Somalia is not Member. The newly founded South-‐Sudan is expected to become member no 27 of COMESA

4.5.2. COMESA and Tripartite negotiations The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) was established in 1994 based on more wide-‐ranging objectives than just trade including also priorities for the promotion of peace and

security. Due to the very large geographical coverage from Libya in the north, to Swaziland in the south, plus the Indian Ocean states, it is a complex mechanism to operate from the Head Quarters in

Lusaka, Zambia. Member states display quite differing endowments of natural and human resources and varying focus areas trade wise.



At the end of October, 2000, an FTA was established by 9 countries and by January 2004, two more countries had joined. In addition to the elimination of tariffs on COMESA originating products, which is based on a reduction schedule dating from 1992, the FTA members also work on removing

quantitative restrictions and other NTBs. Moving towards this goal, COMESA, EAC and SADC in 2005 established the Tripartite Negotiation

process, housed at the COMESA secretariat. The partners to the Tripartite Negotiations aim for21: ‘...strengthening and deepening economic integration of the southern and eastern Africa region’.

The strategy to achieve this goal can be summarised as the implementation of various initiatives aimed at harmonising policies and programmes of the three participating RECs in the areas of trade, customs and infrastructure development, and implementing these in a coordinated manner, and

wherever possible jointly. The Tripartite partners form a substantial group of 26 (soon 27) countries (see table 4.2). They are

economically and trade wise important players on the international scene. They comprise a combined population of 527 million people, a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of US$ 624 billion, and a GDP per capita averaging US$1,184. The 26 countries make up half of the African Union

(AU) in terms of membership and just over 58% in terms contribution to GDP and 57% of the total population of the African Union.

However, due to the Tripartite States’ economic history and background, the main focus is on the formation of a large economic and trading unit that is capable of overcoming some of the barriers

faced by individual states. The pace is not all that fast. The Second Tripartite Summit of Heads of State and Government took place on 12 June, 2011, in Johannesburg, South Africa. The results from the Summit are, however, substantial, including an agreement on the official launch of negotiations

on the Tripartite FTA. In addition, an agreement was also reached on the negotiating principles, processes, scope and institutional framework including fishery product relevant annexes on non-‐tariff barriers, rules of origin, customs co-‐operation, transit trade and transit facilities, trade

remedies, competition policy and law, standards, SPS measures, and movement of business persons,. As a final and important step a roadmap and timeline for establishing the FTA were also agreed, thus the future will reveal the degree of success.

4.5.3. Issues in Tripartite Trade Rules for Fish Products Regarding fish products there remain no important controversies. The RoO with associated criteria of conferring origin are, as mentioned in the earlier section, agreed between the partners. An

underlying reason is that fish products constitute just a small part in the global trade between the Tripartite Members. There should be no need to negotiate on tariffs or sensitive products among the five EAC countries or among the fourteen COMESA FTA countries or among the thirteen SADC

FTA countries, since these already trade on FTA terms.

21 Website of the Tripartite: http://www.comesa-eac-sadc-tripartite.org/home



The key issue is that the voices of fisheries dependent communities and states are not raised loudly,

and are anyway overshadowed by the much heavier sectors such as agriculture, agro-‐industry, mining and the petroleum industry22.

4.5.4. SPS, NTBs and trade facilitation There remain some issues related to the commitments taken up under the SPS agreement and NTBs. The stated ambition is to include establishment of a harmonised system within the SPS agreement

area. In order to avoid distortion in the competition between enterprises from different member nations, a coordinated effort to implement uniform and compliant control and inspection procedures, by the CAs and at enterprise level, has been agreed. Much in the same manner the

NTBs, (including also quota restrictions, the technical barriers to trade, standards, packaging, labelling, and trade facilitation) are also identified as targets for harmonisation.

Thus the principles and approaches are agreed within these important agreement areas, but there are still major differences in the actual implementation of the commitments. For example the institutions related to TBTs such as standards, metrology and quality control procedures are scarce

and working at different levels regarding equipment and human resources. The overall issue resulting from the presence of different levels in implementation of the

commitments within SPS, removal of NTBs, TBT and trade facilitation actually maintains a distorted situation regarding competition between the nations and their enterprises. Africa, and also the Tripartite Region, ranks low on trade facilitation performance, and as mentioned earlier, performs

poorly in terms of logistics. Markets remain fragmented and borders are difficult to cross, which prevents the emergence of regionally integrated industries and supply chains. Trade facilitation is a broad area that encompasses almost anything from moving tradable goods through a country,

improving infrastructure, border crossing inspection and customs treatment, trade paperwork, quarantine, and access to finance. All this adds to the transaction costs, making intra-‐regionally traded goods more costly compared to external trade. For perishable goods such as fresh and frozen

fish, delays during transport, lengthy stops at border crossings and irregular procedures can be detrimental. Whole shipments can be lost. The following two examples illustrate the point23:

• In the Tripartite region the costs of road transport accounting for about 95% of the volume of cargo transported, are directly related to the time taken for the journey. The typical charge for a stationary truck is between US$200 to US$400 a day. Therefore, if a truck takes

3 days to clear a border the transporter will pass on an additional cost to the importer of between US$600 to US$1,200 for the cost of the truck sitting idle at the border. This will, in turn, be passed on to the importer’s client and ultimately to the consumer.

• Similarly, it costs US$5,000 to US$8,000 to ship a 20-‐foot container from Durban to Lusaka, compared to the cost of US$1,500 to ship the same container from Japan to Durban. This

means that a producer that relies on imported components for his manufacturing business based in Lusaka would need to absorb this extra transport cost compared to his competitor

22 http://www.comesa-eac-sadc-tripartite.org/node/106 23 See ‘Trade Facilitation in the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Trade Area. Mark Pearson, Director Trademark SA, September 2011. Though the paper is in draft form citation has been allowed by the author.



near the port. It is often more economical to export a raw material, or a semi-‐processed raw

material, than to import the materials/equipment needed for the process and then export the processed good.

The Tripartite partners are well aware of this situation, and as a result of the June 2011 Summit, a number of large scale coordinated programmes funded by development partners targets the infrastructure related issues24 and other facilitation assistance25. The timeline for implementation is

still substantial. To address transport and trade facilitation challenges the Tripartite has launched the Comprehensive

Tripartite Trade and Transport Facilitation Programme (CTTTFP). The programme is based on a series of initiatives from different RECs integrated into one programme including:

i. The NTB Monitoring, Reporting and Removal System ii. Border and customs procedures (establishment of one-‐stop border posts; Integrated Border

Management, regional customs bond, transit management);

iii. Immigration procedures; iv. Transport procedures (regional 3rd party insurance, overload controls, road user charges,

self-‐regulated regional road transport management system, establishment of corridor

management groups; and v. The establishment of the Joint Competition Authority linked to air transport liberalisation.

The objectives to be addressed through the CTTTFP are to:

i. Increase trade and promote economic growth in Eastern and Southern Africa by supporting improvements in policies and in the regional regulatory and economic environment;

ii. Reduce high costs of trading in the region and help the national administrations, working

through the RECs, to address barriers to trade and growth; iii. Reduce transit times and transaction costs along the principal corridors in eastern and

Southern Africa through better infrastructure, faster border crossings and harmonised trade

and transit regulations; and iv. Improve aid effectiveness by coordinating donor funding for priority Aid-‐for-‐Trade

programmes.

Though the coordinated effort is still in the making the NTB monitoring, reporting and removal programme can be a key element in trade integrations as it aims to remove all NTBs, or at least the

main NTBs26, .Therefore the main components are listed here:

24 Several programmes funded by the Japanese Government support the physical part of infrastructure improvement (ports, roads, railroads, airports, ICT and energy) . 25 See Pearson, M. p.1 26 Most NTBs faced in the Tripartite region fall within the import measures sub-categories A,E,F,I,L,M and O of the UNCTAD/World Bank categorisation



i. Customs documentation and administrative procedures – these include non-‐standardised

systems for imports declaration and payment of applicable duty rates; non-‐acceptance of certificates and trade documentation; incorrect tariff classification; limited and uncoordinated customs working hours; different interpretation of the Rules of Origin and

non-‐acceptance of certificates of origin; application of discriminatory taxes and other charges on imports originating from member states; and cumbersome procedures for verifying containerised imports.

ii. Immigration procedures – including non-‐standardised visa fees; and cumbersome and duplicated immigration procedures.

iii. Quality inspection procedures – delays in inspection of commercial vehicles; cumbersome

and costly quality inspection procedures; unnecessary quality inspections (including of products certified by internationally accredited laboratories); non-‐standardised quality inspection and testing procedures; and varying procedures for issuing certification marks.

iv. Transiting procedures – Non-‐harmonised transport policies, laws, regulations and standards including road user charges, third party (cross border) motor insurance schemes, vehicle overland controls systems, vehicle dimensions and standards, cross border road permits and

prohibitive transit charges. v. Road blocks – stopping of commercial vehicles at various inter-‐country road blocks even

where there is no proof that goods being transported are of a suspicious nature, such as

smuggled goods or drugs.

The existing mechanisms that are in place at REC level were the starting points for the design of the on-‐line27Tripartite NTB Monitoring, Removal and Reporting Mechanism (NTB Mechanism). Likewise the process for elimination is also based on existing mechanisms. It is a repository of all reported

NTBs allowing information dissemination to all stakeholders (researchers, traders, exporters, importers, policy makers/administrators etc.) and more importantly, it provides for an interactive process for monitoring resolution of barriers by Tripartite member States. It enhances transparency

and easy follow-‐up of reported and identified NTBs. Significant progress has already been made in the design and implementation of the trade

facilitation programmes, and some of the benefits of these programmes are being realised. The longer-‐term success of the Tripartite Trade and Transport Facilitation Programmes will depend on the political will, and administrative and technical commitment of the Tripartite Member States to

design and implement the full CTTTFP:

• Establishing the appropriate institutional and coordination structures at regional and national level;

• Obtaining the necessary technical and financial support for the design and implementation of the programme.

To date these conditions for success are basically in place. There are a few issues that need to be addressed, such as the method to concession infrastructure facilities at border posts but, by and

27 See the web-site: http://www.tradebarriers.org



large, the progress in implementing trade and transport facilitation programmes in the Tripartite

region is progressing well28.

4.6. Conclusion A number of problems are directly associated with an insufficient and/or irregular supply of utility services (electricity, water, drainage a waste treatment, and the relatively poor quality of physical transport infrastructures (roads, ports and airports, and the practice of overloading trucks). Though

some countries are better equipped than others and are able to mitigate these issues, it will for many countries be a costly but necessary endeavour. Fortunately development partners have embarked upon co-‐financing development an up-‐grading of infrastructures in particular in the

corridor environment (North-‐South mostly). Getting fish product from East to West is difficult as road conditions, and cold chains in general are not available.

Other issues are related to the economic reality, where the largest share of the countries are trade dependent economies making only limited value addition on own fish resources. Thus issues around currency and exchange rate regimes, interest level, and almost prohibitive conditions for accessing

local investment capital, act in an almost detrimental fashion to industrial undertakings. A result is that foreign direct investment is funnelled into the external export oriented industries and only

limited capital (international as local) is directed towards investment into developing intra-‐regional aquaculture, processing and trade capacity.

Today most of the countries are members of WTO with associated commitments to abide to, and the remaining countries apply for membership. There are not many important issues left form the rules base trading system relevant to fisheries. Perhaps the single most important issue is the

frequent lack of understanding and/or willingness to comply in full with the stipulations of the SPS and TBT agreements and the Codex Alimentarius regarding food safety. This problem is pertinent in some countries, where the institutional requirements for e.g. an approved CA to carry out inspection

and control on behalf of the importing trade partners (for instance the EU) is not in place; accredited laboratory capacity is another limiting factor institutionally. Similarly private sector operators in some countries still fail to understand the importance of compliance (without it no export) and view

additional investment in factory adaptation and staff training as just a cost item. The introduction of compliant food safety measures were assisted recently by the EC in a number of countries, and the industry is gradually seeing the CA as an advisor rather than a policeman. Implementation of CA

approved PRP manuals and HACCP plans is a must, not just for external exports, but also for intra-‐regional and local trade, as the basic WTO principles apply for all cross border and even domestic trade.

The only important WTO issue still negotiated falls under the Rules Committee and concerns the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures agreement. Neither text nor disciplines under the SCM

regarding subsidies to fisheries are finally agreed, but SVEs and other near coastal fishery dependent communities are likely not to be affected by the disciplines. A more serious concern is the indirect subsidy given to fishing fleets originating from e.g. EU operating under the FPAs. Among other the

28 See Pearson, M. p. 28



obligation to land fish in the port of the host country, for it to gain the value addition through

processing, is not fully complied with. It is the ambition of e.g. the EU to include all aspects of fisheries and trader related aspects in the on-‐going EPA negotiations; however, only a few interim EPAs have been signed so far.

