Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 5 • Number 1 • 21st January 2005

WTO DEBATES SUBSIDIES; EU SETTLES ON 2005 QUOTAS

Do More

Download this issue

See also

WTO DEBATES SUBSIDIES; EU SETTLES ON 2005 QUOTAS

In its first submission to the WTO Negotiations Rules negotiations on fisheries subsidies, the US lent its support to the comprehensive approach to eliminating fishing subsidies promoted by the Friends of Fish, positioning itself against countries such as Japan and Korea who want to move more carefully on subsidy elimination.

In related news, round-the-clock negotiations at the end of 2004 led the European Council of Fisheries Ministers to abandon stringent fishing quotas that scientists and non-governmental organisations said were necessary for the survival of the continent’s fisheries.

WTO Members disagree on subsidy approach

At the 16 December meeting of the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules, Members discussed a submission from the US (TN/RL/W/169) expressing its support for a November 2004 proposal by Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, New Zealand, the Philippines and Peru which would have Members first broadly prohibit fisheries subsidies and subsequently negotiate appropriate exceptions to the ban (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 19 November 2004). According to the US submission, the "primary focus of the negotiations should be to strengthen disciplines on fisheries subsidies that contribute directly to overcapacity and overfishing", and the November proposal’s ‘top-down’ approach "offers a simple, administrable, enforceable and realistic structure" for doing so. In addition to the six sponsors of that proposal, Australia, Brazil, Pakistan, and Venezuela expressed support for the US submission.

Japan opposed the proposal for a general prohibition on fisheries subsidies, and once again argued for a ‘bottom up’ approach that would require Members to evaluate each type of subsidy and slate it for preservation or elimination depending on its effect (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 8 October 2004). The American submission countered that the Japanese approach would "contemplate a very small number of prohibited subsidies and a large number of permitted subsidies", and that it "could potentially lead to a set of disciplines weaker than the current rules".

Korea, which supports the Japanese approach, said that the fisheries subsidies talks were proceeding far too quickly given that the issue was only put on the WTO agenda at the November 2001 Doha Ministerial Conference. On the other hand, the EC said that the simple fact that Members generally agree that harmful subsidies must stop already represented significant progress. It also urged participants not to take hard-line positions in favour of the top-down approach on the grounds that the alternative approach might also yield results. India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and China emphasised developing countries’ need for special and differential treatment.

EU Fisheries quotas agreed

Under the new quotas agreed upon after all-night negotiating sessions, the European Council of Fisheries Ministers decided to decrease total allowable catch (TAC) quotas by, on average, 10 percent. The Council abandoned the European Commission’s controversial December proposal to ban cod fishing in selected areas of the North Sea, Kattegat, Skarregak, the eastern English Channel, the west of Scotland and the Irish Sea, owing to resistance from Britain, whose Scottish fisheries would have been adversely affected (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 20 December 2004). However, ministers agreed to close three cod fishing zones in the Baltic Sea. The Council also agreed to set up a long-term management plan for the ’sustainable exploitation’ of cod in the Baltic, while the Commission said it would present proposals as soon as possible to improve control measures in relation to the recovery plan for cod.

The final quotas were significantly more lenient than those originally proposed by the European Commission and scientists who were concerned that overfishing could threaten the survival of certain species. EU Commissioner Joe Borg, responsible for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, said that the Council "genuinely looked for alternatives to drastic cuts in either fishing possibilities or fishing days without putting stock recovery in danger. The result is less fishing, more protection for the stocks that most need it and greater respect for the rules."

However, environmental group WWF criticised the deal, saying that the ministers had failed to take decisive action to preserve threatened species. "We all want to secure a long term future for commercial stocks and a healthier marine environment, but avoiding taking action is not going to help anyone as it will jeopardise stock recovery," it said in a statement. Also, according to one EU diplomat, some national delegates seemed surprised at how quickly the Commission had ditched key elements of its proposal.

Simplicity called for in European fisheries policy

Also during the Council meeting, the European Commission presented a communication that aims to simplify the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Targets to achieve this goal were recognised as improving the clarity of existing texts, simplification and accessibility; reducing costs and constraints for public administrations; and alleviating administrative costs and constraints for fishermen. The Commission suggested that a consultation process be launched to involve stakeholders in developing a multi-annual action plan to make the CFP easier to understand and implement.

ICTSD reporting; "Outcome of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council — 21-22 December 2004," EU MEMO 04/306, 22 December 2004; "EU Cuts 2005 Fish Quotas to Save Depleted Species," REUTERS, 23 December 2004.