WTO: reporting on informal negotiating meeting on fisheries subsidies (4)

As mentioned in my post of yesterday, 28/12/09, the FFA has published a new issue (Vol. 2, Nr 12 of 12 December 2009) of its "FFA Fisheries Trade News" containing an article titled "Update on fisheries subsidies ‘Roadmap’ discussions at the WTO".

The article includes reports on the informal meetings held by the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules on October 28-29 and December 10-11, 2009. Concerning the October meeting, the ICTSD included a short report in its "Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest", Vol. 13, Nr 38 of 4h November 2009 under an article titled "WTO Rules Group Builds Understanding, but Gaps Remain".

According to both sources (FFA and ICTSD), at the October meetings Delegates took up again their discussions on the Chair's "Roadmap", in particular fisheries management conditionalities (Article V of 2007 Chair's Draft Text) applicable to those subsidies that might eventually be permitted under General Exemptions (Article II) and Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Members (Article III).

With regard to the December meeting, the reading of the FFA's reporting suggests that the meeting covered the two last sections of the Chair's Roadmap, namely "Implementation" and "Transition Rules".

Worth mentioning is that, according to the FFA reporting, the Small, Vulnerable Economies group (SVEs) renewed their call for the set-up of a sub-committee dealing exclusively with issues related to technical assistance and support programs. The creation of this sub-committee was proposed by the SVEs with their submission TN/RL/GEN/158 of 22 May 2008. I copy hereunder the relevant paragraph of the SVEs proposal:

III.4.3 The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures shall establish a Sub-Committee dealing exclusively with issues related to technical assistance and support programs under this Annex, specifically as regards fisheries management systems and measures related thereto. The Sub-Committee shall coordinate the requests from developing country Members for technical assistance and support programs and shall review the effectiveness of the technical assistance provided to developing country Members. The Sub-Committee shall periodically report its findings to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the Committee on Trade and Development (3).

(3) Future discussion would be required on the procedures to be followed if a developing country member does not receive the requested technical assistance.

Apparently the SVEs' call was well received by a majority of developing countries. Some developed countries (the FFA report cites New Zealand) reacted more cautiously and stated "that technical assistance should not necessarily imply greater financial transfers and it would be useful to develop an inventory of systems that already exist."

As a final point I note that there is no reference in the reports to a proposal tabled by Korea on 24 November 2009, i.e. before the December meeting, titled "Framework of the Disciplines on Fisheries Subsidies" (TN/RL/W/245).

Here are the links to the reports by FFA:

http://www.ffa.int/node/301

And ICTSD:

http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/58554/

WTO: reporting on informal negotiating meeting on fisheries subsidies (3)

A few weeks ago I published a couple of posts on the issue of reporting on the WTO "Rules" Negotiating Group's informal meetings. In one of the posts, dated 17/10/2009, I was wondering which the sources were that enabled two organisations, i.e. the ICTSD and the FFA, to report on these meetings. In fact, neither official agendas nor reports are published by the WTO.

Well, I solved the "mystery" for the FFA. When going through the latest issue of "FFA Fisheries Trade News" I became aware that the input for FFA's reporting on these meetings was provided by a member of the Delegation of the Pacific Islands to the WTO. This is clearly indicated by way of an endnote to the text on the WTO meeting.

I take advantage of this post to apologise for my inadvertence when reading the FFA reports.

Here is the link to the webpage where readers can find the "FFA Trade News":

http://www.ffa.int/trade_industry

CHILE: questions and replies on subsidies to fisheries and aquaculture at the latest WTO Trade Policy Review

I copy hereunder the questions by WTO Members on subsidies to fisheries and aquaculture, and the answers provided by Chile, at the latests WTO Trade Policy Review of this country, which took place on 7 and 9 October 2009.

Readers will notice that parts of the text are in Spanish. Apologies for this but the WTO document from which I copied the information (WT/TPR/M/220/Add.1 of 17 December 2009) does not include a full English version. I advise those readers who do not understand Spanish to make use of the transalation tools offered by web-browsers and/or websites.

Going through the text I noticed that Chile, one of the main proponents of a broad prohibition of subsidies to the fisheries sector, provides subsidies to its "small-scale" fishermen.

