Reg’l fisheries network raps WTO text on NAMA

The Southeast Asian Fish for Justice Network (SEAFish-J), a regional network of fisheries non-government and fisherfolk organizations criticized the draft ministerial text of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on non-agricultural market access (NAMA) which called for further tariff reductions on fish and fishery products.

SEAFish-J cited Annex B on NAMA specifically Annex B on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) which it said was unresponsive and inimical to the interests of artisanal fishers in the region.

"The draft is unduly focused on the tariff reduction formula and tariff binding with insufficient attention given to flexibilities for developing countries," said Arsenio Tanchuling, SEAFish-J coordinator.

He said the draft text ignored concerns about sustainable management of dwindling fishery resources through the judicious application of tariffs and quantitative restrictions, and exemption from binding of fishery products to take into account the nature of the resource and the vulnerability of artisanal fishers, who are typically poor.

Tanchuling explained that the proposed application of co-efficients and mark-ups in tariff reduction and binding is linked with flexibilities (exemption from formula cuts and binding) contradicts the position of developing countries that such flexibilities are stand-alone provisions for the recourse of developing countries in managing their domestic economies.

"Pushing for unqualified trade liberalization in fisheries, which are common pool resources that are easily depleted in the absence of effective management, courts the danger of further destruction of fish stocks and habitats, and economic dislocation for artisanal fishers who depend on these resources for their livelihoods." He pointed out that in Southeast Asia, artisanal fisheries contribute to domestic food security, provide employment especially in rural areas and generate export income.

"Yet fisheries management is very weak. Resource use conflicts between small-scale fishers and commercial fleets abound. Over the past 40 years, standing fish stocks in the region have been reduced to less then a fourth of their former levels."

The objective of NAMA negotiations is greater market access in non-agricultural products through tariff reduction and binding. NAMA covers not only manufactured products but also natural resource-based industries such as forestry, mineral and fishery products.

The significance of the agreement lies in the scope of sectors that falls within its terms which includes impoverished and vulnerable groups residing in upland and coastal communities.

Tanchuling noted the clear danger posed against fisheries by the push for so-called sectoral initiatives, referred to in paragraph 21 of the NAMA text released last month.

"Forced tariff reduction along specific sectors based on a critical mass approach is illogical and preempts currently ongoing negotiations to agree on a tariff reduction formula.

It is very disturbing that fishery products are specifically mentioned given the buildingconsensus among fishery advocates that there is need to be more cautious in managing international fisheries trade." SEAFish-J is advocating a respite from further liberalization in fisheries for developing countries; exemption of fisheriesfrom the NAMA tariff reduction formula; compatibility of fisheries trade rules with the precautionary principle given unknown social and environmental risks; minimal restraints on the ability of developing countries to apply higher tariffs to raise revenues to help recover thepublic cost of extraction; maintenance of flexibilities on domesticprotection including tariff application and imposition of quantitative restrictions to take into account seasonality of fishery products and the fragility of rural economies.

He said the NAMA text exhibited its bias towards developed country positions on market access and ignores developing countries’ interests.

"It is not consistent with the less than full reciprocity (LTFR) principle as understood and articulated in the bargaining table bydeveloping countries. It is the height of irony that these ministerial texts are issued in the name of a development round given that commitments being sought are not in line with the trade, development and environment interests of developing countries."

Tanchuling added that the current approach of NAMA for the fishery sector, focusing solely on market access issues will fail to yield a positive outcome.

"The WTO must take steps to adopt an integrated and interlinked approach that not only addresses the need for flexibility in managing fisheries trade at the domestic and international level but also attempts, concurrently, to resolve issues on fishing subsidies and non-trade barriers that are also of enormous importance to developing countries."

Data gathered by SEAFish-J show that globally, fishing subsidies are estimated at $20 billion going almost exclusively to the industrial fishing fleets of developed countries.