|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jun23/06) Washington DC, 8 Jun (D. Ravi Kanth) — The African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) group of developing countries at the World Trade Organization has called for subsidies to large-scale industrial fishing or fishing- related activities, including subsidies for fuel, that contribute to the problem of overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF) to be prohibited, in the ongoing Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations at the WTO. As the battlelines are being drawn over what kind of subsidies that contribute to OCOF are to be allowed or prohibited, the ACP group stated that “subsidies to large-scale industrial fishing or fishing-related activities, that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, shall be prohibited.” Earlier, China proposed a new conceptual framework for subsidies disciplines on fishing in areas beyond the subsidizing member’s jurisdiction in the ongoing Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations, said people familiar with the discussions. (See SUNS #9798 dated 8 June 2023). During the ongoing third “Fish Week” that started on 5 June at the WTO, several proposals are being negotiated in the most difficult OCOF pillar of the negotiations. Due to the sharp concerns raised by India, the African Group, the ACP group, South Africa, and China among others over the draft text (WT/MIN(22)/W/20) issued by the previous chair, Ambassador Santiago Wills of Colombia, there is currently an attempt being made to bring about changes based on specific issues that were not apparently addressed in a symmetrical framework, said negotiators familiar with the discussions. The previous chair had allegedly disregarded the “polluter pays” principle as well as the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) as enshrined in the 2015 Paris climate change agreement. Much of the proposals on OCOF drafted by the previous chair in his own capacity were seen to be biassed in favour of the big subsidizers, who were allegedly mainly responsible for the global depletion of fish stocks. Further, the developing countries were apparently denied the policy space to develop their nascent fisheries sectors, even though they were not responsible for the problem of OCOF, according to several studies by multilateral organizations involved in tracking the state of fishing and fishing-related activities in the Exclusive Economic Zones (of more than 200 nautical miles) and the high seas. ACP PROPOSAL In their restricted room document (RD/TN/RL/169*) circulated on 2 June, seen by the SUNS, Kenya, on behalf of the ACP group, has suggested that the group would use elements from earlier ideas and the draft text WT/MIN(22)/W/20. Kenya said, “The scope of the discipline proposed in this communication is limited to large-scale industrial fishing.” It means that “all small-scale fishing is excluded from the scope of the prohibition.” Kenya argued that while the list approach remains in this proposal, “the list has been slightly reduced compared with WT/MIN(22)/W/20.” “The intention is to respond to some comments made about the list” and “in addition, the list is linked to when the subsidies enhance the capacity to [unsustainably fish], with the burden of proof on the subsidizing Member to demonstrate otherwise,” the ACP group suggested. More importantly, it said the focus of the ACP proposal is “therefore on the fishing practices of each subsidized operator or vessel and demonstration by the Member subsidizing them,” instead of a nuanced burden on the non- subsidizing coastal State. At the start of the Phase 2 negotiations this year, said Kenya, “all Members recognized the overwhelming data reflecting the subsidies to large-scale industrial distant water fishing.” Although Kenya did not name the large-scale industrial distant water fishing nations, it is public knowledge that countries hitherto involved in such activities are the European Union, the United States. Japan, China, Korea, and Chinese Taipei among others. According to the ACP group proposal, the “developing country Members not providing subsidies of any significance, or not at all, to this sector are not responsible for the gross subsidization to overcapacity that has resulted in overfishing and serious depletion of world fish stocks.” The ACP group said that it “had earlier recognized this fact in a submission in February 2020, which was not reflected in earlier chair negotiating texts.” Also, “the domain of the WTO under the mandate is to address the subsidy and not the entire problem of OCOF, which is under the competency of other organizations,” the ACP group argued. S&DT FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Kenya said while “appropriate and effective special and differential treatment is critical to the mandate,” the ACP proposal took into account “the major responsibility for overcapacity and overfishing.” The ACP group noted that “large-scale industrial distant water fishing developing country Members (China, Korea, and Chinese Taipei among others) indicated in the negotiations that they would not seek special and differential treatment under OCOF.” Significantly, the ACP group argued that its proposal “for special and differential treatment in this submission takes that into account. Because small-scale is not in the scope of the discipline, the relevant LDC, de minimis, and EEZ provisions are incorporated.” The ACP group proposal said somewhat explicitly that in accordance with the mandate for appropriate and effective special and differential treatment, the prohibition of subsidies “shall not apply” to a developing country. In short, the ACP group proposal could generate an uproar from the big subsidizers of large-scale industrial fishing, said people, who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