Fairly recent developments in the regional economic integration process point in a favourable direction for trade liberalisation. At present the WTO compliant FTA agreements signed by the

respective members of the four RECs (COMESA, EAC, IOC, and SADC) remain valid though not always ratified. It is noted that these FTAs are well conceived as regards texts and commitments, but there are serious lacunae regarding the actual implementation of the chapters and trade protocols, in

particular within the areas of tariff reductions (varying levels and pace in progress), removal of NTBs as quota restrictions and prevailing non-‐harmonisation of standards and norms. Finally, and probably a most serious issue in the different modes and paces in terms of implementing trade

facilitation measures -‐ the latter encompasses the aforementioned issues pertinent to physical infrastructure, economic constraints and not least border crossing issues, which can delay transports up to four days and add substantially to the transaction costs, making regional products less

competitive. A move in a positive direction therefore is the initiation of the Tripartite negotiation process, which was commenced 2005, and had its second summit in June this year launching the establishment of an FTA. The Tripartite region includes all 26 member countries of the RECs (except

Somalia). It is based at COMESA Head Quarters, Lusaka, and has designed, and is implementing, a coordinated effort to resolve/remove NTBs including trade facilitation issues. This is done by

securing the assistance from development partners guided by a coordination unit. Though still in the making, the process bodes well for the future, and despite a few remaining obstacles, the progress in implementing trade and transport facilitation programmes in the Tripartite region is progressing.



5. KEY ISSUES AND POINTERS Through discussions with stakeholders in the region, including points extracted from workshop discussions, findings of major recent studies and programmes, and issues identified in the chapters

above, a number of key issues were identified. These will need to be addressed in the development process of the national fisheries strategies. These are presented below together with initiatives that the national authorities and private sector operators and their associations can use as pointers when

further developing their strategies: Issue 1: There is only very limited intra-‐regional trade, whereas international import and export

statistics shows a trade surplus. In fact the region exports expensive fish and imports cheap fish. In other words, the fish trade is of great economic importance to the region. It earns foreign currency, and adds to food supply. There is probably more intra-‐regional trade than officially recorded. Part of

the explanation is related to an inefficient reporting system.

Pointer 1: Insufficient information and statistics on intra-‐regional fish trade including different

product types, the value-‐chain and extent of the market should be resolved by committing the national authorities to practise and promote:

• Firm statistical collection and reporting practices;

• Training in collection methods and analysis of statistical data would be needed for policy and planning purposes;

• A regional fish trade information and database system should be established at the level of the Tripartite region, but with clear identification of the national level reporting units and with transfer of operating knowledge via information, communication and outreach

programs. Issue 2: The practise of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and informal fish trade

across borders has been identified. Such practices have two important consequences:

• IUU and informal trade practices reduce the registered landings and trade, and provide somewhat diffuse and even confusing pictures to the national authorities when trying to

analyse statistics for planning and policy development purposes.

• IUU is a direct unlawful act. If preferential treatment such as duty free entry has been granted to the batch, then the exporter has committed tax fraud as this raw material

cannot be conferred origin, and the operations can be shut down. In fact the local trader and operator also violate the SPS related commitments as there clearly is no documentation for traceability, which in on element of the PRP.

Pointer 2: To reduce/remove IUU practices national authorities have to:

• Establish a regional plan of action to deter, prevent and eliminate IUU in fish trade

including law enforcement under Monitoring, Control and Surveillance practices;



• Educate the local fishers, traders (middlemen) and the processing operators in how to avoid

buying IUU material. This involves thorough training in the practise of raw material traceability. Avoiding informal trade at border crossings can be difficult since this is a traditional trading

method; however, a simple way is to reduce/remove tariffs on the very small volumes, if the trader registers his/her trade. This way the trade becomes registered.

Issue 3: Intra-‐regional trade was found to be low, thus depriving the consumers of the use of white protein from fish as a supplement to food security. Part of this issue is related to inadequate infrastructure (electricity, feeder roads, etc.) for intra-‐regional fish trade in terms of lacking or poorly

equipped collection centres, distribution facilities, receiving centres, and retail markets. In some cases compliant fish boxes are not available or used, and products such as sundried fish suffer high post-‐harvest losses, in particular during the rainy season. Such facilities are not regularly inspected

by the CA, which is also the case at some border crossings posts, making the products from these facilities non-‐compliant to the SPS requirements.

Pointer 3: The substance matter of the issue is economical in nature, meaning that only investment can improve the situation. It is therefore advised that the national authorities

should:

• Identify best practices for the design of such facilities with a view to solutions that are justifiable also economically (e.g. EAC cross-‐border markets project, improved fish

processing & value-‐addition, eco-‐labelling, bilateral agreements e.g. DR Congo);

• Provide training of local fishers in how to carry out compliant post-‐harvest procedures;

• Capacity building of regional traders and processors associations/organisations in areas

such as self-‐policing (MCS), forum, fisheries co-‐management systems, financing;

• Create awareness and sensitize stakeholders on regional fish trade via meetings, workshops, printed and electronic media.

Issue 4: For some of the countries that do not yet have an approved CA, insufficient institutional capacity (human resources, units and infrastructure) is an important issue. The result is that the

countries cannot export to EU markets and by logic of the WTO principles and the SPS sub-‐agreement also not trade intra-‐regionally and not even domestically. It follows that fish control and inspection is inadequate and the fish based food for human consumption not safe to eat.

Pointer 4: For these countries it is important that guidelines, protocols, PRP manuals, HACCP

plans and their means of verification are standardised and, designated/gazetted. This may lead towards compliance with the SPS agreement and the EC food health and safety regulations. For fish products that are traded mostly intra-‐regionally (smoked, sundried, salted

products, chilled and even some frozen products) standards equal to the SPS and Codex Alimentarius should be applied. Otherwise relevant ISO standards for capture fisheries and aquaculture should be promoted to operators.



Issue 5: Trade facilitation is an issue as regards implementation of the commitments under existing

FTAs signed by REC members. As a result, transaction costs for fish products are very high in continental Africa, partially due to the poor quality of physical infrastructure, but also as a result of border crossing issues. The latter may involve up to four days of waiting for a truck to pass.

However, part of this issue is addressed by the large scale programmes under the Tripartite region’s leadership and its coordinating unit. Development partners are now making their contributions in a more coordinated and NTB reducing manner. The final result is yet to be seen.

Pointer 5: Political will and good governance exercised by the participating members of the Tripartite negotiation process for a region-‐wide FTA (just launched) is a key element to its

success. It is therefore important that fisheries, although less important economically compared to agriculture, is not marginalized in the deliberations at national, regional or international level. Funds will have to be allocated for infrastructure, utilities and to support

the WTO debate on subsidies in fisheries. To hear the voice of fisheries the following should be done:

• Mobilization of fish traders and processors to form discussion fora locally to help define the

key elements of a national fisheries strategy;

• Establish an organizational infrastructure in terms of working groups nationally and

regionally to help structure and promote the viewpoint of the fisheries sector;

• Strengthen interpersonal relationships among the key players at all levels;

• Bring key fisheries and fish product trade issues originating from a national or regional level

to the attention of the administration and politicians;

• Levy pressure on the administration to formulate ASAP the end goal for a national fisheries strategy;

• Remedy the funding gaps and human resource shortcomings for vulnerable sub-‐sectors such as aquaculture (seeds, feeds, market, training, technology transfer, aquaculture associations).



ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE

AGROTEC CONSORTIUM

Assignment Name Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Strategy (IRFS) for ESA-‐IO

Mission Schedule Number 4M1.2.2-‐TOR

Coordinator Chris Short, KE3; Coordinator of RESULT 4: Regional Trade Strategy

Technical Verifier Chris Short, KE3; Coordinator of RESULT 4: Regional Trade Strategy

Background to assignment The IRFS programme was launched in February 2011 with the aim of contributing to an increased level of social, economic and environmental development and deeper regional integration in the ESA-‐IO region through the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. The programme is financed by the European Union under the 10th European Development Fund within a total financial contribution of Euro 21 million. The programme is implemented by the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) in collaboration with the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA), the East Africa Community (EAC) and the Inter-‐Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD). Other regional institutions involved include the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and regional fisheries management organizations, such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC), the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO), and the Lake Tanganyika Fisheries Organization (LTFO). The first phase of the Programme will be implemented over a period of 31 months (March 2011-‐September 2013). The overall objective of the programme is to contribute to an increased level of social, economic and environmental development and deeper regional integration in the ESA-‐IO region through the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. The expected results and outcome of the programme falls into the following five categories: fisheries governance; fisheries management; monitoring, control and surveillance; regional fish trade and food security. This assignment falls under the Result 4 (regional fish trade component) of the project. The development of a regional trade strategy is the thrust of the program. This will be implemented through national and regional level trade and marketing approaches and regional consensus to support strategy development. The traditional focus on large international trading blocs has reduced efforts from developing a regional trade approach. Regional trade holds great potential for development and will be examined within this programme and integrated with strategic marketing plans at the regional and national level. Many national and regionally driven and oriented activities will develop objective requirements for achieving this goal. Marketing strategies will be prepared at the national level and a comprehensive understanding of existing and potential trade, especially intra-‐regionally, will be required. This data will ensure regional trade strategies meet the requirements of the beneficiary countries and that trade potential is fully understood. This assignment falls under the start-‐up activities for the programme that will assist with the situational analysis of key programme components and set the ground work for the ultimate project outcomes. Background to this activity This activity will contribute to supporting and understanding of the past, present and potential trade performance for fish and fisheries products in the region vis-‐à-‐vis intra-‐regional trade primarily but with a broader view to other potential markets outside the region. Individual country assessments should be the focus in terms of trade history and current trading activity for fish and fisheries products. Regional economic trading associations should be assessed in the context of existing regional trade rules and regulations. Particular attention is to be paid to fish



trade vis-‐à-‐vis COMESA, IGAD and EAC country groupings. This activity will be combined with other activities as a situational analysis for the region upon which market and trade strategies will be developed under separate activities. The identification of performance in terms of constraints to trade should be identified including tariff and non-‐tariff barriers (NTBs) between countries in the region. 2 consultants are envisaged for this activity to allow for a division of countries and a more comprehensive study result.

Issues to be addressed The specific task is to: Regional trade assessment is made to examination past and present catch and trade data to see precisely what products and what product forms countries have produced and/or exported. Identify any on-‐going export development initiatives and identify major constraints that have hampered regional trade development to date Two Senior Fisheries Trade Analysts are required to work on this assignment, preferably on the same schedules. The region will be split between them

Activities of the Consultant The expert shall perform the following tasks:

• In conjunction with technical coordinator, review and identification of existing studies in the region recently completed or about to be completed for purposes of avoiding overlap and duplication

• Desk study to commence background data gathering for fisheries trade data from the region from existing sources. Include data from previous studies in this part of the study

• Visit and assess trade performance for fisheries in selected countries by visits to those countries.

• Visits with COMESA, IGAD and EAC regional trading blocks to fully define the situation regarding regional trade initiatives that affect fish trade

• Identify key players at the regional level involved with intra-‐regional fish trade – specifically private sector actors and other key drivers in the industry

• Prepare at the national level comprehensive review of past, present fish trade identifying key species, products and product forms.

• Prepare a comprehensive outline of all major constraints facing trade development, including operational, institutional, structural, etc. which will be used in the preparation of trade development strategies at the national and regional level (phase 2)

• Report writing

• Presentation that summarizes the findings of the study to be prepared along with the final report. Presentation to be arranged at a later date at a workshop on the subject

Expected outputs The Expert shall produce a report demonstrating the work done, namely:

• Comprehensive report detailing all aspects with respect to the tasks above

• A Table of Contents for the report to be verified as a first step with technical coordinator to ensure balance of report and areas of emphasis

• The report to be produced using MS Word (and other MS Office software if necessary) and be available in hard copy and electronic form, both in Word (and other MS Office Programmes as appropriate) and all the elements together in single file pdf format.

Format of each report MS Word Styles for SmartFish Programme Reports and Technical Papers Structure

• Title pages in model format as per other Programme Reports – to be supplied

• Table of contents, to three levels, formal format – to be agreed

• List of annexes if appropriate

• Tables of tables, figures and pictures all formal format

• Abbreviations and acronyms

• Layman’s summary (one paragraph encapsulating key elements that can be used in magazine/web i.e. not over technical)

• Executive Summary (1 to 2 pages), in English, and French

• Introduction

• Main body of report divided into different sections as appropriate, normally Context,



Methodology, Performance in relation to TOR, and Discussion (up to 20 pages)

• Conclusions and recommendations (each recommendation must be preceded by a conclusion, that refers to a discussion in the main body of the report)

• Annex 1 Terms of reference (if appropriate)

• Annex 2 Schedule and people met (with contacts)

• Annex 3 Aide Memoire (max. one page on execution of mission, findings, conclusions, and recommendations in bullet points)

• Any other annex(es) as appropriate

• Format as per PMU indications.