With regard to this category of fisheries I was struck by the fact that "small-scale" vessels can have "...a maximum length of 18 metres, not more than 80 cubic metres of hold space and a displacement of up to 50 gross register tonnes (GRT)" and that "The first five nautical miles off the Chilean coast, the fjords and the sea islands, together with the inland waters, are reserved for small scale fishing." (as confirmed by Chile when replying to question 36 from the EU). Note that in the answer given by Chile to this question it is mentioned that the "small-scale" fleet can operate outside the 5 mile zone.

Interesting are also the replies provided by Chile on the mechanisms put in place to help the ailing salmon farming industry.

(iii) Fishing and Aquaculture

PREGUNTA DE ARGENTINA

Párrafo 61 - ¿Podría Chile aportar más información respecto a las ayudas implementadas en los últimos meses a favor de la industria del salmón?, en especial respecto a las referentes a medidas de financiamiento y reprogramación de deudas de empresas salmoneras.

R. En el tratamiento de la crisis existen 2 frentes en los cuales se está trabajando, uno de ellos es resorte de la autoridad, en el marco del rol que le cabe al Estado en sus tareas de regulador y generador de las condiciones que aseguren superar la crisis y disponer de una actividad sustentable, frente que se espera cubrir por la vía de la modificación de Ley actualmente en discusión en el parlamento.

Y el segundo frente es el que se refiere a la relación de las empresas productivas con los bancos privados, acreedores estos últimos de una deuda cuyo pago se vio comprometido como resultado de la crisis.

La relación de los bancos con la empresa, se da en el marco de acuerdos y negociaciones privadas, cuyas condiciones están dadas por la realidad de cada empresa, no siendo ámbito de la autoridad involucrase en estos procesos. Existe información que señala que las principales empresas productoras han logrado acuerdos de reprogramación de la deuda con sus respectivos acreedores.

PREGUNTAS DEL ECUADOR

18. ¿Qué programas de apoyo y subsidios mantiene el Gobierno de Chile a favor de la pesca artesanal, la pesca industrial y la acuicultura?

R. Chile no dispone de programas de Subsidios específicos para las actividades de la Pesca y Acuicultura. No obstante, hay instrumentos de apoyo para la pesca artesanal financiados a través del Fondo de Fomento de la Pesca Artesanal (FFPA), a objeto de promover el desarrollo sustentable del sector pesquero artesanal chileno, por la vía de apoyar los esfuerzos de las organizaciones de pescadores artesanales para mejorar sus condiciones laborales y de vida en general.

En cuanto a instrumentos de apoyo, el Gobierno de Chile dispone de Institucionalidad que ofrece financiamiento para la ejecución de investigación para el desarrollo de sectores productivos con proyecciones, dentro de los cuales la Acuicultura ha sido foco de preocupación, destinando recursos financieros en iniciativas que se refieren a elevar la competitividad de la economía chilena, por la vía de promover y facilitar la innovación en las empresas, materias en que la Corporación de Fomento de la Producción (CORFO) a través de InnovaChile cumple un rol fundamental.

 QUESTIONS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION

WTO Secretariat's Report, page 93, para.52

The report indicates that "Law No. 19.849 of 2002 extended Law No. 19.713 up to 2012 and created the Small Scale Harvesting Regime, which distributes among the small scale fishing associations the small scale share of the annual quota for certain fisheries."

34. Are these "small scale shares" user-specific allocations to individuals and groups under limited access privileges or exclusive quota regulations?

R. El Régimen Artesanal de Extracción (RAE) distribuye la fracción artesanal de la cuota global anual de captura de los recursos sujetos al Régimen entre aquellas embarcaciones que tienen permisos vigentes para operar sobre el recurso en cuestión. Lo anterior se traduce en que, previo a establecer el régimen de asignación, la normativa exige: (i) el establecimiento de una cuota global anual; (ii) definir una asignación para el subsector artesanal; (iii) su distribución regional y, (iv) contar con el registro de naves artesanales con permisos vigentes en la pesquería de interés. Considerando los elementos señalados, se distribuye la cuota artesanal en base a criterios regulados por la Ley y el Reglamento, dentro de los cuales el de mayor relevancia es la historia de capturas contenida en los registros de desembarque informados por los pescadores al Servicio Nacional de Pesca (Sernapesca).

