|
||
|
TWN Info
Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Apr21/13) Washington DC, 22 Apr (D. Ravi Kanth) – The World Trade Organization director-general Ms Ngozi Okonjo- Iweala has signaled her intention to convene a virtual ministerial meeting on fisheries subsidies in end-July, in an apparent move to let the process determine the substance due to lack of progress on substantive issues, said people familiar with the development. At an informal heads of delegation (HoD) meeting on 21 April, the DG outlined her plans to convene a ministerial meeting to finalize an agreement, notwithstanding the substantive differences over the last four months on all the three pillars – disciplines for IUU (illegal, unreported, and unregulated) fishing, disciplines to curb harmful subsidies provided in the overcapacity and overfishing (OC&OF) pillar, and disciplines for overfished stocks. In her continued top-down approach to issues without delving into the substantive concerns, the DG and the chair of the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations seem determined to give a short shrift to the unresolved technical discussions among the negotiators and elevate the talks to a political pedestal, said people, who asked not to be quoted. The strategy that is being adopted by the DG and the chair is clearly aimed at “dislocating the technical discussions and dislocating group coordination,” said a negotiator, who asked not to be identified. The DG and chair’s forced framework from moving away from technical negotiations to political engagement is akin to a type of “skullduggery”, the negotiator said. Moreover, at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened in many countries with governments being forced to go into lockdowns as well as the difficulties being faced by countries in the negotiations due to differing time zones, it is not clear why the DG is sticking to a “make or break” approach, the negotiator said. At the HoD meeting on 21 April, the United States apparently spoke about discussing the issue of forced labour in the fisheries sector, suggesting that it could be addressed as an important element in the fisheries subsidies negotiations, in what appears to be a reference to China, said people, who asked not to be quoted. The US is also pursuing a worker-centric approach in trade negotiations to ensure that outcomes are acceptable to its labour unions, people said, adding that the US is also placing emphasis on sustainability rather than subsidies. The US, however, did not make any statement after the meeting. China, which on 16 April had opposed the inclusion of Article 5.3 in the second revised draft consolidated text dealing with OC&OF subsidies in the high seas, remained silent at the meeting. Many developing countries called for a horizontal exemption for artisanal and small-scale fisheries at the meeting, while stating their opposition to Article 5.2 for continuing with the subsidies for industrialized countries engaged in industrial-scale fishing. The ACP (Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific) Group as well as India suggested that they are ready to consider a hybrid approach for Article 5.2 that allows the big subsidizers to continue with their industrial-scale fishing. Both emphasized that Article 5.7 concerning special and differential treatment (S&DT) is a priority for them. But for industrialized countries, particularly the EU, Article 5.2, which allows them to continue with harmful subsidies, is a sine qua non in the final agreement as well as the regional fisheries management programs. South Africa said that if members “are to find a way forward in these negotiations, we need to ensure that the outcome delivers on the mandates, [and] the disciplines are effective to prohibit certain forms of subsidies to improve the state of our oceans.” The final agreement shall not entrench “existing imbalances, with effective S&DT an integral part of the agreement,” South Africa said. THE WTO DG’S STATEMENT Speaking at the informal open-ended HoD meeting on 21 April, the DG supported the chair of the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations, Ambassador Santiago Wills from Colombia, for “ministerial engagement”. “The aim of that meeting (in July) will be for Ministers to review a very advanced, hopefully final, text,” she said. Despite the lack of progress on substantive issues in the three pillars – disciplines for IUU fishing, disciplines for curbing the harmful subsidies in the overcapacity and overfishing (OC&OF) pillar, and the overfished stocks pillar, the DG claimed that “only the final hurdles now need to be dealt [with] at political level.” She touted her recent meetings with various trade ministers on fisheries subsidies, suggesting that she spoke to the Spanish trade minister for a lot of time on Tuesday. By talking to Spain, one of the major subsidizers and engaged in industrial-scale fishing, the DG “spilled the beans”, said a person engaged in negotiations that are about to reach capitals even though there is hardly any progress on substantive issues. The DG urged members not to deliver long statements and reiterate their long-standing positions. Ms Okonjo-Iweala wants members to exchange “concrete” ideas for bridging their differences. “This is the only way we can have an outcome,” the DG emphasized. Ms Okonjo-Iweala claimed that whenever she discussed with the ministers, she would “recall the preamble to the WTO Agreement, and the mandate of these negotiations”. She also suggested that “if there is no more fish in the sea, then the source of food security and livelihood, that was so talked about in the Marrakesh preamble, of those who depend on the fish, also will be gone.” Surprisingly, she did not mention the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) mandate on rules that govern negotiations on fisheries subsidies and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14.6, which has become the basis for negotiations since the WTO’s eleventh ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires, in December 2017. According to the UN SDG 14.6, WTO members are mandated to conclude