Report to be reviewed by Chris Short, KE3 for Trade Component

2 Senior Fisheries Trade Analysts share the total days Working days

Desk Study to commence at home base 12

Travel to Mauritius (as base for remainder of work) 2

Meetings in Mauritius and Travel to selected regional trading groups and countries

32

Further data collection and research from Mauritius 16

Report writing at IRFS office in Mauritius 8

Discuss and present draft report and de-‐briefing 2

Final report / presentation preparation (after receipt of comments) at home base

6

Total 78

Total input days: 78 working days

Duration

Start date Approx: MidMAy to Start June 2011

Draft report Whilst on Mission

Comments from PCM Within 2 weeks after reception

Final report 2 working days after receipt of comments by SmartFish/PCM

Completion dates for Reports and fee payment schedule

Final report basis for relevant payments

Experience and qualification

Two Senior Fisheries Trade Analysts Qualifications and skills:

• fluency in one of French or English and working knowledge of other

• Experience: Extensive demonstrated experience understanding and analyzing trade information for fisheries, preparing trade studies, strategic trade studies at the national / regional level and other trade development related assessments for fisheries in similar countries

• Experience working with EU projects an advantage

• Ability to travel and work in ACP countries

Locations and travel Base in Mauritius / travel in region as required: Travel from: (Home base) to Mauritius, to regional countries; to Mauritius; to (Home base)



ANNEX 2: WORK PROGRAMME AND PEOPLE MET Mr. Bent Larsen: Date Location Activity People met

Phase I

16 June 2011 (Thu) DK, Home Office Desk study Contact to the PMU, and ESA key persons

17th June 2011 (Fri)

DK, Home Office Preparation of Mission

Phase II 1st Field Visit

19 June 2011 (Sun) DK Leave Copenhagen, DK Int. Travel to Mauritius

20 June 2011 (Mon) Mauritius, Arrive Airport, transfer Quatre Bornes; Briefing meeting with Counter Part and PMU

Mr. Rajendra MOHABEER, IOC responsible, Mr. Chris Short, Trade Analysis Coordinator ESA-‐IOC PMU; mailto:[email protected] Mr. Dominique Gerboval, Team Leader

21 June 2011 (Tue) Mauritius Division of tasks agreed; selection procedure for countries to visit agreed and implemented

First contact Mr. Rajendra Maistry, Consultant (former Chief of IT services Mauritian Custom services First contact to: Dr. Francis Mangeni, Director of Trade Customs and Monetary Affairs Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa COMESA Secretariat

22 June 2011 (Wed) Mauritius Preparation of detailed Travel and Work Plan. Output: Draft Outline of Report and data collection system agreed

Mr. Chris Short, PMU First contact to M. Mark Pearson, Programme Director, Trademark Southern Africa, Mark Pearson [email protected] First contacts to:

1) Mr. Pandoo, Mauritius Customs services 2) Dr. John Ryder, FAO, Fishery Industry

Officer, Fish Products, Trade and Marketing Service,Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Ryder, [email protected]

23 June 2011 (Thu) Mauritius Travel plan discussed and agreed

First contact to: .1) David Bentley, Industry Representative, Seahervest, Seychelles 2) Mr. Finley Racombo, Focal point Seychelles; [email protected] Mr. Chris Short, PMU

24 June 2011 Mauritius Meetings in Port Loius; Data collection initiated

Mr. Afzal Delbar, Managing Director, Freight Academy, [email protected]; Mr. Jean Claude Pandoo, MRA, Customs Services, [email protected]; Mrs. Danielle Wong, Director, MEXA. [email protected] Mrs. Sadna Ammearally-‐Nistar, Manager, MEXA, [email protected]; Mr. Chris Short, PMU



25 June 2011 Mauritius Meeting with PMU, Pilot data model and analysis Mauritius carried out

Mr. Chris Short, PMU

26 June 2011 Mauritius Data collection Contact to Seychelles, Finly Racombo, Focal Point

27 June 2011 Mauritius Data collection Mr. Chris Sort, PMU

28 June 2011 Mauritius Data collection

29 June 2001 Mauritius, Seychelles

Discussion of trade related Issues Travel to Seychelles

Mr. Rajendra MOHABEER, ESA-‐IO IRFS RAO

30 June 2011 Seychelles Meetings, data collection Mr. Finley RACOMBO, Focal point, [email protected]; David BENTLEY, Managing Director, SEAHARVEST,

01 July 2011 Seychelles Meetings, data collection Mr. Alejandro ANGANUZZI, Executive Secretary, IOTC, [email protected]; Dr. David WILSON, Deputy Secretary, IOTC, [email protected]

01 July 2011 Seychelles Meetings, data collection Ms. Melanie STRAVENS, Director General, Trade Division, Ministry of Finance (TD-‐MoF), [email protected]; Mr. Ziyadd EBRAHIM, Directorm TD-‐MoF, [email protected]; Mr. Ashik HASSAN, Trade Officer, [email protected]; Ms. Cindy Chan Leng Clair, Senior Trade Officer, [email protected]

02 July 2011 International travel

Seychelles-‐CDG-‐Dendmark

Phase I cont’d and Interim Period

04 July 2011 Home office Data collection/collation

06 July 2011 Home office Data collection/collation Contact to Mark Pearson

15 July 2011 Home office Data collation-‐Reporting

Phase II 2nd visit

17 July 2011 CPH-‐MRU International travel

18 July 2011 Mauritius Data collation-‐report writing


20 July 2011 Mauritius Data collation-‐report writing Contact with COMESA. Dr. Francis Mangeni



23 July 2011 Mauritius Preparation of workshop presentation

24 July 2011 Mauritius-‐RSA Regional travel

25 July 2011 RSA-‐ Zambia Regional Travel – 1st say of workshop

see list of participants

26 July 2011 Zambia 2nd workshop day Discussion with COMESA

27 July 2011 Zambia 3rd closing day of workshop – report writing

Discussion with Caroline LVFO

28 July 2011 Zambia-‐Mauritius

Regional travel

29 July 2011 Mauritius Preparation and submission of Aide Memoire



30 July 2011 Mauritius Report writing

31 July 2011 Mauritius Report writing

01 August 2011 Mauritius-‐Denmark

Report writing

Phase II reporting

29 August Denmark Discussion with TradeMarkSA, RSA Anad

Skype contact on REC and trade constraints

30 August Denmark Discussion with Lake Harvest, Zimbabwe Report writing

Skype contact on aquaculture issues and regional trade in Tilapia

12 September Denmark Report writing

Mr. Erik Hempel: Date Location Activity People met

Phase I

06 June 2011 Oslo Desk research



09 June 2011 Oslo Desk research Contact with Sabatini, FAO regarding statistics






Phase II 1st Field Visit

18 June 2011 International travel

Travel Oslo -‐ Mauritius

19 June 2011 Mauritius, Arrive Mauritius, transfer to Black River. Briefing with PMU

Mr. Chris Short, Trade Analysis Coordinator ESA-‐IOC PMU; mailto:[email protected]

20 June 2011 Mauritius Briefing with Counter Part and PMU

Mr. Rajendra MOHABEER, IOC responsible, Mr. Dominique Gerboval, Team Leader Mr. Chris Short, PMU

21 June 2011 Mauritius Division of tasks agreed; selection procedure for countries to visit agreed and implemented

First contact Mr. Rajendra Maistry, Consultant (former Chief of IT services Mauritian Custom services First contact to: Dr. Francis Mangeni, Director of Trade Customs and Monetary Affairs Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa COMESA Secretariat

22 June 2011 Mauritius Preparation of detailed Travel and Work Plan. Output: Draft Outline of Report and data collection system agreed

Mr. Chris Short, PMU First contacts to:

1) Mr. Pandoo, Mauritius Customs Services; [email protected]

2) Dr. John Ryder, FAO, Fishery Industry Officer, Fish Products, Trade and Marketing Service,Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Ryder,



[email protected]

23 June 2011 Mauritius Travel plan discussed and agreed

First contact to: .1) David Bentley, Industry Representative, Seahervest, Seychelles 2) Mr. Finley Racombo, Focal point Seychelles; [email protected] Mr. Chris Short, PMU

24 June 2011 Mauritius Meetings in Port Loius; Data collection initiated

Mr. Afzal Delbar, Managing Director, Freight Academy, [email protected]; Mr. Jean Claude Pandoo, MRA, Customs Services, [email protected]; Mrs. Danielle Wong, Director, MEXA. [email protected] Mrs. Sadna Ammearally-‐Nistar, Manager, MEXA, [email protected]; Mr. Chris Short, PMU

25 June 2011 Mauritius Meeting with PMU, Pilot data model and analysis Mauritius carried out

Mr. Chris Short, PMU

01 July 2011 Mauritius Meetings, data collection


Mauritius -‐ Djibouti

03 July 2011 Djibouti Data collection, meetings with National Focal Point and IGAD.

Dr. Ahmed Darar Djibril, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; [email protected]

04 July 2011 Djibouti Data collection/collation Mr. Maina Karaba, IGAD; [email protected] Mr. Yufnalis Okubo, IGAD; [email protected]

05 July 2011 Djibouti Data collection


Djibouti – Nairobi Contact with Ernest Njoroge, Delegation of EU to Kenya; [email protected]


Nairobi – Arusha Mr. Timothy Wesonga, EAC. [email protected]

08 July 2011 Arusha Meet EAC Mr. Timothy Wesonga, EAC Mr. Moses Marwa, EAC; [email protected]

09 July 2011 Intern’l travel Arusha – Mauritius

10 July 2011 Mauritius Data collection













Phase III:Reporting

02 Aug. 2011 Oslo Report writing






20 Sep. 2011 Mauritius Report finalization

21 Sep. 2011 Mauritius Report finalization

ANNEX 3: AIDE MEMOIRE

Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Strategy – ESA-IO

Aide Memoire 29/07/2011 Trade Assessment Study (TAS)

Erik Hempel & Bent Larsen, Trade Analysts

Chris Short, Trade Coordinator This Aide Memoire summarises the outcome of Phase I: Preparatory work and part of Desk study) and Phase II: Field work (up to the end of the field work). The trade analysts have had two visits to Mauritius in the period 16th June to 1st August, 2011. The field work overlapped with the Work Shop Programme, also an IRFS-‐ESA-‐IO intervention, where Mr. Hempel is consultant. The purpose of the TAS mission was to produce: A regional trade assessment is made to examination past and present catch and trade data to see precisely what products and what product forms countries have produced and/or exported. Identify any ongoing export development initiatives and identify major constraints that have hampered regional trade development to date. The activities of the present ToR are carried out in consort with the Workshop programme and a third programme intervention the Market Study. During the first visit a briefing session with Mr. Rajendra Mohabeer, IOC responsible officer, was held. It clarified the ToR, and pointed towards a focus on the key issues posing constraints to regional and international fish product trade for the 19 countries benefitting from the programme. A report outline and a detailed work programme were agreed. Due to the need to coordinate with the Workshop activity, it was decided to split the mission in 2 visits. Mr. Larsen would in the interim period continue data collection and collection from home office. Finally six countries were selected based on agreed criteria and subsequently visited: Mauritius, Seychelles, Djibouti, Tanzania and Zambia, which allowed interviews with the national authorities, the industry and the four regional economic integration organisations: COMESA, EAC, IGAD and IOC. A 2.5 days workshop (part of the Workshop activity) was arranged near the COMESA HQ in Zambia. It was agreed that Mr. Larsen also would participate as speaker and in the discussions. The outcome of the workshop is deemed positive in that the process and necessary building blocks for the formulation of national level regional fisheries trade strategy were agreed. The first step in the process: the formulation of national level goals for regional fish product trade was agreed and will be initiated soonest by the focal points. The next and almost simultaneous step would be for the focal points to organise national fora for detailed discussion of how to make fisheries an important part in the national level trade strategy deliberations, and how to realise the identified goals following the agreed method. The national level forum should be in terms of local working groups composed essentially of stakeholder representatives from the various sub-‐sectors of the fisheries industry and traders (aquaculture, freshwater fisheries, transport, processing, trade, customs officers, CA inspectors etc.). Due to the time used for preparation of and participation in the workshop it was agreed to extend the submission of the draft report until after end of field work and to carry out part of the on-‐going reporting from the home office. At present the text of the regional summary of the identification of key issues and associated analyses of statistics and rules based trade constraints (the body text of the draft report) is well underway. It is noted that in some cases the statistical base is not there (based on FAO and COMSTAT databases) or may be inconsistent for some countries. Hence the country annexes, which are done in 85% of the cases, may be thin in such cases, but they will be equipped with an explanatory note. Submission of draft report: mid august.



ANNEX 4: REFERENCES ACP Fish II: Report on the 2nd Regional Action Plan Workshop for Eastern Africa in Dar es Salaam Tanzania 21 – 22 October 2010. ACP Fish II RFU for Eastern Africa, Kampala, October 2010.

ACP secretariat: Module 3: Improving Industry Compliance. Final Report and Sixth Quarterly Report’ By Module Coordinator Bent Larsen, SFP-‐ACP Programme, Brussels, November 2010

ACP secretariat: ‘Prerequisite Programmes Manual, The foundation for HACCP’, by Dr. John Ryder, SFP-‐ACP programme, Brussels, November 2010

African Union, African Development Bank, Economic Commission for Africa: Assessing Regional Integration in Africa (ARIA IV). Economic Commission for Africa, 2010. www.uneca.org/aria4

Ardjosoediro, Ingrid and David Neven: The Kenya Capture Fisheries Value Chain: An AMAP-‐FSKG Value Chain Finance Case Study. microREPORT #122, USAID, Washington DC, October 2008.

Bank of Uganda/Uganda Bureau of Statistics: The informal cross border trade survey report 2008. Kampala, July 2009.

Baumüller, Heike: Mapping of Africa’s International Fisheries Trade – Trends and opportunities. Draft 2, March 2011. To be published by The African Union, NEPAD, Chatham House and INFOSA.

Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements: Imrpoving traceability for fish products imported into the EU markets to combat IUU fishing: Issues for ACP fishing communities. CFFA, June 2007.

Commissioner of Fisheries (Uganda): Department of Fisheries Resources Presentation. Presentation at the regional conference on “Prospects for Lake Victoria Nile Perch Exporting Companies – National and Regional Issues, Capacities and Plans”, Nairobi, Kenya, 10th March 2011.

