Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 14 • Number 35 • 13th October 2010

WTO Fisheries Negotiations ‘On’ Again

Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

Negotiators at the WTO are hailing a “new environment” in ongoing talks on how to discipline government payments to the fisheries sector, a major factor contributing to declining fish stocks in the world’s oceans.

The negotiations - which have been exceedingly slow since early 2008 - last week saw countries engaging once again in specific and technical exchanges (albeit without discernible forward movement).

Part of the reason for the change is delegations’ desire to make their respective cases to the new chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules. An additional impetus has come from a process involving a group of ambassadors who have been meeting regularly to examine their differences on the entire spectrum of issues in the Doha Round negotiations, including fisheries subsidies.

Members met in plenary on 4-5 October to discuss ways to cut subsidies that contribute to overfishing. Sources described the talks as taking place in a sort of “listening and learning” mode, given that Ambassador Dennis Francis (Trinidad and Tobago) only became chair of the committee in July.

According to one delegate, this process was conducive to engagement. Countries were eager to show the chair why they were satisfied or unhappy with the draft negotiating text, drafted by the then-chair in December 2007. “When both sides are trying to convince the chair of something, the negotiations are on again,” the official said.

The “Friends of Fish” countries, such as Australia and New Zealand highlighted the need for strong rules prohibiting subsidies. Traditional subsidisers such as Japan and Korea, and to some extent the EU, explained that they were looking for a more flexible approach, with more exceptions permitting payments than are present in the chair’s text.

Nevertheless, sources report that there have been some shifts in negotiating position in recognition of ‘red lines’ in the talks. For instance, Japan, which initially was opposed to blanket bans on any kinds of subsidies, now accepts in principle that there will be prohibitions on some kinds of payments that lead to overcapacity and overfishing, such as subsidies for the construction of new vessels.

The concerns of many developing countries looking solutions for effective special and differential treatment (S&DT) also came to fore. Indeed, developing countries have made numerous submissions over the past three years seeking to find ways to operationalise S&DT. In the plenary session, negotiators continued to debate paper by Brazil and India, among others, on S&DT (TN/RL/GEN/163, available at http://docsonline.wto.org).

Discussions also touched on a submission by the US (GEN/165). In addition, there were two new papers by Australia (GEN/167) and Korea (GEN/168), respectively. The Australian submission added a new category of prohibited subsidies, focusing on destructive fishing practices. These would include bottom trawling and large-scale drift-nets, in territorial waters as well as on the high seas. Bottom trawling often leads to the destruction of marine habitats with negative effects that reach far beyond the target species. Images of large drift-nets that wipe the sea floor clean of vibrant ecosystems, such as coral reefs, and leave barren ocean deserts behind, have become well known to the public. The Australian paper also suggested tightening some of the language on the allowed subsidies that can support efforts to reduce the pressure on fisheries. In addition, Australia wanted to increase transparency, adding to the reporting and peer review obligations.

The Korean submission focused on a ‘traffic light’ approach to the subsidies, making some actionable rather than directly prohibited. This approach is in line with the ‘bottom-up’ - rather than ‘top-down’ -approach to subsidies long favoured by Korea. The Friends of Fish general opposed this approach, feeling it would water down the current draft.

Discussions also took place among smaller groups of delegates. Among issues discussed were potential subsidies to small-scale, artisanal fisheries in developed countries. Originally, such exceptions were envisioned for developing country small-scale and artisanal fisheries only, taking into account food security and livelihood concerns. However, some parties, such as Korea (GEN/168), have stressed their desire to support their own small-scale fishers, due to the relative poverty of these groups. One of the problems in the context of the discussion on small-scale and artisanal fishers is the lack of a definition - if defined a certain way, a large majority of a country’s catch might be deemed to come from “small-scale” fishing operations.

At the close of the meetings, Chair Francis commented that “It’s very clear to me that all delegations remain highly committed and have shown a very constructive disposition.”

Fishery subsidies have been on the agenda of a small group of ambassadors, who have been meeting regularly to try to better understand each other’s positions across the spectrum of the struggling Doha Round talks, not limited to the well-established differences on agriculture and industrial goods. These conversations have seen ambassadors getting into the technicalities of the fisheries negotiating text for the first time - a step generally seen as positive by negotiators.

With no end in sight for the Doha Round, there have been calls for an “early harvest” that would have members’ agree on terms for fisheries subsidy cuts and start implementing them. However, negotiators remain sceptical that a stand-alone deal could sell politically, particularly in countries that perceive themselves to be “losing” in the fish subsidies talks. “I think it’s very difficult,” said one. “Some of the countries that are losing could sell it as part of a broader package. How do you go home and say ‘I agreed to an early harvest [on fisheries subsidies], but nothing else is moving’?”

Courtney Sakai of Oceana, a marine conservation advocacy group that supports strong curbs on fisheries subsidy spending, said she was “excited and encouraged” by the WTO members’ focus on the issue, including at the ambassadorial level. Many countries were searching for compromises that would protect both fish stocks and vulnerable livelihoods, she said. “We see a lot of countries moving forward with trying to grapple with the challenge of how do you promote sustainable development.”

The next meeting of the Negotiating Group on Rulesis scheduled to take place in December, although whether or not fisheries will be discussed remains open.

ICTSD reporting.

One response to “WTO Fisheries Negotiations ‘On’ Again”

Alastair Macfarlane 15th October 2010 at 04:31
The New Zealand seafood industry receives no government subsidies and is required by levy to pay the full costs of fisheries management and the science that underpins management decisions. The New Zealand industry is a strong supporter of the New Zealand Government’s role in this negotiation to seek an ambitious outcome that will reduce and eliminate subsidies that support fishing.

But it is with dismay that we read the Australian submission. While we support the proposition that there should be no subsidies to illegal or destructive fishing, we do not regard bottom trawl fishing as inherently destructive. Unfortunately Australia has, in its draft legal text after paragraph 1.1 (g), asserted that bottom trawl fishing is a destructive fishing practice alongside large scale drift-net fishing.

The New Zealand fishing industry, along with many around the world, relies on bottom trawling and similar bottom contacting fishing gear for catching many species of fish and shellfish. So does the Australian fishing industry.

By making such an assertion, Australia risks this negotiation losing such fishing industry support as it currently has.

Alastair Macfarlane
General Manager - Trade and Information
New Zealand Seafood Industry Council
Anonymous at