A decision whether to conclude negotiations that prohibit subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity is happening next week at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO General Council meeting follows the failure to conclude talks earlier this year at the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi, where some Members rejected the proposed agreement as being unbalanced and in the favour of the big subsidisers.
Ahead of the General Council meeting, the Chair of negotiations, Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, released a revised text on 10 July. While a number of WTO Members have called for the conclusion of the negotiations, others, particularly some developing countries, are concerned that the agreement won’t address those historically responsible for overfishing while shifting the burden of the agreement on to developing and least-developed countries.
The Sustainable Development Goal 14.6 gave the WTO a mandate to reign in subsidies to Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, overfished stocks, and certain subsidies that support overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF) with appropriate and effective Special and Differential Treatment for developing countries.
Failing to hold the big fleets accountable
The current proposal at the WTO contains a list of subsidies that have been decided to contribute to overfishing. This includes subsidies for such things as vessel construction, maintenance and upgrading (irrespective of size); purchasing fishing gear, processing machinery refrigerators; fuel, ice, bait; costs of personnel, social charges or insurance; and income support among others. Access to these subsidies is crucial for many fishers to be able to fish.
Despite this list of prohibited subsidies, the proposed agreement contains a range of flexibilities that are accessible for the big fishing fleets resulting in a failure to hold the big subsidisers to account.
The first way this can be done is by the inclusion of a ‘sustainability flexibility’ – which means that a member can continue subsidising if they can meet all the requirements of notification by the WTO. This is something that those countries with a lot of capacity to measure, monitor and report their fish stocks and subsidies will be able to easily meet but for many developing countries and small states it would be a struggle. This is because of the lack of government resources and capacity but also the complexities in fishing conditions (like tropical waters and multi-species stocks).
Many of the big fishing fleets will be able to continue to receive subsidies because of this, taking no account of their historical responsibility of having overfished stocks.
Secondly, Distant Water Fishing, which is seen as the most reliant on subsidies and responsible for overfishing however it is included in ‘best endeavour’ language. This means that countries should try and not provide subsidies to this type of fishing unless they can prove that the fishing is sustainable, however, if not then ultimately there’s no ban. This means that DWF is under less stringent restrictions than fishing within a country’s own waters.
Defining the Challenges for Small-Scale Fishing
Small-scale fishers from around the world gathered for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Small-Scale Fishers Summit in Rome, discussed how the negotiations on fisheries subsidies at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), as they currently stand, challenges the development opportunities for millions of fishers around the world and those who rely on them.
The Summit heard about many of the struggles that fisherfolk are facing and the long history of fighting for improvements, it’s unfortunate that the WTO appears to be adding to the challenges faced by fishers. Subsidies are often used to encourage an activity and if directed in the right areas they can help with the implementation of the Small-Scale Fishers (SSF) Guidelines developed by FAO, but if they continue to be provided to the big fishing fleets, they can undermine the SSF Guidelines.
The list of prohibited subsidies includes many that small-scale fishers use or heavily rely on. The SSF Guidelines in particular mentions social security supports including credit and insurance schemes.
Under the current proposals, there is a tiered system for which developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) can access some flexibilities. LDCs are exempt for as long as they remain LDCs but developing countries are split along the threshold 0.8 percent of global marine catch.
For those above 0.8 percent, they will have a transition period before they lose their flexibilities. This includes countries like India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Philippines, and Peru among others, but should also be watched closely by those near that amount like Brazil, Angola, South Africa, and Senegal.
For those countries above 0.8 percent, how they support their Small-Scale Fishers will be impacted. There is flexibility for fishers that relies on national definitions of what small-scale fishing is, which is a good thing to have determined nationally, but the WTO has set some conditionalities on this.
Firstly, the current proposal says that such supports can’t go to ‘industrialised’ fishing. There is no definition or clarity on what is classified as industrialised fishing for small-scale fishers, but in theory it could apply to a whole range of vessel technologies or fishing gear mechanics used by fishers. There are a whole range of characteristics that contribute to what could be considered industrial-style fishing however these are not uniform in their application, meaning that long vessels could be without engines while smaller vessels have large motorisation. The ambiguity in defining types of fishing activity and the lack of clarity in the text will create confusion and any issues will be borne by the most vulnerable actors in the sector.
This caveat that is defining of what is and isn’t small-scale fishing, something that has been avoided by small-scale fishers, and the SSF Guidelines themselves, in recognition of the great diversity in types of small-scale fishing.
Further, the SSF Guidelines advocate for States to facilitate market access and trade for fishers, but the reference of ‘industrialised’ fishing limitations may end up excluding fishers from participating in value chains and economic opportunities.
Following the SSF Summit, the two largest global fisher networks – World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fish Workers (WFF) and the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP) issued a statement of their concerns, ultimately calling for any discussion on fisheries matters to be brought back into the FAO.
Getting it right before getting it done
It’s crucial for any outcome addressing subsidies for OCOF that it reigns in those who have the historical responsibility for overfishing. Failing to do this will only see fisherfolk carry the burden of this agreement while continuing to deal with the subsidised big fleets. It is critical to get it right this time and not rely on any proposals to improve it later, the WTO has a poor track record of coming back to address issues of development. No deal is better than a bad deal on fish and there is a need to send a strong message to the WTO on this from fishers and developing countries saying that they shouldn’t be on the hook while the big fishing countries are let off.
Adam Wolfenden is the Trade Justice Campaigner for the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG).
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this publication.