|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov23/04) Geneva, 7 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations, Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, on 6 November apparently suggested that more work needs to be done on several issues, including on the so-called two-tier “sustainability” test in identifying the big subsidizers that allegedly continue to contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, which has caused the global depletion of fish stocks, said people familiar with the development. At a plenary meeting of the seventh Doha “Fish Week” that began on 6 November, the chair said considerable work remains to be done on the two-tier “sustainability” criterion as well as on other issues, including the types of subsidies and special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions. The chair also held an interactive session on the types of subsidies as well as on artisanal fishing. The sixth “Fish Week”, which was held last month, appears to have raised fundamental differences among the big subsidizers such as the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei, and China on the one side, and a large majority of developing countries, who are seeking stricter disciplines for the big subsidizers, on the other, said negotiators familiar with the discussions. In fact, the differences in positions on the draft text (RD/TN/RL/174) issued by the chair on 4 September seems unbridgeable, said a trade envoy, suggesting that this week is being catered largely to thematic sessions and bilateral meetings without any negotiations. The eighth “Fish Week”, which is scheduled to be held in December, will likely focus on negotiations before the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13), to be held in Abu Dhabi in February next year. With the paucity of time and seemingly unbridgeable differences over several provisions concerning subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing, special and differential treatment, notification and transparency requirements, and several other issues like non-specific fuel subsidies, the chances of concluding an agreement on fisheries subsidies at MC13 seem to be pretty bleak, the trade envoy said. CHAIR’S EMAIL Ahead of this week’s discussions, the chair sent an email to members on 30 October on the organization of work. In his email, the chair suggested that the recently held Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) gave a green light “for the starting point draft text that I circulated in September (RD/TN/RL/174) as a good basis for the text-based work going forward.” “This high-level endorsement of our process, and of the deadline to which we have been working, was very encouraging, as was the prevailing sense of optimism about reaching a result at MC13,” the chair said. However, sharp concerns were expressed by some senior officials over the chair’s draft text on grounds that it allegedly tilted the balance in favour of the big subsidizers while undermining the special and differential treatment provisions for developing countries, who are not responsible for the global depletion of fish stocks, said another trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. In his email, the chair acknowledged the differences over the draft text at the SOM, saying that “it was clear from the interventions in the breakout sessions that there remains a wide spectrum of views over exactly what the disciplines should say.” He said that “now is the time to begin in earnest developing the compromise solutions that all Members can accept.” Ambassador Gunnarsson suggested that members focus the work “on the strength and efficacy of the disciplines on subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing, together with the related special and differential treatment provisions. To this end, I propose conducting most of our working sessions as interactive thematic discussions.” He suggested that “the work that delegations organize among yourselves in different configurations is equally if not more important than our collective discussions.” In preparing for the work during the “Fish Week”, the chair urged members to consider the following issues and questions: “The disciplines on subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing: * One fundamental issue is how in practice the disciplines on subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF) will operate, that is, how they will work to reduce and/or eliminate such subsidies. The provisions in the draft text containing these disciplines (Article A.1, including Articles A.1.1 and A.1.2) were the subject of many proposed amendments during our October fish week, as reflected in the compilation of textual suggestions contained in RD/TN/RL/180/Corr.1. * These suggestions, as well as our October discussions, show that many Members favor strengthening the disciplines in Article A.1, in particular, tightening the sustainability-based flexibility that would be available to the largest subsidizers (Article A.1.2). In terms of the specifics, based on these suggestions and discussions, Members see challenges regarding the use of subsidies data in the two-tier approach reflected in that provision. * Furthermore, some Members do not favor a two-tier approach, and there were some suggestions that Articles A.1.1 and A.1.2 could be merged, although no specific drafting for doing so was advanced. In addition, some Members suggest amending or restructuring Article A.1 to reflect commitments to reduce subsidies or capacity. Some other Members hold different views about the structure of these disciplines as well as about whether they need strengthening. * Taking into account the range of views expressed and reflected in the textual suggestions made regarding the disciplines in Article A.1, I invite Members to consider how we can find greater convergence on this cornerstone provision of these disciplines. That is, what approaches to strengthening or otherwise amending the disciplines in Article A.1 can both meaningfully discipline subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing and bridge the existing differences of view?” As regards special and differential treatment, the chair listed the following issues: * For developing and LDC Members, the draft text contains several elements of special and differential treatment (S&DT). Two of the S&DT provisions (on least-developed country (LDC) Members, and on de minimis however defined) would provide LDC and some developing country Members with a long-term shelter from the application of the disciplines in Article A. The other two S&DT provisions, regarding a transition period and regarding what Members generally refer to as artisanal fishing, would lead certain other developing country Members to apply the disciplines for some of their fisheries after the transition period had run its course. That is, taking into consideration a possible criterion-based exclusion from S&DT, a group of developing country Members, after a transition period, would be applying the disciplines with limitations stemming from the S&DT provisions relating to artisanal fishing. * It is important to focus on how S&DT would work for that group. We know that Members hold quite different views on the parameters for identifying the “artisanal” fishing of developing country Members that would benefit from the relevant S&DT provision. Furthermore, some Members have suggested making the procedural requirements for applying the sustainability-based flexibilities in the disciplines themselves less stringent for those developing Members to which the disciplines would apply. The chair suggested that during the seventh “Fish Week”, members “focus our S&DT discussion on these elements, with a view to deepening our understanding of how, specifically, the disciplines would apply to this group of developing country Members.” “In the light of the above, I invite Members to reflect on how an exemption for developing Members’ subsidies to “artisanal” fishing, and potential adjustments for developing Members in the disciplines themselves, could be specified in a way that maintains the effectiveness of the disciplines and can bridge the existing differences of view?” ORGANIZATION OF WORK As regards the organization of the work for this week, the chair said that there was “overwhelming support and encouragement for using interactive thematic sessions such as the two we held in October as part of our working methods.” He said, “The sessions in October gave us an opportunity for open, exploratory brainstorming and dialogue in a non-negotiating mode while maintaining transparency and inclusiveness,” adding that these discussions were extremely useful. Apparently, the Rome-based UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Bank recently published reports that address issues of direct relevance to the topics that are being addressed in the seventh Fish Week, the chair said. These reports deal with artisanal fishing and re-purposing harmful fisheries subsidies. +
|
||