European Community: Agreement Establishing a Framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between The East African Community Partner States on one part and The European Community and itsa Member States on the other part. EU, Brussels, 2007.

FAO: Vue general du secteur des pêche national: République Démocratique du Congo. Fisheries Country Profile FID/CP/RDC, FAO, Rome, August 2009.

FAO: National Fisheries Sector Overview: Kenya. Fisheries Country Profile FID/CP/KEN, FAO, Rome, April 2007.

FAO: National Fisheries Sector Overview: The Republic of Sudan. Fisheries Country Profile FID/CP/URT, FAO, Rome, February 2008.

FAO: National Fisheries Sector Overview: The United Republic of Tanzania. Fisheries Country Profile FID/CP/URT, FAO, Rome, December 2007.

FAO: Profils des pêche et de l’agriculture: Rwanda. FAO, Rome, 2007.

Government of Rwanda: Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda No. 03/09. Kigali, Rwanda, 20 April 2009.

Guda, Tom: Nile Perch Fisheries: BMU Perspective. Presentation at the regional conference on “Prospects for Lake Victoria Nile Perch Exporting Companies – National and Regional Issues, Capacities and Plans”, Nairobi, Kenya, 10th March 2011.

Gudmundsson, Eyjolfur and Frank Asche and Max Nielsen: Revenue distribution through the seafood value chain. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1019, FIIU/C 1019, FAO, Rome, 2006

Kayungi, Japheth: Effectiveness of Slot Size Self Monitoring. Presentation at the regional conference on “Prospects for Lake Victoria Nile Perch Exporting Companies – National and Regional Issues, Capacities and Plans”, Nairobi, Kenya, 10th March 2011.



Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization: LVFO Regional Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing on Lake Victoria and its Basin. LVFO, Jinja, Uganda, May 2004.

Little, Peter D.: Unofficial Cross-‐Border Trade in Eastern Africa. Paper presented at the FAO workshop on “Staple Food Trade and Market Policy Options for Promoting Development in Eastern and Southern Africa”, March 1 – 2, 2007. FAO, Rome, 2007.

Mkumbo, Olivia (Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization): Sustainability and Management of Nile Perch: Stock Measurement and Prognosis. Presentation at the regional conference on “Prospects for Lake Victoria Nile Perch Exporting Companies – National and Regional Issues, Capacities and Plans”, Nairobi, Kenya, 10th March 2011.

Mngulwi, Baraka: Tanzania Fisheries Status and Prospects. Presentation at the regional conference on “Prospects for Lake Victoria Nile Perch Exporting Companies – National and Regional Issues, Capacities and Plans”, Nairobi, Kenya, 10th March 2011.

National Bank of Rwanda and National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda: Informal Cross Border Trade Survey Report. Kigali, August 2010.

Nyeko, Joyce Ikwaput: Co-‐management and value chains: The role of Nile perch exports in poverty eradication in Lake Victoria fishing communities. The United Nations University, Reykjavik, Iceland, 2004.

Obadha, Michael and Peter Nzungi (Ministry of Fisheries Development, Kenya): National Views on the State of Fisheries in Kenya. Presentation at the regional conference on “Prospects for Lake Victoria Nile Perch Exporting Companies – National and Regional Issues, Capacities and Plans”, Nairobi, Kenya, 10th March 2011.

Pollard, Iain: Value chain analysis of the Lake Victoria Nile perch fishery. Report financed by the European Union. Project no. ACP ROR 029. July 2008.

Purvis, John: Report on the Regional Needs Assessment Workshop for Eastern Africa December 1st and 2nd, 2009. ACP Fish II, December 2009.

Purvis, John and Koane Mindjimba: Regional Action Plan. Published by ACP Fish II Eastern Africa RFU, Kampala, Uganda. October 2010.

Schuurhuizen, Ronald, and Aad van Tilburg and Emma Kambewa: Fish in Kenya: The Nile perch chain. Chapter 13 in: R. Ruben et al.: Agro-‐food chains and networks for development. Springer, The Netherlands, 2006.

Standing, André: Corruption and industrial fishing in Africa. Anti-‐Corruption Resource Centre, Chr. Michelsens Institute, Issue no. U4 Issue 2008:7. Bergen, Norway, 2008.

Trademark Southern Africa: Trade Facilitation in the COMESA-‐EAC-‐SADC Tripartite Free Trade Area. Mark Pearson, Director Trademark SA, South Africa. September 2011 -‐ Draft Paper

Tumwebaze, Rhoda: Regional Trade in undersized fish. Presentation at the regional conference on “Prospects for Lake Victoria Nile Perch Exporting Companies – National and Regional Issues, Capacities and Plans”, Nairobi, Kenya, 10th March 2011.

Uahengo, Loide: CFC/FAO/COMESA Project on the Production and Marketing of Value Added Fisheries Products in Eastern and Southern Africa. INFOSA, Windhoek, 2005.

United Nations Commission for Africa: Assessing Regional Integration in Africa IV: Enhancing Intra-‐African Trade. Published jointly by Economic Commission for Africa, African Union and African Development Bank. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, May 2010.

UNIDO/UNCTAD: Economic Development In Africa Report 2011 -‐ Fostering Industrial Development in Africa in the New Global Environment’. Joint work between UNCTAD and UNIDO, Vienna. July 2011



ANNEX 5: COUNTRY STUDIES Burundi Burundi: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Tilapias and other cichlids 390 370 350 331 330

Miscellaneous freshwater fishes 14,610 15,580 16,550 17,635 17,570

TOTAL 15,000 15,950 16,900 17,966 17,900

Source: FAO FishStat J Burundi: fish exports 2008

Destination Product Code Product Name Kg US$

Germany 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 2,505 67,044

USA 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 3,733 41,986

France 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 834 23,275

United Kingdom 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 1,464 17,687

Belgium 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 462 13,589

Hong Kong 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 517 11,259

China 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 341 7,995

Sweden 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 242 7,326

Netherlands 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 396 5,971

South Africa 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 110 5,434

Kenya 30110 Live fish.-‐ Ornamental fish 187 3,208

Congo DR 30219 Fish, fresh or chilled, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 03.04.-‐-‐ Other 800 1,251

Belgium 30199 Live fish.-‐-‐ Other 50 10

TOTAL 11,641 206,034

Source: COMSTAT Burundi fish imports 2008

Partner Product Code Product Name Kg US$

Tanzania 30219 Fish, fresh or chilled, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 03.04.-‐-‐ Other 300 551.2111

Uganda 30261

Fish, fresh or chilled, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 03.04.-‐-‐ Sardines (Sardina pilchardus, Sardinops spp.), sardinella (Sardinella spp.), brisling or sprats (Sprattus sprattus) 510 281.8327

Belgium 30263 Fish, fresh or chilled, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 03.04.-‐-‐ Coalfish (Pollachius virens) 231 1496.736

United Arab Emirates 30371

Fish, frozen, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 03.04.-‐-‐ Sardines (Sardina pilchardus, Sardinops spp.), sardinella (Sardinella spp.), brisling or sprats (Sprattus sprattus) 100 53.318

Belgium 30541

Fish, dried, salted or in brine; smoked fish, whether or not cooked before or during the smoking process; flours, meals and pellets of fish, fit for human 309 2171.474



consumption.-‐-‐ Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, Oncorhynchus keta, Oncorh

Belgium 30613

Crustaceans, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; crustaceans, in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, whether or not chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; flours, meals and pellets of crusta 590 2796.31

Belgium 30623

Crustaceans, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; crustaceans, in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, whether or not chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; flours, meals and pellets of crusta 176 713.2812

Belgium 30739

Molluscs, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; aquatic invertebrates other than crustaceans and molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; flours, meals and pellets of aquatic invertebra 200 2192.576


Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐-‐ Sardines, sardinella and brisling or sprats 2268 829.7768

Canada 160413


Italy 160413


Belgium 160414

Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐-‐ Tunas, skipjack and bonito (Sarda spp.) 1660 901.6972

Italy 160414

Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐-‐ Tunas, skipjack and bonito (Sarda spp.) 30 15.46479

Belgium 160416 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐-‐ Anchovies 123 727.2509

Italy 160416 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐-‐ Anchovies 6 24.05205

Belgium 160419 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐-‐ Other 31 199.5225

Italy 160419 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐-‐ Other 14813 10920.85

Belgium 160420

Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐ Other prepared or preserved fish 47 231.2782

TOTAL 39548 35434.42

Source: COMSTAT Burundi: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 0 0 0 0 -‐ -‐ -‐

Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen 162 173 214 228 207

TOTAL 162 173 214 228 207

Source: FAO FishStat J Burundi: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000



Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 2 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 2 1 2 8 6

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 0 0 0 0 14 2 -‐

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 3 3 4 6 2


Fish, prepared or preserved 40 21 29 19 25

Inedible 49 1 -‐ -‐ -‐

Meals 18 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Oils ... ... ... ... 1

Sponges, corals, shells -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

TOTAL 125 37 138 41 36

Source: FAO FishStat J Burundi: fish imports by trading partner 2008

Country Kg US$ % of volume % of value

Belgium 3,367 11,430 8.5% 32.3%

Canada 18,144 11,319 45.9% 31.9%

Italy 14,859 10,969 37.6% 31.0%

UAR 2,368 883 6.0% 2.5%

Tanzania 300 551 0.8% 1.6%

Uganda 510 282 1.3% 0.8%

TOTAL 39,548 35,434 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT



Comoros Comoros: total fisheries production Volume in tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Miscellaneous freshwater fishes -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Flounders, halibuts, soles -‐ -‐ -‐ 94 -‐

Miscellaneous coastal fishes -‐ -‐ 122 206 -‐

Herrings, sardines, anchovies 1,950 1,950 3,183 5,047 2,250

Tunas, bonitos, billfishes 10,870 10,870 11,481 15,283 15,008

Miscellaneous pelagic fishes 830 830 3,015 6,457 900

Sharks, rays, chimaeras 175 175 183 244 244

Marine fishes not identified 1,225 1,225 1,672 2,630 2,020

Lobsters, spiny-‐rock lobsters 20 20 20 28 28

Miscellaneous marine molluscs -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

TOTAL 15,070 15,070 19,676 29,989 20,450

Source: FAO FishStat J Comoros: fish exports by destination

Destination Kg US$ % of volume % of value

Kuwait 450 2,088 75.0% 79.2%

Jamaica 150 549 25.0% 20.8%

TOTAL 600 2,637 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Comoros: fish imports by origin

Partner Tonnes US$ % of volume % of value

Morocco 376,262 832,107 12.9% 39.3%

France 250,033 559,259 8.6% 26.4%

Mauritius 255,429 361,717 8.8% 17.1%

UAE 69,691 118,753 2.4% 5.6%

Madagascar 99,549 98,735 3.4% 4.7%

Brazil 26,891 55,807 0.9% 2.6%

Indonesia 1,800,000 49,439 61.8% 2.3%

Thailand 21,150 32,548 0.7% 1.5%

Tanzania 2,986 3,238 0.1% 0.2%

China 8,225 3,105 0.3% 0.1%

Reunion 270 821 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 2,910,486 2,115,529 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Comoros: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 7 ... ... ... 14

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved ... 0 0 -‐ -‐ -‐

Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐



Fish, prepared or preserved -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


TOTAL 7 0 0 0 14

Source: FAO FishStat J Comoros: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants ... ... 0 0 -‐ -‐

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 -‐

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved -‐ 0 0 -‐ -‐ -‐




Meals -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


TOTAL 859 709 735 463 1392




DR Congo Congo DR: total production Volume in tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Tilapias and other cichlids 2,959 2,960 2,960 2,960 2,960


Flounders, halibuts, soles 110 120 120 120 120

Cods, hakes, haddocks -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Miscellaneous coastal fishes 760 810 840 840 840

Miscellaneous demersal fishes 110 120 120 120 120


Miscellaneous pelagic fishes 1,020 850 660 660 660

Sharks, rays, chimaeras 2,000 2,400 2,760 2,760 2,760

Marine fishes not identified 400 400 300 300 300

TOTAL 239,605 239,558 238,970 238,970 238,970

Source: FAO FishStat J Table 10: Total fish production of the Democratic Republic of Congo Volume in tonnes

Fishing area 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inland waters 227,433 233,800 230,365 231,772 230,840 230,588 230,000 230,000 230,000

Marine 5,000 5,200 5,400 5,600 5,800 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000

Aquaculture 2,744 2,965 2,965 2,965 2,965 2,970 2,970 2,970 2,970

TOTAL 235,177 241,965 238,730 240,337 239,605 239,558 238,970 238,970 238,970

Source: FAO FishStat DR Congo: fish imports by origin

Origin KG US$ % of volume % of value

Namibia 0 35,682,654 Na 51.9%

Norway 0 26,701,063 Na 38.8%

Netherlands 0 1,612,833 Na 2.3%

Zambia 1,758,914 1,024,547 Na 1.5%

Zimbabwe 441,328 544,098 Na 0.8%

Belgium 0 486,371 Na 0.7%

China 0 451,054 Na 0.7%

Canada 0 441,637 Na 0.6%

South Africa 0 385,968 Na 0.6%

Peru 0 284,940 Na 0.4%

New Zealand 0 259,087 Na 0.4%

United Kingdom 0 239,949 Na 0.3%

Portugal 0 216,568 Na 0.3%

USA 0 135,894 Na 0.2%

Rwanda 288,087 95,965 Na 0.1%

Uganda 40,529 69,490 Na 0.1%

Brazil 0 57,778 Na 0.1%

Kenya 11,284 42,979 Na 0.1%



Germany 0 11,000 Na 0.0%

Serbia and Monetenegro 0 7,669 Na 0.0%

Italy 0 1,946 Na 0.0%

Burundi 800 1,376 Na 0.0%

Senegal 0 2,952 Na 0.0%

TOTAL -‐ 68,757,817 Na 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT DR Congo: fish exports by destination

