|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Dec24/06) New Delhi, 13 Dec (D. Ravi Kanth) — The World Trade Organization’s Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo- Iweala, on 12 December is understood to have asked the chair of the WTO General Council (GC) to move the proposed decision on Additional Provisions on Fisheries Subsidies addressing subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF) to discussion only, said people familiar with the development. At a heads of delegations (HoD) meeting followed by a meeting of the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), the DG conveyed to the GC chair, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, not to keep the Additional Provisions for a decision at the upcoming GC meeting on 16-17 December, recognizing the concerns of a few members while at the same time noting that 95 percent of members are on board, said people familiar with the discussions. She appears to have said that members must come out of their comfort zone after the winter break in January next year. After the DG’s interventions, the United States is understood to have unambiguously stated that members need to select a new chair for the Doha agriculture and fisheries subsidies negotiations next year, conveying the message that it will not be able to join the consensus on concluding a deal on OCOF subsidies, said people familiar with the development. At the informal HoD meeting on 12 December, the US apparently said that it was ready to conclude the fisheries subsidies negotiations based on the draft text (TN/RL/W/279) issued in July this year. The US lamented that there was no consensus at that time, said people familiar with the discussions. The US seemingly said the latest revised draft Additional Provisions (TN/RL/W/285) issued by the chair of the fisheries subsidies negotiations brought more imbalances in the commitments. The US said it cannot accept these latest changes as they appear to have created more imbalances in the proposed decision on subsidies contributing to OCOF, said people familiar with the development. The US also seemingly said a new chair for the agriculture negotiations is needed next year to move the process forward, said people familiar with the development. Earlier, there were expectations that the US could join the consensus as it did in agreeing to a second term for the incumbent DG on which it had initially raised reservations, said a person who asked not to be quoted. However, agreeing to the DG’s appointment for a second term is a procedural issue, while the decision on the Additional Provisions on addressing OCOF subsidies is a substantive policy issue, said a trade envoy who asked not to be identified. DG’S REMARKS The WTO Director-General, Ms Okonjo-Iweala, seemingly stuck to her repeated refrain that leaders expressed confidence that members would conclude agreements on fisheries subsidies and other issues at the WTO. She implored members to live up to the expectations expressed by leaders at the recent meeting of the G20 leaders in Brasilia, said a participant who asked not to be quoted. The DG apparently suggested that there is still time to conclude an agreement on fisheries subsidies before the General Council meeting, the participant said. The DG apparently suggested a way forward on other issues in the new year, and also supported the proposed controversial Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA), though she urged the proponents to sort out the differences with the few opponents including India, said people familiar with the discussions. The chair of the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations, Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson of Iceland, said barring two members, who were not named, there is support from the majority of members to conclude an agreement at the upcoming General Council meeting on 16-17 December, said people familiar with the negotiations. The fisheries chair apparently suggested that there could still be some surprises between now and the GC meeting, though the prospects appear highly unlikely, said people familiar with the negotiations. Ambassador Gunnarsson apparently indicated that the changes sought by one member could create far-reaching implications that are not acceptable to many members, said people familiar with the discussions. Many countries, including the European Union, China, the “Friends of the System” group that includes Norway, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada among others, Barbados, and Nigeria, whose positions are far from the African Group, apparently threw their weight behind the decision to conclude the fisheries subsidies agreement, said people familiar with the discussions. INDIA’S PROPOSAL India, which has consistently opposed the proposed agreement, had not yet made its intervention at the time of filing this article. On 5 December, India highlighted the deficiencies in the chair’s draft text (TN/RL/285), particularly “on the issue of aggregate level of fisheries subsidies to establish different obligations for Members in terms of Article A.1.1(a) and A.1.1(b).” Additionally, said India, “this would also be the basis for review provision under Article D.1(a), which entails the potential imposition of quantitative restrictions or reduction commitments on subsidies provided by major subsidizing countries.” According to India, “the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement, including Additional Provisions, is essentially a sustainability agreement.” Therefore, said India, “it should discipline subsidies that lead to overcapacity and overfishing. The annual aggregate level of fisheries subsidies cannot be the correct measure as these subsidies include beneficial subsidies as well as subsistence subsidies that are linked to livelihood which in no way contribute to overcapacity and overfishing.” “This approach, while convenient for assessing subsidy flows on a large scale, overlooks the intensity of subsidies and their real impact on sustainability,” India argued. It suggested that “it fails to reflect the situation of a few countries that have already expanded their fishing capacities and continue to heavily subsidize their large-scale industrial fleets, thereby contributing significantly to overfishing.” It said countries like India that are planning to build “such capacities and support large fisher populations are placed at a disadvantage.” India argued, “thus, adopting a “per capita distribution of subsidies” criterion could provide a more accurate and fair basis for managing overfishing and capacity issues, considering both stock sustainability and livelihood concerns.” “Countries with a substantial fishing population tend to provide higher aggregate subsidies owing to the large number of fisher populations, even though subsidies per fisher may be minuscule and do not lead to overcapacity and overfishing.” “In such contexts, the aggregate subsidy metric fails to meet the aim and objective of disciplining “harmful” subsidies that impact the “sustainability” of fish stocks,” India argued. On the other hand, “a relatively smaller annual aggregate level of subsidy may translate into a much higher subsidy per fisher and contribute to overcapacity and overfishing,” India pointed out. India said “countries should not be subjected to stricter disciplines based on the total value of their subsidies but rather on the intensity of subsidies provided.” India offered an illustrative example, suggesting that “India provides a subsidy of $35 per fisher per year. This translates to a meagre amount of subsidy, less than $3 per fisher per month, which also accounts for subsidies provided during the fishing ban period. A fisher receiving such a meagre amount of subsidy is unlikely to create overcapacity or engage in overfishing. In fact, Indian fishers, on average, catch about 480 kg a year or 40 kg a month.” In contrast to traditional fishing practices which can be characterized as subsistence fishing, India said that “historical subsidizers provide subsidies as high as $76,000 per fisher per year. The catch per fisher for historical subsidizers is as high as 237,130 kg per year.” India reiterated in its proposal (TN/RL/W/286) “that this is the extent of disparity that the Chair’s draft text would institutionalize if major subsidizers were subjected to quantitative restrictions or reduction commitments based on the annual aggregate level of subsidies under Article D.1(a) of W/285.” India said the global commitment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 14 (Life Below Water) calls for the reduction of harmful fisheries subsidies while ensuring that subsidies provided to promote sustainable fishing practices and the livelihoods of vulnerable fishers are not undermined. India also cited “SDG 14.9 (Support Small Scale Fishers)” that calls for providing access for small scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets. It said adopting a per capita approach to subsidy obligations would better align with the UN SDGs by supporting countries in their efforts to balance environmental sustainability along with the social and economic development of small-scale fishers. India argued that “the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities-Respective Capabilities (CBDR- RC) recognizes that in order to sustainably manage the resources, historical polluters having higher resource consumption should take the lead in reducing pollution.” In conclusion, India said it has proposed that differential obligations among WTO Members should not be based on the aggregate level of subsidization. Meanwhile, on behalf of the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, who was absent at the meeting, the Director of the General Council and TNC Division, former Ambassador Santiago Wills of Colombia, who was the chair of the Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations and later secured a job at the WTO, apparently gave an account of the state of play in the negotiations on agriculture, said people familiar with the development. +
|
||
