Many developing countries, including the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific group, expressed sharp concerns over the draft fisheries subsidies negotiating text issued by Chair Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, arguing that it is tilted toward preserving the overcapacity and overfishing subsidies availed by big subsidizers.
“Our view remains that our paradigm must change about the fundamentals of the real problem in subsidies to overcapacity and overfishing,” said the ACP coordinator at the conclusion of the fifth fish week.
“We hear Members, mostly from developing countries like ours, very concerned about the effort to apply this discipline to those who are currently not, and unlikely to become accountable for the conditions of the OCOF today.”
Moreover, “staggering figures, over 80 percent subsidies to large-scale industrial fishing have remained,” the ACP group emphasized, arguing that “improved fish management has not changed the predicament.”
The fifth fish week witnessed sharp to-and-fro comments between the European Union and India over the issue of 25 years of transition for adopting the OCOF subsidies. The EU apparently said 25 years for special and differential treatment is a long period in which many members may not be present – to which India said many members were not even born when trade disciplines were being consistently abused by those who are now pointing a finger at 25 years of S&DT, said two persons who asked not to be identified.
India apparently issued a strong message that non-specific fuel subsidies must be part of the scope of the agreement at a time when the purpose of the agreement is to address “sustainability”– which is an external term rarely heard for concluding the WTO agreements, said another person.
New Delhi appears determined that robust S&DT provisions as well as the polluter pays principle for big subsidizers must become an integral part of the proposed AFS, the person added.
India’s proposal on several aspects, particularly the Special and Differential Treatment, appears to have become a rallying point for many developing countries, said an African fisheries negotiator.
The Indian proposal, which was circulated after the Chair issued his draft text more than 10 days ago, is yet to be discussed and it remains unclear whether the chair will focus on his text or also give an opportunity to members to discuss the Indian proposal, the African diplomat said.
Fisheries Chair Gunnarsson called the fifth fish week “a pivotal week for our process.”
“In this week, we have turned in earnest toward text-based deliberations,” the chair said, according to a report displayed on the WTO website. “Members increasingly are engaging in the negotiations at full steam,” the chair said, adding that “This is great news, as it demonstrates the determination of everyone here to do everything possible to reach agreement by December.”
The week’s discussions were held in different configurations, including in two group meetings. At the end of the meeting on Friday, the chair said that “Given the clear mandate from you to treat the draft text as a starting point for the text-based negotiations, and your apparent readiness to engage in text-based negotiations, I believe it is high time to start collecting your specific suggestions for modifications to the text.”
But attempts to shift the burden on S&DT provisions for developing countries, while continuing with OCOF subsidies for the big subsidizers on questionable grounds, in the chair’s draft text may make things difficult to make progress, said people who asked not to be quoted.
The chair plans to host the sixth fish week during October 9 to 13, prior to the capital-based senior official meeting on October 24-25.
The ACP group said while it is willing to work with the Chair’s text, it argued that “our paradigm must change about the fundamentals of the real problem in subsidies to Overcapacity and Overfishing (OCOF). We cannot at the WTO level resolve all aspects.”
Expressing sharp concern over the leeway granted to big subsidizers like the European Union, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Taiwan and China among others, the ACP said “the tension rests on the need for a strengthened discipline to address the problem not to maintain the status quo and to ensure that we meet our mandate on special and differential treatment.”
“Without this aspect of the mandate on S&DT, there would be no mandate at all,” the ACP group said. “Some are viewing the S&DT as expressed across all developing countries as seeking exemption from the rules – that presumes that such rules we need in OCOF are meant for developing countries that are more the victims of OCOF and are not the subsidizers of OCOF.”
Worse still, “the flexibility given to the major subsidizers is presented here without any transition period or geographical limitation.”
Under the seemingly controversial concept of sustainability, “The flexibility presented as “sustainability” stands to maintain the status quo, with additional transparency,” it opined.
“There are those who have argued that everyone, including those vast numbers of developing countries that are not providing OCOF subsidies, must be held to the rules, virtually in the same manner as those who have flourished for decades in subsidizing OCOF,” the ACP group said.
Continuing its concerns on the chair’s latest draft text which was issued on September 4, the ACP reminded Ambassador Gunnarsson that “Subsidies to large-scale industrial fishing, including distant water fishing” must be targeted. “We came up with characteristics of large-scale industrial fishing, which we floated in bilaterals in June and July,” the ACP group said, adding that “Our proposal expressly excluded small-scale fishing from the scope of this discipline.”
Arguing that “the OCOF discipline must be credible,” the largest group of developing and least-developed countries said, Overall, making mandatory FSA Article 8.1.b provisions (I, ii, and v for A.1.1 and I, ii, iii, and v for A.1.2- concerning transparency provisions) only marginally reduces the loophole in the general disciplines by adding more information.”
The group said it could consider A.1.2 should be the first tier in the text, “provided it prohibits large-scale industrial subsidization that is depictive of OCOF.”
According to the chair’s text, the A.1.2 disciplines include:
A“1.2 (a) The [X] largest providers of fisheries subsidies by annual aggregate value according to [...] shall be deemed to be providing subsidies to fishing or fishing related activities that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing.
(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a), a Member falling under that subparagraph shall not be deemed to be providing subsidies that contribute to overcapacity or overfishing if the Member demonstrates through a notification immediately after a subsidy is designed and in effect, and thereafter in its regular notifications of fisheries subsidies under Article 25 of the SCM Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, that measures are implemented to maintain stocks in the relevant fishery or fisheries at a biologically sustainable level. In addition to what is required under Article C.1, a subsidizing Member invoking this provision must provide the following:
(I) catch data by species or group of species in the fishery for which the subsidy is provided;
(ii) status of the fish stocks in the fishery for which the subsidy is provided (e.g., overfished, maximally sustainably fished, or underfished) and the reference points used, and whether such stocks are shared d with any other Member or are managed by an RFMO/A;
(iii) conservation and management measures in place for the relevant fish stock; and
(iv) fleet capacity in the fishery for which the subsidy is provided.
The ACP group said in bilateral discussions with the chair, “concerns were raised about major subsidizing nations potentially withholding information about their subsidies to avoid being categorized in the top 10 or 20. This prompts a consideration of our approach concerning the scope of this discipline.”
The ACP Group also “elaborated a menu approach on the types of S&DT that different developing countries not responsible for the OCOF problem can cover.” It maintained that the chair in article B concerning S&DT provisions apparently continues with the previous chair’s text.
In short, the chair’s new text seems more like old wine in a new bottle without addressing the asymmetries in which the big subsidizers are apparently allowed to continue with their OCOF subsidies while penalizing the large major of developing and least-developed countries who did not cause the problem of depleting global fish stocks, said several people who asked not to be quoted.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here