Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 11 • Number 36 • 24th October 2007
Fisheries Negotiating Text Due Soon, Says Chair
The chair of the Doha Round negotiations on rules governing fisheries subsidy spending has said that he is ready to issue a draft agreement text to serve as the basis for future discussions, though this would depend to some extent on the agriculture and industrial goods talks.
Chair Ambassador Guillermo Valles Games (Uruguay) closed four days of meetings on 18 October by saying that Members’ discussions on each others’ proposals were starting to yield "diminishing returns," and that a text would be necessary in order to move the negotiations forward.
He acknowledged that the negotiations on rules - which cover fisheries subsidies as well as anti-dumping and industrial subsidies — were not "operating in a vacuum," and would be linked to the evolution of other key issues, notably agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA). Revised versions of the agriculture and NAMA draft texts issued in July by the negotiating committee chairs are now expected sometime in mid-November, officials suggest.
Valles Games had said in late September that he would not issue a rules text before the agriculture and industrial goods draft deals were available. Sources say that he now suggested that the rules group should not wait too long to move its work forward.
Government payments to fishing fleets have been blamed for encouraging overfishing, thus contributing to the dramatic depletion of global marine fish stocks. Some claim that creating strong rules to restrict fisheries subsidy spending could be the Doha Round’s single greatest contribution to the environment.
Several delegates have complained that the level of ambition in the fisheries discussions has been waning. They also say that the mood is increasingly pessimistic, particularly following meetings last week, which focused primarily on an Indonesian proposal for fisheries subsidy rules that many called confused, unhelpful, and overly complex.
The principal cleavage in the negotiations is between advocates of a ‘top-down’ general prohibition on fisheries subsidy payments with negotiated exceptions, and countries that want a ‘bottom-up’ ban only on specific kinds of subsidies.
Indonesian revision generates opposition
Indonesia claimed that its paper (TN/RL/GEN/150/Rev.2) represented a "solid middle ground" between the two approaches. The new proposal was a revised version of a paper that delegates had strongly criticised in September (see BRIDGES Weekly, 3 October 2007).
The current version reinserts a more extensive subsidy prohibition - absent from the paper’s previous incarnation - banning payments to support the construction of fishing vessels or to offset their operating costs. Indonesia told Bridges that the latest paper received a warmer reception because of this wider prohibition.
Even so, support was limited and came mostly from the Japanese delegation. During last week’s talks, Japan said that the Indonesian paper represented a compromise between members’ positions and thus could be the basis for further discussion. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have been the most vocal opponents of a top-down blanket ban on fisheries subsidy payments, in opposition to a far larger group of countries including the US, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Australia.
In addition to the prohibitions, the Indonesian proposal spelled out detailed procedures for determining whether subsidies were causing injury to fisheries resources for the purposes of introducing countervailing duties. It also included a provision allowing subsidies for small fishermen from developing countries and permitting their exemption from fisheries resource management programmes.
For many delegates, the special and differential treatment component in the Indonesian proposal remained too loose. Switzerland, Canada, and the EU in particular expressed concern about too many exemptions for developing countries. India thought the notification requirements the paper called for were too burdensome. New Zealand and Malaysia said that they would rather see a broad-based prohibition than Indonesia’s lists of actionable and non-actionable subsidies.
Korea and Taiwan, on the other hand, complained that the proposed rules were too restrictive. They said that assistance to support operating costs - such as fuel, bait, and ice - should not be prohibited unless they directly harm marine resources. They added that subsidies for small fishermen should not be limited to developing countries.
Generally, while delegates expressed polite appreciation for Indonesia’s work, they said that its proposals - which some told Bridges had floundered "from one end of the spectrum to the other" - underlined the need for a text that will establish a platform for more focused, constructive negotiations.
Argentina revises proposal
Argentina introduced a revised version of a paper on special and differential treatment (S&DT) for developing countries it initially released with Brazil in early September, adding a second article focused on ‘adverse effects’ to fisheries.
The earlier joint proposal called for permitting subsidies for developing countries that could demonstrate that their fisheries production was too small to significantly deplete fish stocks. The new version now includes a provision that would oblige developing countries that apply S&DT exceptions to take into account any adverse effects on fish stocks. Under this stipulation, developing countries are allowed to provide subsidies in order to increase their fishing capacity, but not above the maximum sustainable yield - the highest catch that can be taken from a fish stock over an indefinite period. The text would thus require all developing countries to apply some sort of national fisheries management system.
The Argentinean delegation presented the new paper as an informal room document rather than a formal submission, due to time limitations. The proposal was not debated at the recent meeting; discussions on it were limited to private consultations among delegations.
The crystal ball epoch
Sources report that the next step in the negotiations will be Valles Games’ view on the talks, though exactly what his negotiating draft will look like remains somewhat of a mystery. As in other areas of the Doha Round talks, with Members far from consensus on crucial issues, the chair will have to exercise his own judgement about what might prove broadly acceptable - what one delegate described as "crystal ball stuff." Though negotiators all expect provisions on certain issues, such as S&DT, how these will be constructed is anyone’s guess, they say.
They may not have to wait for too long to find out: Valles Games said that he would likely issue the text in time for delegates to discuss it at the next meeting of the Negotiating Group on Rules, tentatively scheduled for the week of 3 December. Sources say that the Uruguayan ambassador emphasised that his text was not intended to be a near-finalised deal, but a tool to encourage more focused, result-oriented work - not the end of the road, but the beginning.
ICTSD reporting.