|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Feb24/29) Abu Dhabi, 28 Feb (D. Ravi Kanth) — The United States and China appear to be maintaining communications on several issues, including fisheries subsidies and agriculture, at the World Trade Organization’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi on 27 February, raising the prospects for sub-optimal outcomes, said people familiar with the discussions. A senior official who has knowledge of the understanding between the US and China said that communications are being maintained between “us” (the US and China) on several proposed deliverables at MC13. MC13 appears to be snowballing into understandings between the US, China, the European Union, and other major subsidizers on both fisheries subsidies and agriculture, said delegates familiar with the discussions. On day two of MC13, there has been little or no progress on the targets on the deliverables to be accomplished by 29 February. In all probability, the meeting is expected to be extended at least by one day, said delegates who asked not to be quoted. Given the differences, the facilitators on fisheries subsidies as well as on agriculture are expected to hold bilateral discussions with members on 28 February. Though there is no convergence among members on the central elements of the draft text on fisheries subsidies, the facilitator from Iceland projected that members are being convergent, said people familiar with the deliberations at the convergence meeting. During a convergence session of 30 countries on fisheries subsidies on 27 February, the US said the 12 nautical mile limit for artisanal fishermen should be the “guardrail” on the demand raised by artisanal or small-scale fishermen, said a delegate, who asked not to be quoted. Effectively, the US appears to be opposed to extending the demand of artisanal/small-scale fishermen to fish in their respective exclusive economic zones or up to 200 nautical miles as suggested in the chair’s text, said delegates who asked not to be quoted. In his draft text, the chair said that “a developing country Member may grant or maintain the subsidies referred to in Article A.1 for small scale and artisanal fishing or fishing related activities that are primarily low income, resource poor or livelihood in nature as operationally defined by a Member, in its jurisdiction up to [12] [200] nautical miles measured from the baselines, including archipelagic baselines.” In response to the US intervention, an LDC member asked why the 12 nautical mile limit should not be a “guardrail” for the large-scale subsidizers contributing to overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF), said delegates present in the room. During the convergence discussions on OCOF subsidies in three separate rooms, senior officials of major fishing nations and developing countries not only reiterated their well-known positions on the chair’s latest draft text on fisheries subsidies but at times, clashed on several issues because of the specific carve-outs extended to the large OCOF subsidizers, said delegates who asked not to be quoted. Footnote two of the draft text on fisheries subsidies – “For greater clarity, the subsidies listed in this provision shall not be deemed to contribute to overcapacity or overfishing when granted or maintained in accordance with Article A.1.1” – is an exemption almost on the lines of how the big subsidizers in agriculture were treated with exemptions, said delegates, who took part in the discussions. At the convergence meeting on fisheries subsidies, the EU, which is one of the main beneficiaries of the chair’s text, said that it is a solid basis for agreement. Several members of the ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific) group, CARICOM (Caribbean Community) and the Pacific Group raised major concerns about the imbalances in the agreement, and together with several developing countries, raised the issue of the text not meeting the mandate, not addressing the primary cause of OCOF and the weak special and differential treatment provisions, said delegates who asked not to be quoted. There appears to be convergence among the largest subsidizers on the provisions in Article A.1.1, and they seem to be united in narrowing down the special and differential treatment provisions, said delegates who asked not to be quoted. Contrary to the claims that an agreement on OCOF subsidies will address the major environmental and sustainability issues, the current text enables the largest subsidizers to continue with their OCOF subsidies under the specific carve-outs granted to them, said delegates who asked not to be quoted. SOUTH ISSUES WARNING Meanwhile, a group of developing countries comprising Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, the LDC Group, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), Peru, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and Uruguay issued a strong statement addressed to the WTO Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the facilitator, Mr. Martin Eyjolfsson, the chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules, Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, and the WTO secretariat seeking “a credible outcome, one that will truly deliver on our mandates and make the difference for our