|
||
|
TWN Info
Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov20/30) Geneva, 26 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) – Attempts to provide reverse special and differential treatment (S&DT) to countries engaged in industrial-scale fishing while denying effective S&DT to hundreds of millions of artisanal fishermen in developing countries in the proposed agreement on fisheries subsidies apparently came under intense scrutiny on 25 November, negotiators told the SUNS. At an informal heads of delegation (HoD) meeting on 25 November, the chair of the Doha Rules negotiating body, Ambassador Santiago Wills from Colombia, and the “Friend of the Chair” Ambassador Didier Chambovey from Switzerland faced probing questions for their alleged attempts to confuse members, said a negotiator who asked not to be quoted. In sharp exchanges between India, Senegal on behalf of the African Group, and Sri Lanka on the one side, and the chair and Ambassador Chambovey on the other, it has become apparent that attempts are being made by the major subsidizers for reverse S&DT for industrial-scale fishing, the negotiator said. According to the record of exchanges shared by several negotiators, who preferred not to be quoted, the “Friend of the Chair” on S&DT, Ambassador Chambovey, said that “Ecuador’s proposal ensured support from many members.” “Even if some members remain skeptical about this (Ecuador’s) proposal, not one member (had) opposed it,” said Ambassador Chambovey, according to negotiators. “On the other hand,” said Ambassador Chambovey, “it is equally true, the India proposal (on S&DT for developing and least-developed countries on prohibitions on overcapacity and overfishing) has not attracted much support.” The Swiss trade envoy said that “I did not say that S&DT should be reduced to the Ecuadorian proposal.” Ambassador Chambovey added that “even if the proposal helps (our negotiations), S&DT is broader than this,” suggesting that “I hope this clarifies the situation,” according to negotiators. “If this is not the case,” said Ambassador Chambovey, “I would ask Brajendra (Navnit, the Indian ambassador) to contact me for further discussions.” In sharp response, the Indian trade envoy Ambassador Brajendra Navnit said that today’s discussion “was about Article 5 (concerning prohibitions on overcapacity and overfishing).” “The formulation of Ecuador was about Article 1 (concerning the scope of the agreement) ” the Indian envoy said, arguing that he “didn’t see any need for a debate today to bring Ecuador’s proposal in relation with special and differential treatment because Ecuador’s proposal is not about S&DT for developing countries and least- developed countries.” “So now you (Ambassador Chambovey) clarified that the two proposals (one by Ecuador and one by India) stand on their feet,” the Indian envoy said, adding that “linking it” will only mean linking “5.7(c) (which reflected India’s proposal on S&DT relating to overcapacity and overfishing) with the Ecuadorian proposal.” “And as a judge, we cannot put a leading question to a witness because it flows from November 10 discussion where two questions on carve-outs and transition period was put before certain members, and obviously certain members will go out for carve-out, but this is a horizontal carve-out in Article 1”, the Indian envoy said. The Indian proposal, as reflected in Article 5.7(c) of the draft consolidated text, says that: “the prohibition under paragraph 5.1 shall apply to subsidies granted or maintained by developing country Members including LDC Members, for fishing or fishing related activities within their EEZ and the area of competence of RFMO/A if all the following criteria are met: i. the Member’s GNI per capita exceeds US$5,000 (based on constant 2010 US dollars) for three consecutive years as per published data of the World Bank; ii. the Member’s share of the annual global marine capture fish production exceeds 2% as per the most recent published FAO data; iii. the Member engages in distant water fishing; and iv. the contribution from Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing to the Member’s annual national GDP is less than 10% for the most recent three consecutive years.” Replying to the remarks made by the Indian envoy, the chair said that “instead of linking (Article) 5.7 (c) to the Ecuadorian proposal, it was meant that the Ecuadorian proposal is leading to artisanal fishing and focused on territorial sea, has overlapped with 5.7 (b) (which says the prohibition under paragraph 5.1 shall not apply to subsidies granted or maintained by developing country Members for fishing or fishing related activities within their territorial sea) and it is overlapped with 5.7 (b), is within the OCOF (Overcapacity and Overfishing) and that is the only link.” The chair stated that “in no way, we intended to link 5.7(c) with the Ecuadorian proposal.” In response to the chair’s stated position, Senegal, which coordinates the African Group, said that “we share the same concerns expressed by India, during the consultations we have had with the facilitator.” And “we felt as well that confusion was being made about artisanal fisheries, except the Ecuador proposal under Article 1 is about the scope [which] put a different question on S&DT.” In its intervention, Sri Lanka said that “this proposal of Ecuador is presented under a different article (Article 1 concerning the scope) and I think it has a relation to Article 5 (concerning prohibitions on overcapacity and overfishing) because, whether this prohibition will be applied to all fishing, as they are making a distinction between large-scale fishing and artisanal fishing.” In response to the concerns raised by India, Senegal on behalf of the African Group, and Sri Lanka, the chair said he is looking forward to more consultations, stressing that “it is important to understand that Didier and I tried to reflect on the views shared by members” in different configurations. The chair further said that “these proposals were negotiated by your fellow colleagues,” adding that “we are constantly taking notes on the evolution of the discussions and on which views are gaining traction but we are not voting for one (proposal) or the other.” “So, we are not the ones to be convinced about your positions,” the chair said, arguing that this is his “main message.” Objecting to the chair’s message, Senegal said, “I am really very sorry when you say that it is not you who has to be convinced, but given the fact that some of the elements (in the chair’s revised draft consolidated text) do not come from any proponents, so how are we going to deal with those elements?” And, “this is something we have to clarify to some of those elements which you (the chair) had put under your own responsibility,” Senegal said. In his reply to Senegal’s remarks, the chair maintained that “we (the chair and the Friend of the Chair) won’t (have) an answer on these elements unless you clarify those elements”. “If you feel it is important to ask about those elements, please feel so, as most of the text is brought from the facilitators’ work before the pandemic struck the negotiations and I don’t think that any of the elements in the text are coming from me,” Ambassador Wills said. Effectively, the chair who had issued the draft text and the revised draft consolidated text (on 25 June and 2 November respectively), under his own responsibility, is now apparently trying to shift the burden to members, said negotiators, who asked not to be quoted. “We know in this organization how negotiating texts are prepared and how they reflect the view of major dominant countries,” said a negotiator, who asked not to be quoted. More importantly, several developing countries had said emphatically at a HoD meeting on 20 November that effective S&DT does not only mean longer transition periods and technical assistance. The developing countries said that effective S&DT, as per SDG 14.6, implies “policy space” for developing countries. At that HoD meeting on 20 November, South Africa said categorically that “as we try to find a landing zone, we need to ensure that the outcome delivers on the mandate and all its elements as entailed in SDG 14.6.” The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14.6 states unambiguously that “by 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiation.” South Africa argued that “effective S&D(T) is part of the mandate and we need to ensure that it is an integral part of the outcome and the disciplines given the challenges of developing countries and LDCs.” Further, South Africa emphasized that “it (S&DT) should not be limited only to technical assistance and transitional period; that will not be acceptable to us.” “Considering that countries are at different levels of development and subsidization, there can be no one-size- fits-all approach to disciplining fisheries subsidies and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is therefore important,” South Africa emphasized. Therefore, those “countries that have not yet develop(ed) their fisheries sector need to be provided with an effective and implementable S&DT provision (for ensuring policy space),” it said.
|
||