Partner Kg US$ % of volume % of value

Japan 0 133,285 30.5%

USA 0 121,139 27.8%

Belgium 0 62,295 14.3%

Hong Kong 0 35,253 8.1%

UK 0 29,705 6.8%

Germany 0 25,200 5.8%

Rwanda 51,250 23,696 5.4%

South Africa 0 3,443 0.8%

Serbia and Monetenegro 0 2,275 0.5%

Uganda 20 33 0.0%

Canada 0 31 0.0%

TOTAL 51,270 436,355 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT DR Congo: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 8 ... 5 1 1

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 28 ... ... 0 0 -‐

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 5 73 30 0 0 25


Fish, prepared or preserved ... ... ... 0 0 0 0

Inedible -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

TOTAL 446 419 393 402 391

Source: FAO FishStat J DR Congo: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 9 ... 0 0 1 -‐






Inedible ... 2 2 5 0 0



Meals 15 328 10 11 127

Oils 9 16 ... 2 -‐

Sponges, corals, shells -‐ -‐ 0 0 -‐ -‐

TOTAL 45,437 54,778 62,475 71,040 88,769


Djibouti Djibouti: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Miscellaneous coastal fishes 575 431 419 410 438

Tunas, bonitos, billfishes 134 406 400 292 182

Miscellaneous pelagic fishes 336 311 326 376 324


Lobsters, spiny-‐rock lobsters -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Squids, cuttlefishes, octopuses -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

TOTAL 1,571 1,299 1,229 1,206 1,058

Source: FAO FishStat J Djibouti: fish exports by destination 2008


Taiwan 50,000 28,459 19.3% 62.8%

Ethiopia 200,565 10,777 77.4% 23.8%

Ukraine 355 3,063 0.1% 6.8%

Singapore 4,266 1,859 1.6% 4.1%

Hong Kong 4,000 1,138 1.5% 2.5%

TOTAL 259,186 45,296 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Djibouti: fish imports by origin 2008


France 77,563 4,877,468 15.4% 70.1%

Thailand 223,078 720,280 44.3% 10.4%

Italy 28,855 658,059 5.7% 9.5%

USA 50,259 482,896 10.0% 6.9%

Singapore 66,421 156,454 13.2% 2.2%

Ukraine 2,523 34,163 0.5% 0.5%

UAE 52,026 20,930 10.3% 0.3%

Yemen 556 6,182 0.1% 0.1%

Somalia 2,280 2,248 0.5% 0.0%

TOTAL 503,561 6,958,681 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Djibouti: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008



Aquatic plants ... ... 1 -‐ -‐


Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 2 1 83 -‐ -‐

Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen ... ... ... 0 0 10

Fish, prepared or preserved ... 5 8 -‐ -‐

Inedible ... ... 7 8 -‐

Sponges, corals, shells ... ... 8 ... 1

TOTAL 57 24 142 156 101

Source: FAO FishStat J Djibouti: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants ... 22 ... 0 0 -‐



Fish, dried, salted, or smoked ... 65 60 38 108


Fish, prepared or preserved 963 972 2,091 1,824 1,764

Meals 6 ... ... 5 -‐

Oils -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

TOTAL 1,127 1,343 2,300 1,954 2,239




Eritrea Eritrea: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Miscellaneous diadromous fishes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

Flounders, halibuts, soles 20 85 1 0 0 15

Miscellaneous coastal fishes 3,231 5,810 376 246 1,044

Herrings, sardines, anchovies 0 0 293 ... ... ...

Tunas, bonitos, billfishes 95 240 929 1,085 1,213

Miscellaneous pelagic fishes 380 1,434 372 179 365


Marine fishes not identified 6 3 1 2 0 0

Crabs, sea-‐spiders ... 15 ... ... ...

Lobsters, spiny-‐rock lobsters 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Shrimps, prawns 235 547 112 38 219

Squids, cuttlefishes, octopuses 35 154 22 ... 0 0

Pearls, mother-‐of-‐pearl, shells -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

TOTAL 4,027 8,813 1,932 1,665 3,030

Source: FAO FishStat J Eritrea: fish imports by origin 2008


Yemen 0 74,195 77.5%

Netherlands 0 17,831 18.6%

UK 0 2,058 2.1%

Italy 0 1,663 1.7%

TOTAL 0 95,747 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Eritrea: fish exports by destination 2008 Source: COMSTAT


Taiwan 0 451,888 64.4%

Italy 0 53,315 7.6%

UK 0 45,322 6.5%

Germany 0 41,400 5.9%

Israel 0 40,500 5.8%

Japan 0 31,692 4.5%

USA 0 14,555 2.1%

Greece 0 8,084 1.2%

Poland 0 5,444 0.8%

Canada 0 3,380 0.5%

Austria 0 3,370 0.5%

Denmark 0 2,200 0.3%

TOTAL 0 701,149 100.0%



Source: COMSTAT Eritrea: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 1 21 -‐ -‐ -‐

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 514 922 672 1,287 613

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked ... ... 0 0 2 -‐


Inedible 4 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Sponges, corals, shells 62 51 -‐ 22 -‐

TOTAL 729 1,039 745 1,510 861

Source: FAO FishStat J Eritrea: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 235 ... ... ... 0 0

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 16 25 25 5 -‐

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 4 4 4 7 -‐



Inedible -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Meals 19 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Oils -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

TOTAL 638 191 492 233 315




Ethiopia Ethiopia: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Carps, barbels and other cyprinids 875 1,173 1,956 2,141 2,413



TOTAL 9,475 9,915 13,278 16,795 17,072

Source: FAO FishStat J Ethiopia: fish imports 2008


United Arab Emirates 30219 Fish, fresh or chilled, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 03.04.-‐-‐ Other 1 215

United Arab Emirates 30419 Fish fillets and other fish meat (whether or not minced), fresh, chilled or frozen.-‐-‐ Other 261 3,389

United Arab Emirates 30429 Fish fillets and other fish meat (whether or not minced), fresh, chilled or frozen.-‐-‐ Other 45 1,520


Fish, dried, salted or in brine; smoked fish, whether or not cooked before or during the smoking process; flours, meals and pellets of fish, fit for human consumption.-‐ Fish fillets, dried, salted or in brine, but not smoked 183 3,002


Fish, dried, salted or in brine; smoked fish, whether or not cooked before or during the smoking process; flours, meals and pellets of fish, fit for human consumption.-‐-‐ Other 2,181 6,950


Crustaceans, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; crustaceans, in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, whether or not chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; flours, meals and pellets of crusta 4,411 25,328


Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐-‐ Sardines, sardinella and brisling or sprats 1,650 2,407

United Arab Emirates 160419 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐-‐ Other 20 720

United Arab Emirates 160430 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐ Caviar and caviar substitutes 170 13,333

United Arab Emirates 160520 Crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates, prepared or preserved.-‐ Shrimps and prawns 502 13,620

TOTAL 9,424 70,485

Source: COMSTAT Ethiopia: fish exports 2008


Sudan 30419 Fish fillets and other fish meat (whether or not minced), fresh, chilled or frozen.-‐-‐ Other 6,000 17,821

Sudan 30429 Fish fillets and other fish meat (whether or not minced), fresh, chilled or frozen.-‐-‐ Other 20,988 33,946

Sudan 30499 Fish fillets and other fish meat (whether or not minced), fresh, chilled or frozen.-‐-‐ Other 6 48

Sudan 30530 Fish, dried, salted or in brine; smoked fish, whether or not cooked before or during the smoking process; flours, meals and pellets of fish, fit for human 5,500 3,323



consumption.-‐ Fish fillets, dried, salted or in brine, but not smoked

Sudan 30569

Fish, dried, salted or in brine; smoked fish, whether or not cooked before or during the smoking process; flours, meals and pellets of fish, fit for human consumption.-‐-‐ Other 361,200 338,668

TOTAL 393,694 393,806

Source: COMSTAT Ethiopia: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. ... ... ... 6 -‐


Fish, dried, salted, or smoked ... ... 158 437 342


Fish, prepared or preserved ... ... ... 0 0 -‐

Inedible -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


TOTAL 100 121 384 863 508

Source: FAO FishStat J Ethiopia: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 2 8 4 5 37


Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 0 0 1 1 12 42



Fish, prepared or preserved 226 444 888 647 1,246

Inedible ... 1 -‐ -‐ -‐

Meals -‐ -‐ -‐ 1 65

Oils 42 66 10 10 0 0


TOTAL 398 623 1,080 898 1,857




Kenya Table 9: Kenya’s total fish production Volume in tonnes

Fishing area 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inland waters 156,763 137,792 113,221 119,093 140,199 151,729 124,327 127,097 133,286

Marine 7,648 6,991 7,095 7,972 7,312 7,166 7,646 8,509 6,270

Aquaculture 1,009 798 1,012 1,035 1,047 1,012 4,240 4,452 4,895

TOTAL 165,420 145,581 121,328 128,100 148,558 159,907 136,213 140,058 144,451

Source: FAO FishStat Kenya: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Carps, barbels and other cyprinids 54,964 59,376 50,797 49,813 52,471



Salmons, trouts, smelts 72 66 94 98 80

Miscellaneous coastal fishes 1,319 1,391 1,366 1,598 1,222

Miscellaneous demersal fishes 1,211 1,286 2,196 2,514 1,130

Herrings, sardines, anchovies 112 138 147 142 121


Miscellaneous pelagic fishes 1,344 1,276 1,382 1,535 1,121


Marine fishes not identified 1,401 1,297 678 619 1,139

Freshwater crustaceans 20 18 19 19 16

Crabs, sea-‐spiders 124 110 137 148 97


Shrimps, prawns 162 158 307 219 139

Miscellaneous marine crustaceans 58 57 81 75 50

Oysters 28 38 11 33 33

Squids, cuttlefishes, octopuses 405 378 402 453 331

Turtles -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Sea-‐urchins and other echinoderms 19 18 17 33 16

Pearls, mother-‐of-‐pearl, shells 207 211 198 208 161

TOTAL 148,558 159,907 136,213 140,058 144,451

Source: FAO FishStat J Kenya: fish exports by major commodity group Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Abalones, winkles, conchs -‐ 0 0 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Cods, hakes, haddocks ... 39 0 0 0 0 3 12 133 44

Corals ... 68 115 162 108 154 166 207

Crabs, sea-‐spiders ... ... 48 50 27 172 108 368

Flounders, halibuts, soles 81 1 28 13 6 4 63 57



Freshwater crustaceans 6 7 ... ... -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Herrings, sardines, anchovies 103 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 615 0 0 21

Lobsters, spiny-‐rock lobsters ... ... 2,370 1,324 118 11 214 680

Marine fishes not identified 5,975 7,419 11,875 20,965 21,228 22,963 40,310 54,733

Misc aquatic mammals ... ... ... ... 4 -‐ -‐ 5

Misc aquatic plants ... ... 0 0 ... 18 1 1 -‐

Misc demersal fishes ... ... ... ... ... ... 24 -‐

Misc freshwater fishes 40,107 46,342 39,190 27,586 35,954 27,877 14,682 ...

