|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Dec21/06) Geneva, 7 Dec (D. Ravi Kanth) — With 250 million people surviving on fishing and fishing-related activities across the developing and least-developed countries, the need for robust special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions in the draft Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AoFS) appears to have become the main issue in the battle at the World Trade Organization between the developing countries and the big subsidizers, said people familiar with the discussions. In her intervention at a heads of delegation (HoD) meeting on 2 December, the WTO director-general Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala had said “I think we should focus on delivering [the WTO’s] response to the pandemic and fisheries subsidies no later than end February.” She exhorted members to “work towards that goal”, and went on to suggest that “250 million people are waiting for us on fisheries. And there are 7 billion people waiting with regards to the TRIPS and the response to the pandemic.” She called on members “to come back reasonably early in the new year, perhaps the second week of January, so that we can restart work – similar to what we did in the summer when we came back before Jeune Genevois [which took place in early September] and we undertook to start work together.” On the following day, 3 December, the DG’s hopes of concluding an agreement on fisheries subsidies by end- February seem to have been dented after the big subsidizers – the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei, and China among others -, who through their subsidies have mainly contributed to the problem of overcapacity and overfishing (OC&OF), and thereby, to the global depletion of fish stocks, refused to provide a longer duration for S&DT to the developing countries, said people, who asked not to be quoted. The chair of the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations, Ambassador Santiago Wills from Colombia, held a meeting at the HoD level to discuss the bracketed text on S&DT, as contained in Article 5.4 of the draft Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AoFS). In apparent violation of the mandate set out in the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14.6, which was reinforced in the Buenos Aires ministerial decision in December 2017, the big subsidizers have allegedly been provided with special carve-outs in the draft Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AoFS) to continue with their subsidies in the overcapacity and overfishing pillar subject to demonstrating that “measures are implemented to maintain the stock or stocks in the relevant fishery or fisheries at a biologically sustainable level”. The Buenos Aires ministerial decision on fisheries subsidies had stated that members would negotiate “an agreement on comprehensive and effective disciplines that prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU [illegal, unreported and unregulated] fishing recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing country Members and least developed country Members should be an integral part of these negotiations.” It further states that “members re-commit to implementation of existing notification obligations under Article 25.3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures thus strengthening transparency with respect to fisheries subsidies.” During the discussions on S&DT on 3 December, which was attended by the DG, India apparently called for an exemption period of 25 years from the list of prohibited subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. India’s proposal of 23 September, contained in restricted room document RD/TN/RL/148, says, “… to developing country Members that are not engaged in distant water fishing as on the date of entry into force of this [instrument] for future fishing or fishing-related activities, including distant water fishing, for a maximum period of [twenty five] years after the entry into force of this instrument.” In the chair’s draft AoFS, provisions concerning S&DT are covered in Article 5.4. Article 5.4 starts with a footnote that states that “this provision shall not apply to Members whose annual share of the global volume of marine capture production is at or above 10 per cent as per the most recent published FAO data.” This footnote seems to be specifically aimed at excluding China from availing of S&DT in the draft AoFS. In paragraph (a) of Article 5.4, the draft text states that “a developing country Member may grant or maintain the subsidies referred to in Article 5.1 to fishing and fishing related activities within its EEZ (exclusive economic zone) and the area of competence of a relevant RFMO/A for a maximum of [X] years after the entry into force of this Agreement. A developing country Member intending to invoke this provision shall inform the Committee in writing before the date of entry into force of this Agreement.” The chair has left the period of [X] years open due to alleged opposition from the big subsidizers. Their opposition to the proposed longer duration of 25 years came into the open at the HoD meeting on 3 December, said people familiar with the development. According to paragraph (b) in Article 5.4, which is generally referred to as the de minimis, “a developing country Member may grant or maintain the subsidies referred to in Article 5.1 to fishing and fishing related activities: “If its annual share of the global volume of marine capture production does not exceed [0.7 per cent] as per the most recent published FAO data; “for low income, resource-poor and livelihood fishing or fishing related activities, up to [12] nautical miles measured from the baselines.” Paragraph (c) states: [While applying Article 5.4, a Member shall endeavour to ensure that its subsidies do not contribute to overcapacity or overfishing.] India stated firmly that it wants 25 years for the number of years listed as X in square brackets. India, in its proposal, has already listed several conditions on making progress in the fisheries subsidies negotiations, but the chair appeared to pay little attention to India’s demands, said people, who asked not to be quoted. In response to India’s demand for an exemption period of 25 years, the EU said it could consider a period of around 5 years for S&DT. Japan apparently indicated a period of 5 to 7 years, while the other big subsidizers remained “inflexible” over the duration of S&DT, said people, preferring not to be quoted. The US did not divulge any number, suggesting that it did not want to engage in the discussion on this issue. The US apparently said that it has already made a payment to developing countries on S&DT (perhaps referring to the de minimis provision in the draft Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies that allows most of the ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific) group of countries to maintain or grant subsidies if their annual share of the global volume of marine capture production does not exceed 0.7%), said people, who preferred not to be quoted. Surprisingly, the big subsidizers managed to secure a special carve-out in Article 5.1.1 to continue with their huge subsidies that have mainly contributed to the global depletion of fish stocks. Yet, when it comes to S&DT for developing countries, the big subsidizers seem prepared to take the negotiations to the wire with their “inflexible” positions. South Africa severely criticized the big subsidizers for their positions on S&DT to the developing countries, suggesting that they are not serious about concluding the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, said people present at the meeting. The DG is understood to have said that she is extremely disappointed over the continued differences among the members. Earlier, at the HoD meeting on 2 December, the DG said that “250 million people are waiting for us on fisheries. And there are 7 billion people waiting with regards to the TRIPS and the response to the pandemic.” If the DG is so concerned about the welfare of the 250 million people who are dependent on fishing for their survival, then she must realize that they are the people seeking robust special and differential treatment because their governments cannot compete with the big subsidizers, who are spending tens of billions of dollars on fuel and other subsidies, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Furthermore, saving 7 billion people from the pandemic, who are waiting for the temporary TRIPS waiver, must precede all other issues, including the fisheries subsidies negotiations, said people, who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
