Alice Tipping, who leads the Global Subsidies Initiative’s work on fisheries subsidies, reports on the latest round of negotiations towards an agreement on fisheries subsidies at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva.

Highlights

• Two rounds of negotiations towards a WTO agreement on fisheries subsidies were held on  January 16–17 and February 6–7, 2020.
• In the latest round, members discussed a revised proposal on subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing from the European Union, Japan, Korea and Chinese Taipei, and a set of new proposals from the Africa Caribbean and Pacific group.
• Members disagreed about many of the exceptions in the two sets of proposals, including those for subsidies for research and development in fishing and those for subsidies for members responsible for less than 2% of global capture.

The latest rounds of negotiations on fisheries subsidies at the World Trade Organization (WTO) took place in Geneva on January 16–17 and February 6­–7, 2020.

During the meetings, negotiators considered reports from facilitators and new proposals across the key areas of the negotiation: 1) prohibiting subsidies to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, 2) prohibiting subsidies to stocks that are already in an overfished condition, 3) prohibiting subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing more generally, and 4) legal and institutional issues involved in concluding the new agreement.

Three new proposals by the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group on the scope of the new rules suggested that subsidies to recreational fishing and for fishing access agreements would be carved out of the treaty. Access agreements have long been a point of contention in the negotiations: while the payments made between governments for fishing access are not subsidies, the on-passing of access by the purchasing government to its fleet at less than market rates (a common practice) could be considered a subsidy. Members have argued that subsidized access supports overfishing by making distant water fishing more profitable than it would otherwise be, but many coastal states argue that they benefit from the revenues that the agreements provide.

On IUU fishing, the ACP group suggested limiting the authorities whose IUU determinations would trigger subsidy rules to coastal states and regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs). They also argued for removing any due process requirements attached to those determinations. According to a Geneva trade official: “A number of members, in response, expressed disappointment that the ACP had moved away from its earlier position which was more amenable to introducing some scrutiny of IUU determinations of coastal states and RFMOs.” The ACP also proposed greater exemptions from the rules on subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing: under their new proposal, members that individually accounted for less than 2% of capture fishing would be exempt from subsidy limits.

The revised proposal by the European Union, Japan, Korea and Chinese Taipei retained the group’s overall approach to the overcapacity and overfishing discipline. The broad prohibition of all subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing has two areas of exceptions: for subsidies where fisheries management was present and for “positive” subsidies (such as for vessel safety, disaster recovery, and research and development costs). The revision narrowed the list of the kinds of subsidies that would be considered “positive” and made the exceptions subject to a test that they did not increase fishing capacity. The group also included transition periods for developing country members.

The group is now in a continuous negotiating mode, and informal meetings are likely to be called throughout February, in advance of the next formal discussions on March 5 and 6.

Concluding Sentiments

“Members are working hard, but they run the risk of not seeing the forest for the trees,” says Alice Tipping. “The question of how to structure the rules on subsidies, to overcapacity and overfishing in particular, needs to be resolved sooner rather than later to enable the big picture of the agreement to come together.”