|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jul23/02) New Delhi, 4 Jul (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations, Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, wants to “explore” in detail concrete ideas to address the proposed disciplines in the most difficult pillar of subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF), during the fourth “Fish Week” that begins on 10 July at the World Trade Organization. In an email sent to the heads of delegation (HoD) on 30 June, seen by the SUNS, the chair said that “we need to deepen these discussions with a view to identifying elements and approaches for a text to use as the starting point of our text-based negotiations in the fall (September-October).” Acknowledging that discussions during the third “Fish Week” held last month were fruitful, he said: “During the time since the June Fish Week you have been able to further analyze the proposals, and to further engage with each other on which elements in the various proposals might help us to find convergence.” “All such work will help us to use our time together in July efficiently and productively,” the chair said in his email. Commenting on the agenda of work to be undertaken during the fourth “Fish Week” that begins on 10 July, Ambassador Gunnarsson suggested that members “explore in as much detail as possible how we might best distill all that we have in front of us at this point in time.” In his email, the chair said: “While many Members continue to express support for the texts in W/20 and W/5 (which were issued by the previous chair, Ambassador Santiago Wills of Colombia, who is now a director in the WTO Secretariat), almost all Members also recognize that these texts would need some amendment and adjustment.” During the discussions on the previous chair’s texts, several developing countries, including India and some ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) group members expressed serious reservations over these texts for their alleged asymmetrical treatment of issues and the substantial carve-outs apparently given to the big subsidizers, including the European Union, the United States, Japan, Canada, Korea, Chinese Taipei, and China among others who are allegedly mainly responsible for the global depletion of fish stocks. India, South Africa, and several other developing countries emphasized the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, while India alone highlighted the “polluter-pays” principle for sharing the burden of commitments by those countries that have so far provided the largest quantum of subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing. However, the issues raised by India, South Africa, and many other developing countries were not reflected in the draft texts issued by the previous chair in W/5 and W/20, also referred in full as WT/MIN(21)/W/5 and WT/MIN(22)/W/20. While WT/MIN(21)/W/5) was issued in November 2021, WT/MIN(22)/W/20 was issued by the previous chair at the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12) last year. SIX PROPOSALS SUBMITTED In his email, the chair, Ambassador Gunnarsson, said that six proposals have been submitted containing a “range of concrete ideas.” He said, “For the July fish week, I thus would request that delegations aim to build on the very encouraging preliminary discussions in the June fish week by bringing specific views and concrete ideas on what elements from the various proposals and the W/20 and W/5 texts they think would form the best basis for our text-based discussions in the fall (September-October).” The chair provided “a table with a summarized “menu” of the basic elements and approaches contained in WT/MIN (22)/W/20 and WT/MIN(21)/W/5 as well as in the six proposals received so far.” He urged members to treat the table “exclusively as a tool for discussion, to encourage all of you to explore commonalities and possible overlaps among the documents.” Further, he said that “it reflects my reading of the documents, and deliberately is more conceptual than detailed.” He admitted, “While I have done my best, I may have misunderstood or inadvertently omitted something and so delegations should feel free, in our discussions, to point out any such issues.” The chair said the table is without prejudice to any Member’s proposal or position, and to the direction that these negotiations may take in the future. “Again, my only intention in providing it is to help us engage in a solution-seeking mode,” Ambassador Gunnarsson emphasized. STRUCTURE OF WORK IN 4TH “FISH WEEK” The chair suggested that on Monday (10 July), he would convene a short open-ended meeting where he plans to outline the details “of our work”. On Tuesday (11 July), Wednesday (12 July), and Thursday (13 July), the chair said he wants to organize “four in-person small group meetings using the same format as in the previous clusters.” He said that he will convene the small group sessions, which “will be an opportunity for delegations to provide concrete views and ideas on elements