As members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) continue to discuss how to reign in subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity, the balance between sustainability and development remains central in ensuring any outcome is in the interests of communities and developing countries.
Following the failure of the membership to find an acceptable agreement at the 13th Ministerial Conference in February this year in Abu Dhabi, negotiations continue in Geneva with the General Council meetings being seen as the forum to conclude the talks.
Yet the rush to conclude is resulting in a text that is agreeable to, and effectively absolves of any commitments, the biggest subsidisers and those with historical responsibility for overfishing.
The issues with the current approach was highlighted at the recent WTO Public Forum in a session presented by the Norwegian Trade Campaign (Handelskampanjen) and the World Forum of Fish Workers and Fish Harvesters (WFF).
In a panel, delegates and representatives were told of the need to ensure a meaningful outcome that prohibits subsidising overfishing and overcapacity while supporting development, livelihoods and sustainability.
The concerns of Developing countries
The concerns held by some developing countries, especially those with extensive coastlines, large populations of artisanal fishers, and development aspirations, highlighted the imbalance in the burden of the agreement.
Ms Anisa Farida, First Secretary of the Indonesian Mission, the obligations from any outcome must not undermine the food security of Indonesia nor the other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that the country is trying to implement.
To do this the balance of the commitments must look to strengthen the current ‘best-endeavour’ approach to stopping subsidies for distant-water fishing as well as reflect the realities of countries like Indonesia and not just adopt an approach of using aggregate subsidies levels. Such an approach ignores the dynamics that impact subsidy amounts like Exclusive Economic Zone size, total population and coastline length.
Further, the inclusion of the ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibility’ principle, a principle that states those most responsible for the issue take on the biggest responsibility to resolve it, is touted inside this agreement yet is merely reflected through different levels of notification obligation and a tiered approach that fails to capture the real culprits.
At the fisher level, the challenges faced in securing livelihoods will be exacerbated by the inability to reign in the big fleets that overfish under the proposed texts.
Mr Alieu Sowe, National Coordinator for the Gambian Fisher Folks Association, highlighted the many concerns about the text, its limited flexibilities for developing countries and perpetuating the existing power dynamics in the oceans.
Ultimately, small-scale fishers are calling for more effective measures to curb industrial fishing subsidies and better support for sustainable small-scale fishing practices, something not present in the current text.
While small-scale fishers are dealing with the many complex and nuanced challenges facing them, the politics of the negotiations are resulting in a failure to address the main objectives.
Ms Helene Bank, the special adviser to the Norwegian Trade Campaign, called on the WTO to be serious about the obligation it took from the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, and deal with those fleets and fishing gear that has created the overfishing problem and continues to constitute the overcapacity.
But, despite a strong demand for targeting big fleets in the high seas amongst most countries, especially in the Pacific and Africa, it was once again India that was blamed for “blocking” an agreement in 13th Ministerial Conference (MC 13) in Abu Dhabi.
While this approach may continue the never ending part of the power game in the WTO, others, like Papua New Guinea’s Trade Minister Richard Maru have called out the big influential foreign fishing nations who are not prepared to remove harmful fisheries subsidies for the inability to conclude the talks.
What needs to be done at the WTO
For the negotiations to have the greatest impact, the outcome will need to fulfill and uphold a number of existing international principles. The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14.6 contains a mandate for the negotiations, but there are other SDGs, namely those associated with food security and development, that are at risk if the burden of the commitments are borne by small-scale fishers and developing countries.
Further the principle of “Common-But-Differentiated-Responsibility”, used in many international treaties that address sustainability issues, must be upheld, because failure to target those most responsible for overfishing would see the WTO preside over an agreement that undermines internationally accepted treaty approaches to sustainability.
The current proposals on special and differential treatment, a mechanism designed to acknowledge the capacity constraints of developing countries and as such require lower levels of commitments, set about rewriting those principles.
Some Least-Developed Countries (LDC) in this instance may face the steepest challenges in complying with their obligations, especially once they graduate from LDC status, which is in the near future for Bangladesh and Myanmar. The text also risks capturing small-scale fishers in the prohibitions, undermining their ability to receive government support, despite them being the least responsible for overfishing.
So while the talks at the WTO continue, for some there is a sense of disappointment about the failure to conclude at the 13th Ministerial Conference in February and then at the July General Council, however this may actually be cause for positivity. While many countries appear to be able to live with what is on the table, more would like to see the prohibitions tightened, especially on the big fleets.
This leaves negotiators with a chance to get it right and make it a deal that people are happy with instead of something they are content to live with. There is now time to reconsider what isn’t working in the negotiations and realign the talks with the principles mentioned above to land on a balanced outcome to target those undermining sustainability and uplifts the development potential of developing countries and communities.
Adam Wolfenden is the Deputy Coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG).