35. Are these "small scale share" allocated for free while other fishermen not falling under the "Small Scale Harvesting Regime" do have to pay (e.g. buy in an auction, public tender, etc.) their share of the catch? Could Chile provide details about the mechanisms for allocation catches and the differences between small-scale and non small-scale fishermen?

R. Cuando se establece el Régimen para un recurso, en una región en particular, la cuota en su totalidad se asimila al Régimen, razón por la cual no hay tratamientos de acceso a cuotas distintos para una misma región y recurso.

En cuanto a las modalidades de asignación contenidas en la Ley de Pesca, éstas se establecen dependiendo del estado de situación de la Pesquería, de acuerdo a lo siguiente:

1. Para Pesquerías en Desarrollo incipiente y en Recuperación. Declarado el Régimen, se establece una cuota anual de captura, la cual se asigna por subasta pública, pudiendo participar en esta licitación cualquier persona que cumpla con los requisitos contenidos en la Ley y el Reglamento, no siendo relevante el subsector al que pertenece. Estos son derechos que se asignan por 10 años, teniendo la obligatoriedad de efectuar el pago de una cuota anual de beneficio fiscal.

2. Limite Máximos de Captura por Armador. Se aplica sobre los armadores industriales con autorizaciones de pesca vigentes de las pesquerías asimiladas a la norma, y consiste en el establecimiento de una cuota individual por armador (o empresa) expresada en porcentaje (%), resultado de la consideración de parámetros contenidos en la Ley 19.713, dentro de los cuales el más relevante es la historia de capturas informadas al Sernapesca. Definida la participación por armador, este porcentaje se aplica sobre la fracción industrial de la cuota global. Esta Ley está vigente hasta el año 2012.

3. Régimen Artesanal de Extracción. Distribución de la fracción artesanal de la cuota global de un recurso en particular, entre los permisos vigentes en el registro pesquero artesanal de una región cualquiera, considerando la historia de desembarque de cada embarcación como principal parámetro. Lo anterior se traduce en un porcentaje de cuota para cada Organización participante del Régimen, porción de cuota que es válida durante la vigencia del Régimen, el cual dependerá de la situación particular.

En la normativa Chilena, el Sector Industrial y Artesanal (pequeña escala) están sujetos a derechos y obligaciones distintas, con una normativa específica que otorga consideraciones de operación especiales para cada sector. Dentro de estas particularidades esta la modalidad de asignación de cuota, siendo para la Industria los Límites Máximos de Captura y para la pesca artesanal el Régimen Artesanal de Extracción, en ambos casos se otorga sin previo pago.

En cuanto a la pregunta sobre la diferencia entre la pesca a pequeña escala y la que no lo es, la ley no hace esta distinción y sólo define la pesca artesanal en los términos que recoge el párrafo 57 del Informe de la Secretaría.

WTO Secretariat's Report, page 94, para.57

The report states that Chilean law defines small-scale fishing as "[…] that engaged in by a vessel with a maximum length of 18 metres, not more than 80 cubic metres of hold space and a displacement of up to 50 gross register tonnes (GRT)" and that "The first five nautical miles off the Chilean coast, the fjords and the sea islands, together with the inland waters, are reserved for small scale fishing."

36. Can small-scale vessels fish outside the reserved areas and in particular outside the first five nautical miles?

R. El Artículo 47 de la Ley de Pesca, establece el Área de Reserva de la Pesca Artesanal, como un área de exclusivo uso de la pesca artesanal, donde está prohibida la operación de la flota industrial, pudiendo la pesca artesanal operar fuera de las 5 millas sin restricciones, sobre recursos de distribución más amplia.

In addition to benefiting from a dedicated subsidy programme (the "Fondo de Fomento de la Pesca Artesanal") and fishing areas for their sole use, do small-scale fishermen benefits from other types of support such as tax exemptions, fuel rebates, reduced fees for accessing the fishery, etc? If yes, could Chile provide the financial equivalent of such support?

R. No hay apoyos o tratamientos especiales para la pesca artesanal más allá de los establecidos en el Fondo de Fomento de la Pesca Artesanal.

37. Do exports from Chile include fishery products harvested by small-scale fishermen? If yes, what is the estimated amount, in value terms, of products exported by small-scale fishermen?