in the different sources that we have in front of us at this point in time, to be reflected in the starting-point document for the text-based discussion.” As members did not have an opportunity to comment/review the sixth proposal submitted by Fiji, the chair invited Fiji to all small group meetings to respond to any comments or queries specific to that proposal. Finally, on Friday (14 July), the chair said that he will convene an “open-ended meeting at the level of HoD+1” to report back “on the work undertaken during the week, outline the next steps, and open the floor for an exchange of views on these and any other matters.” TABLE & MENU OF ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION So far, six proposals have been submitted, while during the third “Fish Week” last month, only five proposals were discussed. The six proposals are: * China’s proposal (RD/TN/RL/166) on a proposed conceptual framework regarding “subsidies disciplines on fishing in areas beyond the subsidizing Member’s jurisdiction.” * ACP proposal (RD/TN/RL/169) for subsidies to large-scale industrial fishing or fishing-related activities, including subsidies for fuel, that contribute to the problem of overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF) to be prohibited. * In their proposal (RD/TN/RL/168), five South American countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru) proposed in Article 5.1 (of the draft text dealing with OCOF subsidies) that “No Member shall grant or maintain subsidies to (a) the construction, acquisition, modernization, renovation, or upgrading of vessels; (b) the purchase/costs of fuel, ice, or bait; ( c) price support of fish caught; and (d) at-sea support.” * Norway (in RD/TN/RL/165) proposed that, “A developing country Member may grant or maintain the subsidies referred to in Article 5.1 to fishing and fishing-related activities if it demonstrates in its regular notification of fisheries subsidies under Article 25 of the SCM [Subsidies and Countervailing Measures] Agreement that measures are implemented to maintain the stock or stocks in the relevant fishery or fisheries at a biologically sustainable level.” * The proposal (RD/TN/RL/167) by Australia, New Zealand and Vanuatu centred on new text on subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing. * The proposal (RD/TN/RL/170) by Fiji says, “the comprehensive AFS (Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies) must not undermine fisheries management and the tools that Members use to sustainably manage their fisheries.” Based on these six proposals, the chair suggested a menu of issues to be discussed during the upcoming fourth “Fish Week”. The issues to be discussed include: 1. Statement of the prohibition; 2. Statement of the prohibition with the scope limited to large-scale industrial fishing (ACP proposal); 3. Illustrative list of subsidies; 4. Combination of the close and illustrative list of subsidies; 5. Prohibition of subsidies based on Member’s annual marine capture of production and of its subsidies; 6. Sustainability-based flexibility from the main prohibition; 7. Subsidy over threshold amount not deemed as contributing to overcapacity and overfishing if subsidizing member clarifies that fishing or fishing-related activities with biologically sustainable levels; 8. Subsidies that do not materially contribute to enhancing fishing capacity or fishing effort, and are subject to appropriate limits; 9. Subsidies to fishing outside the subsidizing Member’s jurisdiction; 10. Prohibition on subsidies contingent upon, or tied to, actual or anticipated fishing or fishing-related activities; 11. Prohibition in A.3.a shall not apply to the non-collection of government-to-government payments under access agreements; 12. Subsidies contingent upon or tied to fishing or fishing-related activities outside the subsidizing Member’s jurisdiction should be subject to sustainability-based flexibilities; 13. Prohibition of subsidies to distant water fishing; 14. Special and differential treatment (S&DT) – transition period; 15. S&DT – geographical carveout; 16. Small-scale/artisanal fishing; 17. De minimis share of global catch; 18. Cap on subsidies not subject to disciplines; 19. LDCs (least-developed countries) and graduating members. So far, Switzerland, Singapore, Seychelles, the United States, Canada, Iceland, the United Arab Emirates, the European Union (comprising 27 member states), Nigeria, Belize and China have deposited with the WTO their “instrument of acceptance” of the Protocol of the partial Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. Unless two-thirds of the WTO’s 164 members formally accept the Protocol, the partial Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies will not come into force. In short, the fourth “Fish Week” is likely to test the resolve of the developing countries whether they will be able to secure special and differential treatment based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in order to develop their nascent marine sector. +
|
||