Misc marine crustaceans 2,016 855 147 139 28 4 63 6

Misc marine molluscs 44 175 31 19 93 107 1 3

Misc pelagic fishes ... 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... 0 0

Mussels ... ... 0 0 -‐ 18 10 -‐ -‐

Oysters ... ... 0 0 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

River eels ... ... 0 0 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Salmons, trouts, smelts 10 11 53 29 170 408 971 52

Scallops, pectens ... ... 12 1 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Sea-‐urchins and other echinoderms -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Sharks, rays, chimaeras ... ... ... ... 9 ... 346 -‐

Shrimps, prawns 389 465 1,396 1,295 2,291 2,110 746 572

Sponges ... ... ... ... 8 0 0 ... -‐

Squids, cuttlefishes, octopuses 443 863 2,345 1,513 1,764 1,456 1,291 1,594

Tunas, bonitos, billfishes 7 18 24 46 26 34 2,750 17,252

TOTAL 49,181 56,263 57,706 53,142 61,873 55,938 61,869 75,594

Source: FAO FishStat J Kenya: fish exports by destination 2008

Partner Kg US$ %of volume % of value

Israel 4,321,726 18,852,835 31.0% 32.7%

Netherlands 1,897,014 8,183,241 13.6% 14.2%

Portugal 1,327,848 4,905,411 9.5% 8.5%

Italy 1,053,397 4,419,279 7.5% 7.7%

Hong Kong 515,847 3,002,020 3.7% 5.2%

UAE 617,726 2,476,822 4.4% 4.3%

Australia 538,362 2,120,179 3.9% 3.7%

USA 442,230 1,980,744 3.2% 3.4%

Greece 379,380 1,513,752 2.7% 2.6%

Germany 364,429 1,351,087 2.6% 2.3%

Japan 292,477 1,332,078 2.1% 2.3%

France 320,401 1,274,074 2.3% 2.2%

China 253,175 1,126,181 1.8% 2.0%

Belgium 277,013 1,057,688 2.0% 1.8%

Denmark 260,492 973,302 1.9% 1.7%

Spain 224,682 959,221 1.6% 1.7%

Cyprus 86,508 301,107 0.6% 0.5%

South Africa 95,954 269,576 0.7% 0.5%

Malta 84,209 220,498 0.6% 0.4%



Singapore 87,224 188,128 0.6% 0.3%

Malaysia 49,020 172,186 0.4% 0.3%

Sudan 59,393 163,846 0.4% 0.3%

Tanzania 104,120 161,744 0.7% 0.3%

Uganda 67,154 104,031 0.5% 0.2%

Reunion 19,800 101,372 0.1% 0.2%

Romania 26,004 90,400 0.2% 0.2%

Ethiopia 15,770 80,779 0.1% 0.1%

Bahrain 16,008 55,385 0.1% 0.1%

Poland 12,500 42,004 0.1% 0.1%

Egypt 11,840 41,308 0.1% 0.1%

Rwanda 4,600 40,313 0.0% 0.1%

Congo DR 11,284 39,072 0.1% 0.1%

UK 47,929 35,064 0.3% 0.1%

Niger 8,004 32,392 0.1% 0.1%

Slovakia 52,032 20,676 0.4% 0.0%

Canada 4,738 16,943 0.0% 0.0%

Austria 3,580 3,537 0.0% 0.0%

Switzerland 2,924 2,927 0.0% 0.0%

Taiwan 1,200 1,343 0.0% 0.0%

Hungary 1,128 1,089 0.0% 0.0%

Georgia 184 256 0.0% 0.0%

Korea 250 198 0.0% 0.0%

Norway 780 732 0.0% 0.0%

Quatar 220 611 0.0% 0.0%

Somalia 251 507 0.0% 0.0%

Sweden 310 251 0.0% 0.0%

Philippines 100 106 0.0% 0.0%

Saudi Arabia 23 37 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 13,961,240 57,716,336 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Kenya: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants ... 18 1 1 -‐


Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved ... ... 2 3 2



Fish, prepared or preserved 78 5 14 2,486 16,925

Inedible 166 800 374 233 75

Meals 1 0 0 -‐ 183 365

Oils ... 4 ... 87 52


TOTAL 53,142 61,873 55,938 61,869 75,594



Source: FAO FishStat J Kenya: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008







Inedible 1,079 1,351 1,967 2,549 3,607

Meals 55 16 30 81 239

Oils 24 13 78 116 202

Sponges, corals, shells 0 0 0 0 2 ... -‐

TOTAL 5,112 7,329 8,108 11,189 9,937

Source: FAO FishStat J Kenya: fish imports by origin 2008

Partner NetW Amount % of volume % of value

Argentina 73,061 37,925 67.4% 64.8%

UAE 34,995 18,892 32.3% 32.3%

Belgium 398 1,741 0.4% 3.0%

TOTAL 108,454 58,558 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT



Madagascar Madagascar total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009




Salmons, trouts, smelts 0 0 0 0 0 0 -‐ -‐

Miscellaneous demersal fishes ... ... ... ... ...




Crabs, sea-‐spiders 1,525 1,600 1,375 1,375 2,585


Shrimps, prawns 16,060 17,845 25,061 14,683 10,590

Miscellaneous marine crustaceans -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Squids, cuttlefishes, octopuses 900 1,000 1,000 850 930

Miscellaneous marine molluscs 400 400 400 350 380

Turtles -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


Pearls, mother-‐of-‐pearl, shells ... ... ... ... ...

Red seaweeds 6,125 10,600 7,300 7,300 7,200

TOTAL 148,169 155,526 166,371 138,600 144,599

Source: FAO FishStat J Madagascar: fish imports by origin 2008


Spain 1,819,738 3,170,775 49.9% 50.7%

France 979,893 1,717,955 26.9% 27.5%

Seychelles 345,679 442,777 9.5% 7.1%

South Africa 135,644 299,913 3.7% 4.8%

Mauritius 87,606 139,232 2.4% 2.2%

Chile 69,645 123,567 1.9% 2.0%

Morocco 61,761 68,398 1.7% 1.1%

Thailand 61,760 68,363 1.7% 1.1%

Lebanon 16,494 59,848 0.5% 1.0%

Japan 15,415 57,691 0.4% 0.9%

Portugal 40,659 43,211 1.1% 0.7%

China 5,564 17,703 0.2% 0.3%

Equador 826 12,194 0.0% 0.2%

Canada 1,971 10,358 0.1% 0.2%

Denmark 328 3,842 0.0% 0.1%

Italy 2,581 3,818 0.1% 0.1%

Indonesia 218 3,635 0.0% 0.1%



Vietnam 346 3,475 0.0% 0.1%

Switzerland 360 2,922 0.0% 0.0%

Norway 120 2,419 0.0% 0.0%

Unspecified 273 1,390 0.0% 0.0%

Belgium 50 894 0.0% 0.0%

USA 54 598 0.0% 0.0%

Netherlands 60 262 0.0% 0.0%

Algeria 19 139 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 3,647,063 6,255,380 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Madagascar: fish imports by origin 2008


France 9,566,461 86,586,292 77.9% 83.8%

Netherlands 331,724 2,805,456 2.7% 2.7%

Japan 282,419 2,756,476 2.3% 2.7%

Reunion 476,024 2,756,215 3.9% 2.7%

Spain 218,924 1,617,396 1.8% 1.6%

Belgium 262,822 1,179,848 2.1% 1.1%

Hong Kong 142,237 1,055,479 1.2% 1.0%

Mauritius 301,408 1,054,591 2.5% 1.0%

UK 191,123 857,491 1.6% 0.8%

Portugal 133,987 772,265 1.1% 0.7%

Italy 148,874 535,249 1.2% 0.5%

Martinique 66,588 250,447 0.5% 0.2%

Comoros 31,860 174,558 0.3% 0.2%

South Africa 26,243 114,686 0.2% 0.1%

Antigua and Barbuda 10,500 100,403 0.1% 0.1%

Guadeloupe 24,000 95,207 0.2% 0.1%

Canada 1,397 42,938 0.0% 0.0%

Switzerland 1,128 37,475 0.0% 0.0%

Egypt 3,050 31,853 0.0% 0.0%

UAE 4,112 27,437 0.0% 0.0%

Seychelles 45 26,809 0.0% 0.0%

China 3,050 20,116 0.0% 0.0%

Malaysia 414 15,078 0.0% 0.0%

Vietnam 276 13,747 0.0% 0.0%

Germany 10,194 5,781 0.1% 0.0%

Singapore 715 4,560 0.0% 0.0%

Mayotte 50 1,029 0.0% 0.0%

Korea 100 523 0.0% 0.0%

Unspecified 43,814 390,887 0.4% 0.4%

TOTAL 12,283,539 103,330,292 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Madagascar: seafood exports



Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 50 227 496 667 893


Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 7 194 496 1,109 1,336




Inedible 1 2 18 25 19

Meals -‐ 83 328 234 ...

Oils -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


TOTAL 73,499 132,840 162,275 186,358 160,537

Source: FAO FishStat J Madagascar: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 3 4,733 1,067 1,487 1,132





Inedible ... 45 294 169 109

Meals 561 99 31 638 575

Oils 0 0 ... 0 0 1 3

Sponges, corals, shells 1 979 1,328 1,118 1,358

TOTAL 14,190 18,791 33,727 58,881 28,093




Malawi Malawi: total production Volume in tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009





Freshwater crustaceans ... ... ... ... ...

TOTAL 60,407 74,287 68,000 71,719 70,945

Source: FAO FishStat J Malawi: fish imports by origin 2088


Tanzania 2,558,161 389,550 79.6% 31.8%

Mozambique 457,320 381,917 14.2% 31.1%

South Africa 62,333 291,264 1.9% 23.8%

Namibia 85,693 110,441 2.7% 9.0%

Indonesia 31,000 22,291 1.0% 1.8%

Kenya 10,000 14,721 0.3% 1.2%

Thailand 4,358 12,669 0.1% 1.0%

France 40 1,817 0.0% 0.1%

UK 42 501 0.0% 0.0%

Canada 2,250 464 0.1% 0.0%

UAE 274 428 0.0% 0.0%

China 284 253 0.0% 0.0%

Papua New Guinea 75 40 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 3,211,829 1,226,356 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Malawi: fish exports by destination 2008 Source: COMSTAT


Zambia 11,500 5,550 34.5% 1.9%

Germany 6,964 84,999 20.9% 29.0%

South Africa 2,911 16,183 8.7% 5.5%

UK 2,575 27,535 7.7% 9.4%

France 2,442 50,558 7.3% 17.2%

Denmark 2,146 27,822 6.4% 9.5%

USA 1,505 20,381 4.5% 6.9%

Hong Kong 1,028 22,782 3.1% 7.8%

Sweden 870 15,536 2.6% 5.3%

Japan 570 6,926 1.7% 2.4%

Canada 300 5,064 0.9% 1.7%

Spain 165 4,307 0.5% 1.5%



Belgium 150 3,850 0.4% 1.3%

Italy 240 2,084 0.7% 0.7%

TOTAL 33,366 293,577 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Malawi: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked -‐ 19 29 3 6


Fish, prepared or preserved -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Meals ... 3 -‐ -‐ -‐


TOTAL 78 357 1554 259 294

Source: FAO FishStat J Malawi: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants ... ... 1 ... 3

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 2 1 1 0 0 0 0





Inedible ... ... ... 0 0 -‐

Meals 492 148 314 208 542

Oils -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Sponges, corals, shells ... 0 0 -‐ -‐ -‐

TOTAL 1,017 480 1,384 1,208 1,765




Mauritius Mauritius: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Carps, barbels and other cyprinids -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Tilapias and other cichlids 15 17 12 56 99

Cods, hakes, haddocks 259 139 428 255 210


Herrings, sardines, anchovies -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


Miscellaneous pelagic fishes 52 25 18 21 29



Freshwater crustaceans 8 3 5 5 4

Crabs, sea-‐spiders 22 4 4 5 6

Lobsters, spiny-‐rock lobsters 18 8 ... 12 6

Shrimps, prawns 1 ... ... ... ...

Oysters 4 3 1 2 3


Sea-‐urchins and other echinoderms ... 340 620 95 100

TOTAL 10,255 9,124 8,272 6,888 8,113

Source: FAO FishStat J Mauritius: fish imports by origin 2008


% of volume % of value

UAE 30339 Fish, frozen, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 03.04.-‐-‐ Other

10,960 30,390 5.7% 4.0%

UAE 30379

Fish, frozen, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 03.04.-‐-‐ Other 165,440 435,852 86.4% 57.7%

UAE

30611

Crustaceans, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; crustaceans, in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, whether or not chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; flours, meals and pellets of crusta 7,000 131,100 3.7% 17.4%

UAE

30612

Crustaceans, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; crustaceans, in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, whether or not chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine; flours, meals and pellets of crusta 8,100 157,796 4.2% 20.9%

UAE

160414

Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs.-‐-‐ Tunas, skipjack and bonito (Sarda spp.) 10 152 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL TOTAL 191,510 755,289 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Mauritius: fish exports by destination 2008




UK 26,669,269 129,742,374 53.6% 60.1%

Italy 11,469,972 39,250,220 23.1% 18.2%

Spain 6,859,029 24,228,660 13.8% 11.2%

France 1,291,855 6,473,371 2.6% 3.0%

Netherlands 1,014,711 3,968,350 2.0% 1.8%

Belgium 655,500 3,358,862 1.3% 1.6%

Portugal 317,931 1,710,332 0.6% 0.8%

Poland 424,316 1,652,366 0.9% 0.8%

Germany 237,867 1,138,319 0.5% 0.5%

Greece 174,013 923,532 0.3% 0.4%

Reunion 88,185 734,299 0.2% 0.3%

Finland 181,326 699,708 0.4% 0.3%

Austria 105,051 573,615 0.2% 0.3%

Denmark 94,448 404,560 0.2% 0.2%

USA 67,424 285,937 0.1% 0.1%

Hong Kong 36,005 220,630 0.1% 0.1%

Malta 30,176 153,157 0.1% 0.1%

South Africa 18,091 99,832 0.0% 0.0%

Taiwan 1,254 25,433 0.0% 0.0%

Mayotte 3,739 17,706 0.0% 0.0%

Australia 2,095 16,653 0.0% 0.0%

Switzerland 930 15,044 0.0% 0.0%

Canada 435 3,216 0.0% 0.0%

UAE 676 4,927 0.0% 0.0%

Ghana 1,038 4,708 0.0% 0.0%

Israel 45 4,092 0.0% 0.0%

Madagascar 1,765 662 0.0% 0.0%

Panama 130 605 0.0% 0.0%

Unspecified 150 913 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 49,747,426 215,712,083 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Mauritius: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 1 0 0 -‐ -‐ -‐


Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 4 -‐ 4 33 1




Inedible 21 13 -‐ 70 576

Meals -‐ -‐ 1,582 1,450 434

Oils ... ... ... 3 13

Sponges, corals, shells 84 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐



