Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 10 • Number 9 • 15th March 2006
Five New Proposals In Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations
On 15 March, WTO Members started discussions in the Negotiating Group on Rules on five new proposals on disciplining fisheries subsidies from New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, India and Brazil. The negotiations will continue on 17 March.
New Zealand, a leading Member of the "Friends of Fish" group of countries that advocate for a broad ban on fisheries subsidies with certain exceptions, put forward draft legal text (TN/RL/GEN/100) for a new fisheries-specific amendment to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The text attempted to demonstrate how such a ban could be simple, enforceable, transparent, and flexible. Notably, it left several issues undetermined for future negotiation, including special and differential treatment (S&D) and the conditions to be placed on permissible subsidies, such as those for access payments, aquaculture, research related to fisheries management, and vessel decommissioning. Brazil (TN/RL/GEN/79/Rev.1) submitted a revised version of the draft amendment it had proposed on 16 November 2005 (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 17 February 2006).
In their recent proposals, Japan and Taiwan, which have traditionally opposed the approach favoured by the Friends of Fish, reiterated their preference for a ‘bottom-up’ approach that would generally permit fisheries subsidies, with specific prohibitions. Japan’s paper (TN/RL/W/201) described two kinds of subsidies that it thought merited prohibition, both related to capacity enhancement. Taiwan (TN/RL/W/202) suggested that grants to promote fish stock recovery, social security, welfare, and research and development, should be exempt from challenge.
India highlighted the need for S&D in any new disciplines, and put forward a list of ‘general characteristics’ of small-scale, artisanal fisheries (TN/RL/W/203). It contended that disciplines on fisheries subsidies shifted the ambit of the ASCM from trade distortions to problems related to over-fishing and overcapacity, as a result of which developing countries would require policy space over and above that already provided for in the agreement.
ICTSD will provide coverage of the rules negotiations in upcoming issues of BRIDGES Trade BioRes and BRIDGES Weekly.
ICTSD reporting.
MEMBERS LOOK AT TRIPS-CBD RELATIONSHIP
WTO Members focused on the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights at the 14-15 March meeting of the TRIPS Council (regular session). Some countries believe that the objectives of biodiversity conservation and intellectual property protection would be best achieved by amending the TRIPS Agreement to require patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge used in their invention, along with evidence of prior informed consent and benefit-sharing. Others believe that patents need not require such disclosure.
A group of mainly developing countries including Brazil, Cuba and India, along with Norway, called for text-based negotiations to start by the end of April on an amendment requiring disclosure in patent applications. Paragraph 39 of the Hong Kong Declaration calls for progress on the issue by no later than July 2006. However, countries such as Australia and the US expressed disagreement, stating that work on text would be premature because of the large differences that remain in the negotiations. The latter for instance believe that no amendment to the TRIPS Agreement is necessary; they contend that the two agreements are mutually exclusive and thus can be implemented independently. The discussions centred on whether disclosure requirements would help solve the problems of sharing benefits deriving from an invention with the local communities involved and improve the quality of patents.
ICTSD will provide more coverage of the TRIPS Council session and related discussions in the upcoming issue of BRIDGES Weekly.
ICTSD reporting. "New Submissions Feed CBD Debate At TRIPS Council Meeting," INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WATCH, 15 March 2006.