Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 4 • Number 18 • 8th October 2004
WTO MEMBERS SCRUTINISE JAPAN’S FISHERIES PROPOSAL
WTO MEMBERS SCRUTINISE JAPAN’S FISHERIES PROPOSAL
The ongoing negotiations on disciplining subsidies in the fisheries sector featured high on the agenda of the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules, meeting from 28-30 September in Geneva. Discussions focused mainly on a Japanese proposal on fisheries subsidies disciplines presented at the last meeting (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 11 June 2004)
Japan outlines criteria for permitted, prohibited subsidies
In a communication dated 24 September (TN/RL/W/164), Japan proposed rules on fisheries subsidies that would "strike the balance between promotion of the trade in fisheries products and conservation of natural resources". Japan opposed a blanket ban on subsidies, and instead proposed that each type of subsidy be evaluated and placed in a "box" according to its effect.
Thus, legal subsidies supportive of sustainable development would end up in a "green box". These could include subsidies that "promote the conservation and sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources," including specific measures such as management plans, environmentally friendly fishing gear, surveys, research and monitoring, measures to enhance stocks, preserve habitats, and the development and diffusion of new technologies. In addition, the "green box" could include measures that, as long as there is an adequate management plan in place, do not have any harmful effects.
Illegal subsidies supporting illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing or over-capacity would be placed in a "red box", including subsidies "related to IUU fisheries and fishing vessel construction engaging in poorly managed fishery, which are against the conservation and sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources and encourage the fishing activities that exacerbate the status of the resources". Here, Japan differentiates between vessel construction in cases where fisheries are properly managed and where they are not, with construction subsidies prohibited in the latter case.
Certain subsidies fall outside the remit of fishing subsidies, according to the Japanese paper. These subsidies include: capacity building/human resources development; relief for natural disasters; and certain types of structural adjustment and regional development assistance.
Members respond to Japanese proposal
Reacting to the Japanese proposal, the US — a member of the so-called "Friends of Fish" — said Japan would be able to exempt its subsidies from any disciplines under the proposal, and that the proposal was a "significant step backwards" and unworkable. Instead, the US, together with Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Peru and the Philippines, supported an approach proposed by New Zealand, which would prohibit all subsidies, spelling out certain exceptions only. New Zealand also suggested that the Japanese proposal served to safeguard existing Japanese subsidies, and the EC commented that the proposed "green box" seemed rather full as compared to a slim "red box".
On the other hand, Chinese Taipei and Korea supported the Japanese approach, with Korea commending its focus on conservation, and also noting that whether subsidies are harmful depends on the specific circumstances.
Brazil, Malaysia and Mauritius reminded Members of the fact that special provisions needed to be agreed for developing countries in any deal struck on fisheries subsidies, and that developing countries should be allowed the space to support the development of their fisheries sectors.
The next Rules meeting is scheduled for 1-3 November.
ICTSD reporting; "United States Blasts Japanese Proposal on WTO Disciplines for Fisheries Subsidies," WTO REPORTER, 30 September 2004.