TOTAL 84,202 109,424 160,250 196,799 214,987

Source: FAO FishStat J Mauritius: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 157 244 240 357 370



Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 459 752 767 812 1,178



Inedible 71 53 1,004 1,983 1,912

Meals 1,383 1,249 1,244 1,330 1,863

Oils 68 7 9 76 49


TOTAL 117,233 146,111 214,748 229,956 306,052




Rwanda Table 13: Rwanda’s total fish production Volume in tonnes

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inland waters 6,828 7,000 7,400 7,826 7,800 8,400 9,050 9,050 9,050

Aquaculture 435 612 1,027 386 386 400 388 388 388

TOTAL 7,263 7,612 8,427 8,212 8,186 8,800 9,438 9,438 9,438

Source: FAO FishStat Rwanda total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Carps, barbels and other cyprinids 30 30 28 28 28



TOTAL 8,186 8,800 9,438 9,438 9,438

Source: FAO FishStat J Rwanda: fish imports by origin 2008


Tanzania 3,217,415 1,599,851 76.6% 76.3%

Uganda 655,482 245,071 15.6% 11.7%

Thailand 165,928 82,485 4.0% 3.9%

Burundi 71,818 73,465 1.7% 3.5%

Congo DR 51,250 26,329 1.2% 1.3%

Morocco 27,219 20,853 0.6% 1.0%

Kenya 2,782 17,357 0.1% 0.8%

Belgium 3,818 11,356 0.1% 0.5%

Netherlands 1,385 8,446 0.0% 0.4%

Denmark 353 4,496 0.0% 0.2%

UAE 1,984 3,594 0.0% 0.2%

Germany 185 1,307 0.0% 0.1%

USA 200 790 0.0% 0.0%

South Africa 117 170 0.0% 0.0%

Andorra 112 122 0.0% 0.0%

Italy 60 94 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 4,200,108 2,095,785 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Rwanda: fish exports by destination 2008


Congo DR 288,087 87,241 85.2% 72.8%

Uganda 50,000 32,537 14.8% 27.2%

TOTAL 338,087 119,778 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Rwanda: seafood exports



Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked ... 0 0 1 2 43

Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen ... 57 ... 19 48

Meals ... ... ... ... 3

TOTAL 0 57 1 21 94


Rwanda: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. ... 3 2 3 4

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 1 ... 0 0 5 0 0

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 5 1 373 2,859 1,645



Inedible ... ... 0 0 -‐ -‐

Meals -‐ -‐ -‐ 1 0 0

Oils ... ... ... 0 0 0 0


TOTAL 28 37 455 3,031 1,787

Source: FAO FishStat J Table 14: Rwanda’s imports by origin and exports by destination 2008 Figures in RWF and % share.

Country Rwanda’s Exports % Rwanda’s Imports %

Burundi 176,162,130 8.31% 221,013,168 23.91%

DRC 1,857,529,181 87.67% 388,585,377 42.03%

Tanzania 925,235 0.04% 10,970,400 1.19%

Uganda 84,203,032 3.97% 303,896,351 32.87%

SUM 2,118,819,578 100.00% 924,465,296 100.00%

Source: Ministry of Trade and Industry: “Brief Note on Cross Border Trade”. Kigali 2009



Seychelles Seychelles: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Cods, hakes, haddocks -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


Miscellaneous demersal fishes 117 128 102 164 126


Miscellaneous pelagic fishes 1,975 1,231 1,375 1,811 938


Marine fishes not identified 135 837 1,154 719 2,254

Crabs, sea-‐spiders 18 48 15 4 0 0

Lobsters, spiny-‐rock lobsters 4 6 4 -‐ 0 0

Shrimps, prawns 772 704 368 289 300


Turtles -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


TOTAL 109,452 93,443 65,888 69,497 81,489

Source: FAO FishStat J Seychelles: fish imports by origin 2008


Spain 17,944,298 32,482,020 57.7% 54.5%

France 12,799,479 24,858,484 41.1% 41.7%

UAE 138,875 621,220 0.4% 1.0%

India 35,535 464,444 0.1% 0.8%

UK 36,153 425,368 0.1% 0.7%

Belgium 92,868 420,146 0.3% 0.7%

Australia 6,346 108,217 0.0% 0.2%

Bangladesh 11,475 65,884 0.0% 0.1%

Ireland 3,100 65,007 0.0% 0.1%

Hong Kong 927 30,680 0.0% 0.1%

Indonesia 1,250 22,803 0.0% 0.0%

Monaco 1,998 8,751 0.0% 0.0%

British Indian Ocean Terr. 270 7,007 0.0% 0.0%

Italy 3,633 4,519 0.0% 0.0%

Sri Lanka 31,200 3,151 0.1% 0.0%

Isle of Man 310 2,836 0.0% 0.0%

Canada 250 2,749 0.0% 0.0%

China 745 2,717 0.0% 0.0%

Israel 311 2,218 0.0% 0.0%

Japan 6,842 1,495 0.0% 0.0%

Korea 36 1,321 0.0% 0.0%



Germany 30 1,077 0.0% 0.0%

Korea DPR 159 918 0.0% 0.0%

Belarus 176 883 0.0% 0.0%

Jamaica 50 761 0.0% 0.0%

Guinea Bissau 10 406 0.0% 0.0%

Malaysia 10 246 0.0% 0.0%

Andorra 18 228 0.0% 0.0%

Mauritius 9,479 155 0.0% 0.0%

Armenia 40 146 0.0% 0.0%

Albania 5 139 0.0% 0.0%

Mexico 12 136 0.0% 0.0%

Antigua and Barbuda 5 88 0.0% 0.0%

Cook Islands 6 62 0.0% 0.0%

Burundi 1 12 0.0% 0.0%

Bahrain 3 9 0.0% 0.0%

Switzerland 20 312 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 31,125,923 59,606,618 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Seychelles: fish exports by destination 2008


France 14,032,515 53,020,722 19.1% 38.6%

UK 20,561,533 42,574,767 28.0% 31.0%

Germany 25,550,280 17,395,653 34.8% 12.7%

Italy 7,017,455 16,054,201 9.6% 11.7%

Netherlands 1,338,318 2,325,715 1.8% 1.7%

Sri Lanka 2,178,909 2,035,997 3.0% 1.5%

Hong Kong 89,632 920,523 0.1% 0.7%

Denmark 116,636 424,626 0.2% 0.3%

Australia 486,153 333,238 0.7% 0.2%

Finland 45,606 307,998 0.1% 0.2%

Russian Federation 511,212 293,016 0.7% 0.2%

Ireland 367,608 272,440 0.5% 0.2%

Ukraine 150,393 211,966 0.2% 0.2%

Mauritius 35,312 204,635 0.0% 0.1%

Reunion 27,514 194,862 0.0% 0.1%

Kazakhstan 44,791 166,561 0.1% 0.1%

Ghana 160,493 153,833 0.2% 0.1%

Israel 140,431 90,776 0.2% 0.1%

Singapore 8,085 80,949 0.0% 0.1%

Philippines 100,308 75,702 0.1% 0.1%

Iceland 20,472 46,037 0.0% 0.0%

South Africa 18,627 45,514 0.0% 0.0%

Greece 180,154 45,403 0.2% 0.0%

Taiwan 1,367 44,301 0.0% 0.0%

Malaysia 110,321 38,378 0.2% 0.0%



Armenia 44,918 30,298 0.1% 0.0%

Spain 11,986 28,477 0.0% 0.0%

Mongolia 22,389 15,158 0.0% 0.0%

Cyprus 19,769 15,158 0.0% 0.0%

Switzerland 9,177 15,152 0.0% 0.0%

Sweden 975 7,103 0.0% 0.0%

UAE 700 5,373 0.0% 0.0%

Korea 80 414 0.0% 0.0%

USA 6 172 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 73,404,126 137,475,117 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Seychelles: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants ... ... ... ... 0 0

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 7,777 5,860 4,598 2,602 576





Inedible ... ... ... ... 0 0

Meals 703 4,854 4,554 4,472 740

Oils -‐ -‐ 226 1,512 3,081

Sponges, corals, shells ... ... ... ... 0 0

TOTAL 180,167 191,901 199,423 197,763 97,155

Source: FAO FishStat J Seychelles: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 943 938 1,323 2,223 2,014





Inedible -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ 1

Meals 976 577 259 220 106

Oils 6 0 0 5 41 0 0


TOTAL 75,821 78,510 95,755 81,959 63,584




Somalia Somalia: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Miscellaneous freshwater fishes 200 200 200 200 200




TOTAL 25,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000

Source: FAO FishStat J Somalia: fish exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 7,178 2,236 2,293 463 2,322




Fish, prepared or preserved 19 ... ... ... 25

Inedible ... ... ... 20 1

Meals 22 73 153 ... 10

Sponges, corals, shells ... 7 62 154 137

TOTAL 9,790 4,592 4,602 3,276 4,597

Source: FAO FishStat J Somalia: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 133 5 98 -‐ -‐

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved ... ... ... ... 0 0

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 4 ... ... 0 0 18


Fish, prepared or preserved 748 827 3,958 91 3,640

Meals 1 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Oils 0 0 ... ... 3 0 0

TOTAL 906 835 4,068 129 3,745




Sudan Table 8: Total fish production in Sudan Volume in tonnes

Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Aquatic Plants ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Marine Fish Fresh 4,887 4,887 4,887 5,387 5,087 4,887 5,586 5,582 5,577

Pelagic Marine Fish Fresh 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34

Demersal Marine Fish Fresh 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79

Freshwater Fish Fresh 54,000 53,600 55,600 59,100 55,400 53,600 61,760 64,900 68,200

Other 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

TOTAL 59,008 58,608 60,608 64,608 60,608 58,608 67,467 70,603 73,898

Source: FAO FishStat J Sudan: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009







Miscellaneous aquatic plants ... ... ... ... ...

TOTAL 60,608 58,608 67,467 70,603 73,898

Source: FAO FishStat J Sudan: fish imports by origin 2008


Thailand 667,791.0 786,324.0 48.8% 40.7%

Saudi Arabia 304,578.0 600,515.0 22.2% 31.1%

Uganda 57,815.0 197,468.0 4.2% 10.2%

Morocco 121,624.0 118,030.0 8.9% 6.1%

UAE 67,989.0 74,661.0 5.0% 3.9%

Ethiopia 28,237.5 54,764.0 2.1% 2.8%

Egypt 54,283.0 34,507.0 4.0% 1.8%

Vietnam 37,375.0 21,716.0 2.7% 1.1%

Monaco 20,000.0 17,952.0 1.5% 0.9%

Uzbekistan 1,512.0 6,051.0 0.1% 0.3%

Netherlands Antilles 1,549.0 5,979.0 0.1% 0.3%

Croatia 1,395.0 4,968.0 0.1% 0.3%

Kenya 4,844.0 4,035.0 0.4% 0.2%

Afghanistan 136.0 1,647.0 0.0% 0.1%

China 200.0 1,125.0 0.0% 0.1%

TOTAL 1,369,328.5 1,929,742.0 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT



Sudan: fish exports by destination 2008


Egypt 527,500 284,193 92.4% 86.4%

Singapore 16,956 33,531 3.0% 10.2%

Aruba 25,000 8,458 4.4% 2.6%

Hong Kong 1,537 2,933 0.3% 0.9%

TOTAL 570,993 329,115 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Sudan: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 46 36 22 ... 17


Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 35 3 6 -‐ 25

Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen 756 636 37 -‐ 288

Fish, prepared or preserved ... ... 10 -‐ -‐

Inedible -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Sponges, corals, shells 271 257 255 -‐ 344

TOTAL 1,108 932 330 0 674

Source: FAO FishStat J Sudan: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants -‐ -‐ 0 0 0 0 -‐


Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 0 0 -‐ 33 3 45

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked -‐ 45 197 4 20

Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen 7 12 588 1,773 746

Fish, prepared or preserved 130 316 1,360 1,058 1,037

Inedible ... ... 4 -‐ -‐

Meals 147 184 ... -‐ 0 0

Oils -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


TOTAL 296 572 2,269 2,899 1,970




Swaziland Swaziland: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Carps, barbels and other cyprinids ... ... ... ... ...