oceans.” For this, the largest subsidizers, those who contribute to overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF) through massive subsidization of large scale and distant water fishing, must be subjected to stricter rules,” the developing countries said in their joint statement. They said that they support the “the two-tiered approach in a manner that supports the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities [CBDR], by subjecting the largest contributors to OCOF to a significantly more rigid sustainability test.” The chair has ignored the CBDR principle completely in the draft text, it is argued. More importantly, the developing countries said that “if we truly want to achieve the goals mandated by the Doha Round and the United Nations 2030 Agenda, any Agreement to be signed must protect the most vulnerable segments who rely on fisheries for their livelihoods and safeguard the policy space of members who did not and who do not cause the problem of OCOF, so that they can develop their own fishing sectors sustainably”. They reminded the DG and the facilitator-minister from Iceland that “the Sustainable Development Goal 14.6 establishes that appropriate and effective Special and Differential Treatment must be an integral part of the disciplines. In our current text, this means: * Excluding LDCs from the disciplines. Likewise, conceding a similar treatment for graduated LDCs for an appropriate period after their graduation from the LDC category. * A clear exception for developing countries that capture below a defined share of total global catch (“de minimis”); * Appropriate transition period and peace clause for those who are not within the “de minimis” and those who cease to be “de minimis”; and * An adequate unambiguous exemption for small-scale and artisanal fisheries up to 200 nautical miles or the exclusive economic zone.” The chair proposed the following provisions on OCOF disciplines: A.1 No Member shall grant or maintain subsidies to fishing or fishing related activities that contribute to overcapacity or overfishing. For the purposes of this paragraph, subsidies that contribute to overcapacity or overfishing include: (a) subsidies to construction, acquisition, maintenance, modernisation, renovation or upgrading of vessels; (b) subsidies to the purchase or maintenance of machines and equipment for vessels (including fishing gear and engine, fish-processing machinery, fish-finding technology, refrigerators, or machinery for sorting or cleaning fish); (c) subsidies to the purchase/costs of fuel, ice, or bait; (d) subsidies to costs of personnel, social charges, or insurance; (e) income support of vessels or operators or the workers they employ except for such subsidies implemented for subsistence purposes during seasonal closures; (f) price support of fish caught; (g) subsidies to at-sea support; and (h) subsidies covering operating losses of vessels or fishing or fishing related activities. A.1.1 (a) A subsidy is not inconsistent with Article A.1 if the subsidizing Member demonstrates that measures are implemented to maintain the stock or stocks in the relevant fishery or fisheries at a biologically sustainable level. Such demonstration shall include an explanation of how those measures ensure, or can reasonably be expected to ensure, that the stock or stocks in the relevant fishery or fisheries are maintained at a biologically sustainable level and shall be made through a notification by the subsidizing Member as soon as practicable and no later than six months after a new subsidy program comes into effect, and thereafter in the Member’s regular notifications of fisheries subsidies under Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) and Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS). (b) With the exception of Members covered by Article B.5 and notwithstanding Article A.1.1(a), for a developing country Member that is: (i) neither amongst the 10 largest providers of fisheries subsidies by annual aggregate level of fisheries subsidies as notified to the Committee on Fisheries Subsidies (the Committee) under Article C.4; (ii) nor significantly engaged in fishing or fishing related activities in any area farther than one Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Major Fishing Area beyond the one(s) adjacent to the Member’s territorial sea. A subsidy is not inconsistent with Article A.1 if the subsidizing Member demonstrates through its regular notifications of fisheries subsidies under Article 25 of the SCM Agreement and Article 8.1 of the AFS that measures are implemented to maintain the stock or stocks in the relevant fishery or fisheries at a biologically sustainable level. (c) The information provided in the notification referred to in Article A.1.1(a) and Article A.1.1(b) shall enable other Members to effectively evaluate the subsidy according to the conditions set out in Article A.1.1 and shall include the following for the relevant fish stock or stocks: (i) conservation and management measures in place; (ii) status of the fish stocks (e.g., overfished, maximally sustainably fished, underfished, or unknown) and the reference points used, and whether such stocks are shared with any other Member or are managed by a Regional Fisheries Management Organization or Arrangement (RFMO/A). +
|
||
