TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct23/12)
11 October 2023
Third World Network

WTO: Fisheries chair needs to discuss Indian proposal along with his draft text
Published in SUNS #9872 dated 11 October 2023

Yerevan, 10 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations at the World Trade Organization, Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, on 9 October resumed the sixth “Fish Week” of negotiations on the crucial pillar of subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF) in his draft text, with a view to preparing a report for the upcoming Senior Officials Meeting, said people familiar with the development.

The Senior Officials Meeting is being convened by the WTO’s Director-General to prepare a blueprint of issues along with political guidance, to be decided at the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13), to take place in Abu Dhabi in February next year.

“How you engage this week will set the tone for the rest of this intense period coming up,” the DG, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, said at the start of the sixth “Fish Week”.

Although a partial Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies was reached at MC12 last June, so far, only 41 countries have ratified it. The partial agreement will come into effect only after more than 109 members formally ratify the agreement.

Much would depend on what happens in the current negotiations on OCOF disciplines, which seem to have considerable ground to cover.

The chair informed members that this week’s discussions will be to hear specific suggestions for amendments to the draft text that was circulated last month, as the starting point.

“I can tell you we are really turning up the heat,” the chair said, adding that “our main objective is to complete a full read-through of the text, collecting specific suggested amendments as we go through the Agreement provision by provision.”

However, the chair did not indicate what he intended to do with the comprehensive Indian proposal circulated during the fifth “Fish Week” around the time when members gave their initial responses to his draft text.

INDIAN PROPOSAL

In its proposal, India sought some fundamental changes in addressing the subsidies of the big subsidizers who are allegedly responsible for the global depletion of fish stocks.

The seven-page restricted unofficial room document issued by India called for enhanced special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions in line with the Paris Climate Change Agreement’s central principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).

The Indian proposal, seen by the SUNS, came on a day when the crucial fifth “Fish Week” on negotiating disciplines on subsidies contributing to OCOF began at the WTO on 18 September.

The big subsidizers like the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei, and China may oppose the Indian proposal because it aims to shift the burden of obligations onto those who are responsible for the global depletion of fish stocks, said an African trade envoy who asked not to be quoted.

India said that its proposal is in line with the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12) ministerial decision (WT/MIN(22)/33) regarding the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, which seeks to “achieve a comprehensive agreement on fisheries subsidies, including through further disciplines on certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment (S&DT) for developing country Members and least developed country Members should be an integral part of these negotiations.”

The proposal contains five elements: (1) horizontal issues – provisions under scope; (2) OCOF pillar – disciplines; (3) OCOF pillar – CBDR-RC and exploiter (polluter) pays principles; (4) OCOF pillar – S&DT elements; and (5) notification and transparency.

In its proposal, under scope, India called for the inclusion of “fuel subsidies, whether specific or non-specific” since they have the same harmful impact on the marine environment and ocean sustainability.

India said when “dealing with the sustainability of fish stocks based on an environmental perspective, the market distortion principle will not apply, and the scope of prohibition cannot be limited to only specific fuel subsidies and leave out non-specific fuel subsidies.”

Therefore, India said that the “inclusion of non-specific fuel subsidies under the scope for the comprehensive agreement is proposed.”

The Indian proposal has argued that the “Government-to-Government payments under fisheries access agreements must be treated as subsidies.”

The previous chair as well as the current chair of the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations have treated government-to-government payments as not subsidies, in what appears to be a specific carve-out provided to one of the big subsidizers – the European Union, said negotiators familiar with the discussions.

While recognizing “the fact that such access agreements/arrangements can help some Members generate revenues, especially in some developing countries, including LDCs,” India argued that “further transfer, by a payer Member Government, of access rights that it has acquired from another Member Government to fish within the jurisdiction of such other Member should be treated as subsidies within the meaning of this Agreement.”

“Excluding subsidies arising from the further transfer of access rights is like a blank cheque to distant water fishing nations that fish in other Member’s EEZ [Exclusive Economic Zone]/high seas,” India said.

According to India, such exclusion “can easily circumvent the subsidy disciplines by entering into bilateral or circuitous agreements and avoid recovery of subsidy paid to commercial players.”

CHAIR’S REPORT ON FIFTH “FISH WEEK”

Surprisingly, the chair, in his email sent to members on 28 September, did not even mention the Indian proposal that calls for substantial changes.

Ambassador Gunnarsson said, “One highlight of this fish week (the fifth “Fish Week”) was the widespread willingness among Members to treat the draft text as the starting point for our text-based negotiations.”

In the email, the chair said that his “objective in preparing this draft text was not to approximate the outcome of this process, but merely to prepare a single common basis to begin our text-based work towards an outcome to be developed and agreed by all Members.”

However, the draft text does seem to inch towards a particular outcome based on the controversial list approach. India has challenged the reliance on the list approach while advocating for an effects-based approach.

“In your reactions to the draft text, once again you heard each other’s positions on the outstanding issues,” the chair said in his email, adding that, “This should enable you to reflect on where landing zones could be found and what needs to be done to find and increase the number of overlaps of negotiating positions so that we can capture such landing zones in text form as our work progresses.”

He suggested that, “Going forward, the task of finding landing zones will require us to reach beyond our established negotiating positions and make an earnest effort to find common ground. The time has come for each delegation to demonstrate a measure of flexibility in your approach.” +