Tilapias and other cichlids ... ... ... ... 73

Miscellaneous freshwater fishes 70 70 70 70 70


TOTAL 70 70 70 70 143

Source: FAO FishStat J Swaziland: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants ... ... ... ... 0 0

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 3,875 1,085 49 -‐ -‐

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 0 0 ... 0 0 -‐ -‐

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 47 0 0 0 0 ... 1



Inedible 136 69 4 -‐ -‐

Meals 458 265 216 32 36

Oils -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Sponges, corals, shells 0 0 0 0 -‐ -‐ -‐

TOTAL 5,981 2,187 399 64 203

Source: FAO FishStat J Swaziland: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 853 453 269 63 0 0

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 3,314 997 404 105 420


Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 2,049 856 346 93 1



Inedible -‐ 27 0 0 1 -‐

Meals 694 374 121 87 429

Oils 2 57 33 19 250

Sponges, corals, shells 0 0 3 2 7 -‐

TOTAL 15,325 11,472 6,668 5,358 4,050




Tanzania Table 11: Tanzania’s total fish production Volume in tonnes

Fishing area 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inland waters 283,354 273,856 301,855 312,040 320,566 292,519 284,346 281,690 269,402

Marine 58,372 54,500 52,666 51,027 55,830 42,327 44,665 44,394 46,027

Aquaculture 1,300 2,630 2,002 3,013 3,012 3,272 4,045 5,217 5,722

TOTAL 343,026 330,986 356,523 366,080 379,408 338,118 333,056 331,301 321,151

Source: FAO FishStat Tanzania: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009




Miscellaneous diadromous fishes 2 2 2 2 10

Flounders, halibuts, soles 52 955 629 603 507







Crabs, sea-‐spiders 0 0 1 1 1 2

Shrimps, prawns 1,800 1,859 1,688 1,243 1,124

Squids, cuttlefishes, octopuses 1,334 703 882 829 1,121

Sea-‐urchins and other echinoderms 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Red seaweeds 3,052 3,478 4,214 5,277 5,797

TOTAL 379,408 338,118 333,056 331,301 321,151

Source: FAO FishStat J Zanzibar: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009








Miscellaneous marine molluscs 1,108 1,234 922 1,068 1,155

Red seaweeds 73,620 76,760 84,850 107,925 102,682

TOTAL 96,830 101,178 108,430 132,439 128,076



Source: FAO FishStat J Tanzania: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 1,475 1,811 1,577 2,729 3,355


Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 2 -‐ -‐ 0 0 0 0

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 833 722 586 2,180 7,931


Fish, prepared or preserved ... ... ... ... 15

Inedible 52 130 18 149 30

Meals 199 149 61 10 253

Oils ... ... ... ... 17


TOTAL 117,569 144,646 131,057 168,640 188,218

Source: FAO FishStat J Tanzania: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008





Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen 78 304 773 2,078 3,652


Inedible 0 0 2 0 0 7 7

Meals 2 2 0 0 -‐ 59

Oils 1 -‐ 7 8 6

Sponges, corals, shells 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -‐

TOTAL 615 545 1,077 2,321 3,959

Source: FAO FishStat J Table 12: Cross border trade of fish from Tanzania 2008 Volume in tonnes

Product Kenya Uganda DRC Rwanda Burundi Zimbabwe TOTAL

Dagaa 6,663 32 34 -‐ 9 60 6,798

Kayabo -‐ -‐ 42 -‐ -‐ -‐ 42

Chips 25 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ 25

Belly flaps 29 -‐ 3 -‐ -‐ -‐ 32

Frames 40 264 1,277 12 2 -‐ 1,594

Maws 26,319 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ 26,319

Fish meal 623 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ 623



Cutoffs 12 -‐ 59 -‐ -‐ -‐ 71

Fish heads -‐ -‐ 64 -‐ -‐ -‐ 64

Fish chest 10 20 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ 30

TOTAL 33,720 315 1,479 12 11 60 35,597

Source: Angelous Mahatane



Uganda Table 4: Uganda’s total production of fish Volume in tonnes

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inland waters 220,726 221,898 241,810 371,789 416,758 367,099 500,000 450,000 400,000

Aquaculture 2,360 4,915 5,500 5,539 10,817 32,392 51,110 52,250 76,654

TOTAL 223,086 226,813 247,310 377,328 427,575 399,491 551,110 502,250 476,654

Source: FAO FishStat Uganda: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009




Freshwater crustaceans 2 2 1 ... ...

TOTAL 427,575 399,491 551,110 502,250 476,654


Uganda: fish exports by destination 2008


Belgium 6,298,583 29,949,997 25.7% 26.8%

France 5,244,746 25,468,384 21.4% 22.8%

Netherlands 3,966,738 16,511,228 16.2% 14.8%

Hong Kong 618,855 6,717,266 2.5% 6.0%

Israel 1,112,657 4,804,313 4.5% 4.3%

UAE 1,079,476 4,614,930 4.4% 4.1%

Japan 619,537 2,871,035 2.5% 2.6%

Germany 457,312 2,760,417 1.9% 2.5%

Italy 467,004 2,327,813 1.9% 2.1%

Spain 465,028 2,135,248 1.9% 1.9%

China 413,206 1,808,442 1.7% 1.6%

USA 221,043 1,750,295 0.9% 1.6%

Greece 398,682 1,749,642 1.6% 1.6%

Portugal 338,402 1,312,367 1.4% 1.2%

Australia 320,471 1,152,989 1.3% 1.0%

Egypt 241,184 1,057,841 1.0% 0.9%

Singapore 139,906 736,563 0.6% 0.7%

Jordan 106,511 667,542 0.4% 0.6%

Luxembourg 113,824 665,804 0.5% 0.6%

Kenya 1,063,342 631,516 4.3% 0.6%

Lebanon 102,018 572,504 0.4% 0.5%

Malta 67,620 319,961 0.3% 0.3%

Sudan 82,634 234,532 0.3% 0.2%

Denmark 38,400 167,042 0.2% 0.1%

Cuba 26,400 133,457 0.1% 0.1%



Bahrain 17,400 82,217 0.1% 0.1%

Turkey 17,094 87,687 0.1% 0.1%

Macedonia 15,204 76,020 0.1% 0.1%

Rwanda 335,800 75,705 1.4% 0.1%

Thailand 27,304 67,145 0.1% 0.1%

Cyprus 24,000 62,010 0.1% 0.1%

Congo DR 23,275 47,359 0.1% 0.0%

South Africa 3,276 14,742 0.0% 0.0%

Kuwait 2,508 13,551 0.0% 0.0%

Iceland 514 10,761 0.0% 0.0%

UK 738 9,427 0.0% 0.0%

Canada 1,350 6,548 0.0% 0.0%

Switzerland 404 4,520 0.0% 0.0%

Burundi 6,500 3,234 0.0% 0.0%

Ghana 1,015 1,050 0.0% 0.0%

Tanzania 480 221 0.0% 0.0%

India 4,995 119 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 24,485,436 111,683,442 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT

Uganda: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants ... ... ... ... 2

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 0 0 1 5 -‐ 56

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 0 0 0 0 -‐




Inedible 3,674 4,346 6,246 7,785 14,423

Meals ... ... ... 1 240

Oils ... ... ... 2 -‐


TOTAL 103,670 143,258 146,951 125,890 134,554

Source: FAO FishStat J Uganda: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008







Inedible 399 282 150 58 158

Meals 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13



Oils -‐ 3 1 2 9

Sponges, corals, shells 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

TOTAL 561 850 374 798 1,051

Source: FAO FishStat J Table 5: Uganda: 2008 Informal Exports and Imports by Country Figures in US$ 1000

Country Exports Imports

2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008

Total trade 2008

Trade balance 2008

DRC 80,453 156,534 198,455 11,288 18,242 21,077 219,532 177,378

Kenya 96,882 86,013 107,879 63,880 27,037 40,620 148,499 67,258

Rwanda 25,046 39,104 55,246 694 405 1,164 56,410 54,082

Sudan 7,842 456,373 929,905 517 8,669 9,371 939,276 920,533

Tanzania 21,518 38,486 57,371 4,255 2,886 5,881 63,252 51,490

TOTAL 231,741 776,509 1,348,855 80,633 57,239 78,114 1,426,969 1,270,742

Source: Bank of Uganda/Uganda Bureau of Statistics Table 6: Uganda’s informal exports of fish 2008 by destination

Destination Quantity (kg) US$ % of Volume % of value

DRC 12,466,333 36,271,895 53.4% 52.1%

Sudan 5,404,879 22,978,284 23.2% 33.0%

Kenya 5,381,481 10,102,791 23.1% 14.5%

Rwanda 71,049 225,759 0.3% 0.3%

Tanzania 8,368 25,246 0.0% 0.0%

SUM 23,332,110 69,603,975 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Bank of Uganda/Uganda Bureau of Statistics Table 7: Uganda’s informal imports of fish 2008 by origin

Origin Quantity (kg) US$ % of Volume % of value

Kenya 256,588 988,367 55.8% 43.9%

DRC 164,894 1,006,465 35.9% 44.7%

Tanzania 34,217 249,950 7.4% 11.1%

Sudan 4,099 7,999 0.9% 0.4%

Rwanda -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

SUM 459,798 2,252,781 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Bank of Uganda/Uganda Bureau of Statistics Uganda: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants ... ... ... ... 2

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 0 0 1 5 -‐ 56

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved 0 0 0 0 -‐




Inedible 3,674 4,346 6,246 7,785 14,423

Meals ... ... ... 1 240

Oils ... ... ... 2 -‐




TOTAL 103,670 143,258 146,951 125,890 134,554




Zambia Zambia: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Carps, barbels and other cyprinids 45 37 37 36 68




TOTAL 71,052 65,446 79,418 85,043 93,221

Source: FAO FishStat J Zambia: fish imports by origin 2008


China 896,853 1,126,852 99.7% 99.5%

Andorra 408 2,970 0.0% 0.3%

Egypt 2,000 1,853 0.2% 0.2%

Botswana 15 525 0.0% 0.0%

UAE 100 81 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 899,377 1,132,281 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Zambia: fish exports by destination 2008


Congo DR 1,758,314 927,539 98.2% 83.0%

Germany 6,079 70,507 0.3% 6.3%

Angola 5,335 49,564 0.3% 4.4%

Hong Kong 3,495 46,176 0.2% 4.1%

Israel 1,250 10,998 0.1% 1.0%

Spain 470 4,480 0.0% 0.4%

Burundi 16,000 4,252 0.9% 0.4%

Denmark 250 2,766 0.0% 0.2%

Belgium 104 581 0.0% 0.1%

Australia 73 157 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 1,791,370 1,117,020 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Zambia: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 7 -‐ 0 0 -‐ -‐

Crustaceans and molluscs, prepared or preserved -‐ -‐ -‐ 2 -‐

Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 526 3,063 40 75 836


Fish, prepared or preserved 1 0 0 2 -‐ 50

Inedible 0 0 0 0 1 11 -‐

Meals 858 105 4 2 -‐



Oils -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


TOTAL 1,862 3,523 362 399 1,295

Source: FAO FishStat J Zambia: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008




Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 1,344 2,899 2,520 1,460 153



Inedible -‐ -‐ -‐ 0 0 -‐

Meals 2,575 2,090 2,098 1,849 3,594

Oils -‐ 1 36 20 5

Sponges, corals, shells 0 0 0 0 2 -‐ 0 0

TOTAL 5,561 7,234 7,598 10,411 8,935




Zimbabwe Zimbabwe: total production Tonnes

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Salmons, trouts, smelts ... ... ... ... ...

Freshwater crustaceans -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

TOTAL 12,872 12,950 13,000 13,102 13,152

Source: FAO FishStat J Zimbabwe: fish imports by origin 2008


Zambia 714,836 773,816 48.1% 53.2%

Congo DR 441,328 494,635 29.7% 34.0%

Botswana 42,564 120,316 2.9% 8.3%

Luxembourg 212,731 45,415 14.3% 3.1%

France 6,674 13,014 0.4% 0.9%

Congo 66,010 6,538 4.4% 0.4%

UK 1,250 242 0.1% 0.0%

Reunion 243 82 0.0% 0.0%

Mauritius 12 2 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 1,485,648 1,454,061 100.0% 100.0%

Source: COMSTAT Zimbabwe: seafood exports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 4 ... ... 1 -‐




Fish, prepared or preserved 0 0 ... 2 16 -‐

Inedible -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Meals 17 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Oils -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐


TOTAL 2,480 1,819 4,673 3,021 1,453

Source: FAO FishStat J Zimbabwe: seafood imports Value in US$ 1000

Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aquatic plants 2 0 0 4 0 0 1

Crustaceans & Molluscs, live, fresh, chilled, etc. 119 1,560 175 191 70


Fish, dried, salted, or smoked 1,616 86 1,187 624 857



Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen 592 143 1,748 983 1,634


Inedible -‐ -‐ -‐ 11 3

Meals 687 598 1,701 1,238 1,821

Oils 5 ... 5 3 1

Sponges, corals, shells 0 0 0 0 -‐ -‐ 0 0

TOTAL 3,378 2,658 5,165 3,486 4,776

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS – LISTE DES PUBLICATIONSSmartFish Programme

1. Report of the Inception / Focal Point Meeting of the SmartFish Programme – Flic en Flac, Mauritius, 15th-16th June 2011. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2011/01. August/Août 2011. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (55 pages).

2. Report of the First Steering Committee Meeting of the SmartFish Programme – Flic en Flac, Mauritius,17th June 2011. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2011/02. August/Août 2011. SmartFish Programme Indian Ocean Commission (51 pages).

3. Rapport de la réunion de présentation du programme SmartFish aux points focaux – Flic en Flac, Ile Maurice, 15-16 juin 2011. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2011/03. August/Août 2011. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (55 pages).

4. ESA-IO (IRFS). REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2011/04. May 2011. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (40 pages).

5. Regional Market Assessment (Supply and Demand). REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/05. March/Mars 2012. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (264 pages).

6. Trade Assessment Study. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/06. March/Mars 2012. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (120 pages).

Indian Ocean Commission – SmartFish ProgramBlue Tower, 5th �oor, Institute Road - Ebène, MauritiusTél: (+230) 402 6100 Fax: (+230) 465 7933

Documents

Trade Assessment Study Final - Food and Agriculture ... ASSESSMENT STUDY March/Mars 2012 REPORT/RAPPORT : ... Agrotec SpA SmartFish Page 3 of 118 ... (NAMA)