Rich, poor nations demand end to fishery subsidies

HONG KONG – While poor and rich countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) slug it out over diverse farm trade and industry policies, there may yet be a convergence of positions with regards to the fisheries sector.

Several developing and developed countries are demanding an end to the huge trade-distorting subsidies provided by a few rich countries to their fishery industries that have led to overfishing of the world’s already dwindling fishery stocks.

Developing nations like the Philippines, Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Brazil and New Zealand are in agreement with economic powerhouses European Union (EU) and the United States (US) to improve disciplines in fisheries subsidies.

In a press briefing, trade ministers expressed concerns about the potentially harmful trade, development and environmental effects of fisheries subsidies has on global fish stocks.

They noted that governments provide $16 billion annually to support the fisheries sector in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries that include Japan, Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, US, Greece and Finland. The subsidies are equivalent to roughly 20 percent of fishing industry revenue worldwide and are used to help manage fish stocks and to modernize fishing fleets that according to developing countries, encourage overfishing.

"The state of marine fisheries in the region, which no doubt is mirrored in marine resources worldwide, calls for urgent concerted action, both at the national and international levels, in order to move closer to the goal of sustainable use of fishery resources.

"To achieve this, efficient fishery resource management should be completed with the establishment within the WTO, of effective and binding disciplines to fishery subsidies," said Philippine Agriculture Secretary Domingo F. Panganiban.

He added that fishery subsidies, the bulk of which are provided by developed countries, have an adverse impact on the productivity, trade competitiveness, and fishery conservation efforts of developing countries.

"Subsidies provided by a handful of developed countries frustrate the ability of developing countries to move towards sustainable fisheries development. In the Philippines for instance, the overriding concern on the issue of subsidies is that the over-capacity in global fishing fleets promotes distant water fleets fishing off our coastal waters while our own fisherfolks suffer from unfair and inefficient competition," noted Panganiban.

Panganiban noted that developing countries like the Philippines are also concerned about further tariff cuts in fishery products which he said will be devastating to marginal or artisinal small-scale fishermen.

For his part, United States Representative Robert Portman expressed confidence that the WTO will be able to work out stronger rules on fisheries subsidies with both rich and developing countries recognizing the possible dire consequences of overfishing that is helped by huge subsidies.

"This is a ground-breaking negotiation. For the first time, the WTO is addressing a problem with direct and immediate consequences not only for trade but also for marine environment and sustainable development." On the other hand, non-government organizations also called on the WTO to halt moves to impose more tariff cuts for fishery products.

SEAFish-J is advocating a respite from further liberalization in fisheries for developing countries; exemption of fisheries from the NAMA tariff reduction formula; compatibility of fisheries trade rules with the precautionary principle given unknown socialand environmental risks; minimal restraints on the ability of developing countries to apply higher tariffs to raise revenues to help recover the public cost of extraction; maintenance of flexibilities on domestic protection including tariff application and imposition of quantitative restrictions to take into account seasonality of fishery products and the fragility of rural economies.

SEAFish-J coordinator Arsenio Tanchuling, 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 by developing 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.