an agreement on fisheries subsidies by 2020, to “prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU 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.” However, members failed to conclude an agreement by end-2020 due to substantial differences on the language proposed by the chair. “Perhaps, the DG is unaware of the institutional memory and the mandates driving the fisheries subsidies negotiations,” said another negotiator, who asked not to be identified. OBSERVATIONS BY ACP GROUP In some observations made at the meeting by Jamaica, on behalf of the ACP Group, it is argued that “on the issues of IUU fishing in Article 3.3b and Article 3.3c, we had a good signal of convergence emerging between the ACP Group text, which we projected at the meeting, to replace these provisions.” The ACP Group said that it is “pleased to see the text suggestions projected from the United States with a similar approach to ours to replace Article 3.3b and Article 3.3c.” Jamaica said that it looks forward to “exploring a merger of some ideas between the ideas of the ACP Group, the African Group and the United States to continue our objective of seeking convergence with other Members,” suggesting that it has already begun work in this regard. Jamaica said on the chair’s hybrid approach “in the current text for Article 5.1 and Article 5.2, many areas still must be resolved among Members.” The ACP Group said it has “repeatedly indicated interest in reflecting explicitly in Article 5.2, as a start, your [the chair’s] own consideration in your 12th February aid memoire that the provision should be restricted in scope to the subsidizing Member EEZ [Exclusive Economic Zone] and the relevant RFMO (Regional Fisheries Management Organization) where the subsidizing Member is a party.” According to Jamaica, “the ACP Group and the African Group are working on combining our textual drafting ideas for Articles 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.2 and 5.7.” The ACP Group said it has “not pursued to examine Article 5.2 in order to use it. Instead, our first approach was its deletion.” The ACP Group signaled that it can consider “ways to live with it (Article 5.2) since you have expressed an interest to maintain it and we must find ways to move forward.” “However, we must see equivalent time spent on Article 5.7. For the ACP Group, Article 5.7 is a priority,” the ACP Group said. The ACP Group said that it will soon forward text revisions, suggesting that “the balance of the text must include elements across these provisions.” ARTISANAL AND SMALL-SCALE FISHING The ACP Group indicated its interest in working with texts submitted so far such as those from Ecuador, Argentina, Chile and Cameroon, along with ideas drawn from the FAO work in the area of artisanal and small-scale fishing. As it relates to the process, Jamaica said that it has “received strong expressions of concern from members of the ACP Group over the de facto relegation of some Members to observer status in the negotiations.” It cautioned that “for the NGR (Negotiating Group on Rules) to move forward, we need creativity but your pursuit of creativity should always ensure that we preserve the longstanding WTO tradition of inclusivity and decision by consensus.” Jamaica urged the chair “to structure your future work to ensure that any delegation who wishes to take the floor or put forward their positions, even in your small-group processes, are able to do so without encumbrances, or perception thereof.” SOUTH AFRICA’S POSITION Speaking on the OC&OF pillar, South Africa said that “in relation to the core prohibitions under Article 5, to deliver on the mandate, we need to agree on a clear and strong prohibition in Article 5.1. In relation to 5.2, questions and concerns were raised by a number of delegations on the practicalities of demonstrating that the measures are implemented to maintain the stocks in a biologically sustainable level.” South Africa argued that “there is a need for clarifications to establish a common understanding among Members on these issues before we take our final position.” It stated unambiguously that it cannot “live with 5.2 in its current form as we see risk of abuse by those who have the requisite capacity to demonstrate.” Further, South Africa pointed out that “including the sustainability criteria in Art. 5.2 would be a serious compromise on our part and we would need effective S&D for developing countries under 5.7.” “Importantly, we would need to achieve the appropriate balance in the text based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility,” South Africa emphasized. Commenting on small-scale, subsistence and artisanal fishing, “we believe there is merit in considering a carve- out,” South Africa said. South Africa said that a landing zone for artisanal and small-scale fishing is possible “given the interests of many Members to safeguard the food security and livelihoods of these vulnerable fishers.” It argued that there is “a lot of similarity in seeking protection for fishing communities that are low-income, resource poor and dependent on fishing for their livelihoods.” South Africa said “when it comes to due process, we strongly believe that in the case of an IUU determination by a coastal Member concerning vessels or operators subsidized by other Members, a coastal state should be given complete deference on how an IUU activity is determined as such.” It expressed concern “with respect to any due process requirements for IUU fishing determinations.” “In other words, we believe that language of the type contained in Article 3.3 (b) may open the door for the Panel to enter into substantive matters of a determination. We support Iceland’s view that the first option is to delete 3.3b and that the best way to move us forward is to work with the ideas tabled by the ACP and others, including the US which can assist to find a landing zone to ensure fairness in the process.” “Our interest is in having flexibility to leverage our marine resources for our economic development, safeguard food security and livelihoods of our people and that is the bottom line,” South Africa concluded.
|
||
