Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 5 • Number 18 • 14th October 2005
SMALL STATES CALL FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT IN WTO FISH DISCIPLINES
SMALL STATES CALL FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT IN WTO FISH DISCIPLINES
On 30 September, WTO Members in the Negotiating Group on Rules discussed possible special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions for small vulnerable coastal states and general features of the new architecture on fisheries subsidies disciplines. However, many were reluctant to further consider the issue of aquaculture within the framework of the current negotiations.
A large number of delegations — including some that had not previously intervened in the discussions — responded to a joint proposal on fisheries subsidies disciplines from Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Solomon Islands, and Trinidad and Tobago (TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2) that was presented by the Solomon Islands. The proposal was a revised version of one that had been submitted by some of these countries to the July Rules meeting, but had not been discussed due to time constraints (Bridges Trade BioRes, 22 July 2005). The meeting was preceded by a series of bilateral consultations between the small coastal states on the one hand, and the EU, Japan and New Zealand on the other, which were considered very useful.
Small coastal states call for flexibility to develop fishing capacity
Stressing the economic importance of fisheries to small vulnerable coastal states, the proposal called for S&DT exempting the following categories from any disciplines: development assistance; assistance to artisanal or small-scale fisheries; access fees in fisheries access agreements; and fiscal incentives to facilitate the development of fisheries capacity in vulnerable coastal states. The proponents argued that due to the lack of capacity that characterises these small economies and consequently their inability to over-fish or distort trade in any significant way, fisheries subsidies would not have the negative impact on fish stocks that large scale industrial fleets in developed countries did. The countries also stressed that the final outcome of the negotiations should reflect their need for flexibility to take advantage of the potential of their fisheries sector.
Different mechanisms considered to address development issues
Among the proposed categories for exemption from the disciplines, fiscal incentives were particularly contentious and several Members requested further clarification. The EU and Australia declared themselves open to giving S&DT to developing countries, pending more clarity about the future disciplines and the exact meaning of S&DT. However, the EU noted that discussions on S&DT should take place in parallel with all other issues. While New Zealand invited the proponents to provide a concrete definition of artisanal fisheries, it welcomed the fact that these developing countries had come forward and identified the types of programmes they wished to exempt from new rules. Concerning the issue of the capacity of developing countries to develop fisheries resources, New Zealand suggested the use of a "de minimis" level of permissible subsidisation as a possible alternative or complementary mechanism to the outright exemption of entire categories that may be more flexible. New Zealand said it would spell out this proposal in greater detail during the Negotiating Group’s next meeting. Chile, Peru, Brazil and China objected to the implicit differentiation between small vulnerable coastal states and other developing countries introduced by the proposal’s call to permit the use of fiscal incentives in particular for small vulnerable coastal states. The issue of differentiation already receives attention in negotiations in the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD).
Disagreement on scope of negotiations
The submission also called into question the suitability of the ‘traffic-light approach’ — which would classify subsidies as prohibited, actionable or permitted — to promote the conservation of fish stocks. Instead, the proponents suggested that multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) might be better suited to the task. They also expressed concern that such an approach might let Members initiate disputes against subsidies that "directly promote overcapacity and overfishing" without having to directly link them to their trade effects, and argued that this would go beyond the technical competence of the WTO.
The "Friends of Fish" — a loosely defined group of countries, including Australia, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, New Zealand, Philippines, Peru, Norway, Iceland and the US, that supports a broad ban of fisheries subsidies with certain exemptions — stressed the importance of taking into account overfishing and overcapacity, as opposed to only the trade effects of fisheries subsidies. As overfishing by one country has direct repercussions on the availability of the resource in other countries, such an activity has indirect trade implications, they argue. Japan reiterated its usual position that it would prefer to ban fisheries subsidies on a case-by-case rather than a blanket basis. One Member suggested that further clarification would be necessary, since the document attempted to address too many issues that may not all be related.
Aquaculture de-emphasised
Members also continued discussions on an earlier proposal from Australia, Ecuador and New Zealand (TN/RL/GEN/54) that had raised a number of questions on subsidies to aquaculture (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 22 July 2005). The EU and India felt that aquaculture was already covered by existing subsidies disciplines and that the new disciplines should only cover wild capture. They were unenthusiastic about further complicating the discussions and asked the paper’s sponsors to stay within the scope of the present negotiations. China emphasised the importance of aquaculture for food security. It also underlined the differences between aquaculture and wild capture in terms of environmental impact. In light of the lack of enthusiasm, no further investigations of the issue are expected for the moment.
At the end of the meeting, the Chair announced that he wanted to reserve some time at the next session, scheduled to start on 24 October, for a general discussion about delegates’ expectations for the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in December.
ICTSD Reporting.