|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jun23/05) Geneva, 7 Jun (D. Ravi Kanth) — Several proposals at the World Trade Organization on how to address the subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF), which are mainly responsible for the global depletion of fish stocks, could prove to be a litmus test for preparing the draft text on fisheries subsidies, said people familiar with the development. The central question this time around in the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations that began at the WTO on 5 June, as part of the third “Fish Week”, is whether the developing countries will secure enhanced special and differential treatment (S&DT) as well as policy space for developing their nascent fisheries sectors, said negotiators. China has proposed a new conceptual framework for subsidies disciplines on fishing in areas beyond the subsidizing member’s jurisdiction in the ongoing Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations at the WTO, said people familiar with the discussions. At a time when the erstwhile big subsidizer, namely the United States, is seemingly targeting China, an allegedly big subsidizer in the OCOF area, on issues like forced labour in the fisheries sector, it remains to be seen how members will consider Beijing’s proposed framework, said several fisheries negotiators, who asked not to be quoted. On 1 June, China submitted a proposal regarding “subsidies disciplines on fishing in areas beyond the subsidizing Member’s jurisdiction.” In a restricted room document (RD/TN/RL/166*), China said that as per the mandate agreed upon at the WTO’s eleventh ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017, the need of the hour is to “Prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing.” Given the setback suffered by the developing countries in formulating the disciplines in the OCOF pillar during the fisheries subsidies negotiations chaired by the previous chair, Ambassador Santiago Wills of Colombia, it remains to be seen how the current chair, Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, will prepare the draft text, said several developing country negotiators. At present, there are five proposals submitted by different members, which are being discussed during the third “Fish Week” that commenced on 5 June. All the five proposals, seen by the SUNS, remain as restricted documents. To start with, China and Norway submitted their respective room documents on 1 June, while a group of South American countries, Australia along with New Zealand and Vanuatu, and Kenya, on behalf of the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) group, submitted their different proposals on 2 June. During the second “Fish Week” that was held from 25 to 28 April, several definitional issues came to the fore involving large-scale, small-scale, and artisanal fishers as well as the need to classify these different categories of fishers to assess their impact in contributing to the problem of overcapacity and overfishing. However, there was little convergence between the big subsidizers such as the European Union, the US, China, Canada, Korea, and Chinese Taipei among others on the one side, and members with large-scale, small-scale, and artisanal fishers, on the other, said people who took part in the week-long meetings. Due to the lack of convergence on the two draft texts (WT/MIN(22)/W/20 and WT/MIN(21)/W/5) issued by the previous chair, the current chair sought proposals from members, to be discussed during this week’s negotiations, said trade negotiators, who preferred not to be quoted. CHAIR’S QUESTIONS Earlier, Ambassador Gunnarsson sought to know how should members best approach making operational the prohibition on subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing. The chair wanted to know from members the extent to which the approaches and elements in WT/MIN(22)/W/20 and WT/MIN(21)/W/5 would be appropriate and sufficient. He asked members to suggest how should the disciplines on subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing address subsidies to large-scale fishing, including fishing in distant waters. The chair also asked members to suggest what considerations, criteria, and principles are relevant to disciplining such subsidies. Lastly, Ambassador Gunnarsson asked members to consider how should the disciplines on subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing address small-scale or artisanal fishing, and what considerations, criteria and principles are relevant to providing appropriate and effective flexibilities for subsidies to such fishing for developing and least-developed Members. Out of the five proposals, China’s proposal regarding subsidies disciplines on fishing in areas beyond the subsidizing member’s jurisdiction could generate a serious debate among members, said a developing country negotiator, suggesting that it appears to be a carve-out somewhat along the lines of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture. CHINA’S PROPOSAL At a time when the erstwhile big subsidizer, the US, is seemingly targeting China, another big subsidizer, it could prove to be “a battle of two elephants stomping on the grass,” said a negotiator, who asked not to be quoted. In its restricted room document (RD/TN/RL/166*), China said that as per the mandate agreed upon at the WTO’s eleventh ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017, the need of the hour is to “Prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing.” China welcomed the discussions based on the hybrid approach (in which prohibited subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing were to be qualified based on both a list of types of government support and a condition relating to the biological sustainability of fish stocks). It proposed conceptual ideas on the amendment of the provision regarding subsidies in areas beyond the subsidizing member’s jurisdiction (ABMJ). But, China abbreviated it as ABNJ, implying areas beyond national jurisdiction. It said that the guiding principles for achieving “the sustainable development of fisheries resources, based on the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], “subsidies discipline + fisheries management based on sustainability” should serve as the basis of OCOF discipline as rightfully reflected in the current hybrid approach.” China said that it “shares the concerns of members on ABNJ fishing activities and fishery resources and is willing to work with members to establish fair, non-discriminatory, sustainability-oriented disciplines.” However, China said it “does not believe an overall prohibition is the right approach,” adding that it “would like to propose the following guiding principles in establishing the disciplines for subsidies in ABNJ.” According to China, the first guiding principle ought to be that “the disciplines should be contingent on the fisheries resource and management, rather than the geographical areas.” On one hand, China said that the FAO and other RFMOs (Regional Fisheries Management Organizations) do not set different rules for different areas under various jurisdictions. On the other hand, it argued that “all ABNJ fishing activities are now under the regulations, either of the competent RFMO (in the high seas) or of the coastal members (in the foreign EEZs) through fisheries access agreements or arrangements like the ones between the European Union and several countries.” According to China, “ABNJ fishing activities have to follow the rules such as quotas, stock assessment, vessel registration, etc.” It said the total catch of ABNJ fishing only accounts for 18 percent of global marine catch. China argued that “there is no evidence the ABNJ fishing activities bring more negative impact than other fishing activities under national jurisdictions.” The second guiding principle in China’s assessment is that “ABNJ discipline should be applied even-handed. All subsidies benefiting ABNJ fishing activities should be equally regulated, regardless of the different design and implementation of the subsidies.” The third principle, said China, is that “the framework of the Agreement should be hierarchical and balanced.” It said the framework should be “based on the fisheries resources conditions; the disciplines on overfished stocks should be the most stringent. The discipline of ABNJ should not be more stringent than that of the overfished stocks and should at least enjoy similar flexibilities.” According to China, the fourth principle (somewhat akin to the WTO’s inequitable Agreement on Agriculture) is that “green subsidies” should be explicitly exempted. For greater certainty, the subsidies which aim to conserve/rebuild fishery resources, implement the international/ domestic fisheries management regulation, protect the fisherman’s life and health, improve the on-board working and living conditions, reduce emission and waste, etc., rather than enhance the fishing capacity, should be allowed, said China. Based on the above-mentioned principles, China proposed the following elements regarding the ABNJ subsidies disciplines: 1. The disciplines should apply to all fishing activities regardless of geographical areas. 2. All subsidies benefiting ABNJ fishing, whether or not contingent upon or tied to it, should be subjected to the same discipline. 3. Subsidies with no incentive to enhance the fishing capacity should be allowed. For greater certainty, subsidies designed to conserve/rebuild fishery resources, implement the international/domestic fisheries management regulation, protect the fisherman’s life and health, improve the on-board working and living conditions, reduce emission and waste, etc., rather than enhance the fishing capacity, should be explicitly exempted from the prohibitions. China said it welcomes further discussions on the elaboration of the above ideas and hopes the discussion will lead to a reasonable and effective discipline framework for the OCOF pillar. In short, it remains to be seen whether China’s ABNJ proposal will gather any support from members, said people who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
