|
||
|
TWN Info Service
on WTO and Trade Issues (Apr23/02) Geneva, 31 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations, Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, seems to be angling towards the controversial draft text issued by his predecessor concerning the outstanding issues in the crucial overcapacity and overfishing (OC&OF) pillar, said people familiar with the chair’s latest email to trade envoys on 27 March. Despite stating that “many members emphasized the relevance of concepts such as the “polluter pays” principle and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility”, it appears somewhat puzzling as to why the chair wants to navigate members on the basis of the previous text, said people who asked not to be quoted. In his email sent to trade envoys on 27 March, seen by the SUNS, the chair provided an account of his reflections on the small-group consultations, in which he said “everyone came with an open mind and ready to engage in a constructive manner.” Ambassador Gunnarsson said that members who took the floor acknowledged that the mandate is rooted in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14.6. SDG 14.6 states, “by 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU [illegal, unreported and unregulated] fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least-developed countries should be an integral part of the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiation.” However, the draft text crafted by the previous chair of the fisheries subsidies negotiations, Ambassador Santiago Wills of Colombia, is replete with specific carve-outs for the big subsidizers like the European Union, the United States, China, Japan, and Korea among others, who are allegedly mainly responsible for the global depletion of fish stocks. In relation to the carve-outs being provided to the big subsidizers in the previous chair’s text, both in the scope and in Articles 5.1 and 5.1.1, the special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions for developing countries seem insignificant. Though the developing countries did not create the problem of the global depletion of fish stocks, they are being asked to pay much more than the big subsidizers, said people, who asked not to be quoted. It is against this backdrop that a large majority of developing and least-developed countries have demanded “policy space” to develop their incipient fisheries sector beyond the provision of “appropriate and effective special and differential treatment” during the first “fish week” that took place on 20-27 March, said people, who asked not to be quoted. In his reflections, the present chair said that “members (developing countries) also noted the significance of all three dimensions of sustainability, namely environmental, social, and economic,” suggesting that “some Members expressed the view that they are mutually reinforcing and work in harmony.” Significantly, the chair acknowledged that “several Members emphasized that environmental protection is critical for economic and social development and reasoned that without sustainable fish stocks, there will be no fishermen nor fish-related income.” Against this background, the chair said that “there is a widely held view that the disciplines concerning overcapacity and overfishing should focus on the most harmful subsidies.” “One recurring theme was the need to target subsidies provided to large-scale industrial fishing, notably by Members that engage in distant water fishing,” the chair said. More importantly, the chair said that “we heard some conceptual ideas on how best to reflect this concern, including commitments based on geographical zones; based on fishing capacity; based on level of subsidization; or based on subsidy intensity measured in relation to the size of the dependent population, the length of the coastline, or the size of the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone of around 200 nautical miles).” The chair said, “we also heard about aligning with recent international developments such as the BBNJ (Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) treaty.” The chair acknowledged that “many Members emphasized the relevance of concepts such as the “polluter pays” principle and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility.” In contrast, the big subsidizers seem to have argued that the provision of subsidies should be allowed only if related fishing activities are “sustainable”, perhaps to safeguard their carve-outs. According to the chair, it seems “some underscored that whether a subsidy is harmful or not will depend on the design and operation of the subsidy.” On the controversial issue of fisheries management, the chair admitted that “no Member believes that the WTO is or should be a fisheries management organization.” He suggested that “some Members are of the view that these disciplines should only focus on subsidies, while others view fisheries management as a tool through which Members may achieve the objectives of the rules we are crafting – to discipline harmful fisheries subsidies.” Several big subsidizers who are in favour of regional fisheries management organizations, “consider that incorporating these concepts could incentivize all Members to adopt good fisheries management practices.” The chair said it is obvious that developing and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) “are concerned that incorporating fisheries management considerations into the disciplines could create a major loophole for Members that already have strong fisheries management capabilities, while making it difficult for many developing and LDC Members to implement the disciplines.” REFLECTIONS ON S&DT In reflecting on S&DT, the chair said that “all Members acknowledge that this is an integral part of our work,” adding that “there was also a general call to safeguard the livelihood and food security of small-scale and artisanal fishers.” The issue of policy space also cropped up during the discussions on S&DT. The chair said that “I noticed that while some Members (big subsidizers like the EU and the US) see SDT as the means to help developing and LDC Members comply with substantive disciplines, others (many developing countries) are of the view that SDT should provide such Members with policy space to develop their fishing sectors and exploit their own marine resources.” Ambassador Gunnarsson said that “many Members stated that they do not seek policy space to pursue subsidies that undermine sustainability, and some made suggestions for ways to ensure this.” Interestingly, the big subsidizers seem to have cautioned that “SDT in the form of blanket exemptions should be avoided, to prevent undermining the broader sustainability objective of the OC&OF disciplines. In this view, SDT should be needs-based and limited to the overall objective of our mandate.” According to the chair, “some Members stressed the need to look at SDT through the lens of a Member’s capacity to fish and level of subsidization” and “some said that SDT should end when a Member no longer needs it.” Another dimension that emerged in the discussion on S&DT is the question of sequencing, the chair said, adding that “on the one hand, some Members see merit in discussing the disciplines and SDT in tandem, given that some of the policy space concerns could be addressed through the disciplines themselves.” “On the other hand,” said Ambassador Gunnarsson, “some see merit in discussing the substantive disciplines first, and on that basis determine the nature and level of SDT.” NEXT STEPS Under the heading of “Next steps” in his email to trade envoys, the chair said that during the second “fish week” beginning on 25 April, he intends “to follow the approach that we used this week.” He said that “the second fish week will begin and end with plenary meetings, with a number of small group meetings over the course of the week interspersed with time for delegates to consult with each other and with me.” “For the small groups,” the chair said that “we will maintain the same approach that Members seemed to appreciate this week, where all delegations can listen to the sessions to which they are not invited as speakers.” Ambassador Gunnarsson said that he plans to send to members “some questions to help to stimulate your reflections in preparing for the second fish week.” In terms of the broad theme for the work during that week, the chair said, “I have seen this first week as devoted to discussing what or why.” In other words, he asked, “what do we want to get out of this second wave of negotiations, bearing in mind the Ministerial mandate instructing us to continue negotiations based on the outstanding issues in documents WT/MIN(21)/W/5 and WT/MIN(22)/W/20.” By apparently reverting to the previous chair’s text, the chair may find it difficult to garner consensus, said people, who asked not to be quoted. In his email, the chair said that “as the next logical step, I see our second fish week as the beginning of our discussions of how to get to the result we want.” “While in my view it would be most productive to maintain a somewhat conceptual focus in those discussions, I also think that it could be helpful for all of us to have as a reference one sheet of paper pulling together the elements in W/20 and W/5 that are not somehow reflected in the Agreement that Ministers adopted at MC12.” Therefore, the chair said that his “idea is to attach this sort of “extraction” of those elements to the communication that I will send convening the second fish week.” “Let me make it clear that this will be a simple “copy and paste” exercise of those elements from W/20 and W/5 not covered by the current agreement,” he added. According to Ambassador Gunnarsson, “I noted that some Members are considering new formulations”. He urged members “who wish to bring in any such elements to do so as soon as possible so that those ideas could also inform our conceptual discussions during the April fish week.” In conclusion, the upcoming second “fish week” may reveal the broad trend of where the negotiations are heading – an agreement that removes the carve-outs being provided to the big subsidizers or extracts a high price from developing countries, as had happened in the Uruguay Round’s asymmetrical Agreement on Agriculture. +
|
||