R. La actividad de la pesca extractiva artesanal se desarrolla en una estrecha relación con los industriales que procesan y exportan los productos derivados de la operación de la flota, constituyendo pieza importante de la cadena de producción para satisfacer los mercados de destino de recursos de mayor valor agregado. Para el año 2008, las exportaciones de la Pesca y Acuicultura alcanzaron los US$ 4.110 millones, de los cuales el 34% es resultado de capturas silvestres. De las exportaciones de pesca extractiva, un 53% se origina de la pesca artesanal, explicando US$ 746 millones en exportaciones.

WTO Secretariat's Report, page 95, para.62

The report notes that the "Fisheries Administration Fund, established by Law No. 19.849 (2002), finances fishery research projects, small scale fishing promotion projects, programmes for the surveillance and administration of fishing activities, and training and retraining programmes. In 2008, the Fund had a budget of US$12 million, of which US$10 million was earmarked for small scale fishing and the rest for research and development."

According to publicly available information at the website www.fondofomento.cl, the Fisheries Administration Fund subsidises programmes in the following areas:

a) Development of fisheries infrastructure for small-scale fisheries;

b) Training and technical assistance for small-scale fishermen and for their organisations;

c) Re-stocking of hydro biological resources for primary use, or artificial farming, by small-scale fishermen;

d) Marketing of fishery products and administration of production centres.

38. Could Chile confirm that subsidies are provided for the above purposes?

R. Como primera cuestión, debe aclararse que el Fondo de Fomento de la Pesca Artesanal, y el Fondo de Administración Pesquero, son instrumentos distintos, siendo las áreas señaladas en la pregunta las correspondientes al Fondo de Fomento de la Pesca Artesanal, fondo que opera bajo el alero del Sernapesca y cuyo Director lo preside.

Los recursos financieros disponibles se otorgan por concurso todos los años, pudiendo presentar proyectos todas las organizaciones de pescadores artesanales legalmente constituidas y aquellas que realizan actividades ligadas directamente al sector, cuyos miembros sean pescadores artesanales inscritos en el Registro Pesquero Artesanal.

El Fondo es administrado por un Consejo, el cual selecciona las ideas de los proyectos presentadas por las organizaciones, cuya ejecución será licitada mediante Concurso Público. Esto significa que las ideas de proyectos no necesariamente se repiten año a año, y van a depender de las iniciativas presentadas por las organizaciones de pescadores.

Durante el año 2008 se seleccionaron 103 proyectos, cuyo detalle puede ser consultado en http://www.fondodefomento.cl/.

39. With regard to objective "a) Development of fisheries infrastructure for small-scale fisheries", what type of infrastructure can be subsidised? Does this include landing, handling or in- or near-port processing activities for products of marine wild capture fishing or port infrastructure or other physical port facilities exclusively or predominantly for activities related to marine wild capture fishing (for example, fish landing facilities, fish storage facilities, and in- or near-port fish processing facilities)?

R. El Fondo de Fomento de la Pesca Artesanal en la línea de apoyo ‘Desarrollo de Infraestructura para la Pesca Artesanal’ sólo se hace cargo de financiar proyectos de Infraestructura de apoyo menor, tales como sedes organizacionales, galpones de trabajo, salas de venta y exposición de productos. Las inversiones en infraestructura portuaria (inversiones mayores) se encuentran dentro del plan de mejoramiento de infraestructura portuaria del Ministerio de Obras Públicas, a través de la Dirección de Obras Portuarias.

40. Concerning objective "d) Marketing of fishery products and administration of production centres", are these subsidies granted to production centres close in ports or close to ports?

R. Esta línea de acción surge con el fin de contribuir a mejorar las capacidades para la comercialización de los productos extraídos por los pescadores artesanales, apoyando las acciones orientadas a la asistencia técnica y capacitación en gestión y administración empresarial, y la capacitación en administración de caleta o centros de desembarque. Esta es una línea de acción centrada en el fortalecimiento de las capacidades de las personas para una mejor gestión de la pesca.

 WTO Secretariat's Report, page 95, para.61

The report makes references to the difficulties that the Chilean aquaculture industry experienced in previous months. It ends with a sentence on the expected adoption, in 2009, of amendments to the Law on Fishing, "designed to improve the organization of this activity".

41. Could Chile provide information on whether these amendments include measures that would allow aquaculture companies to get access to bank finance, which otherwise would have been not available?

R. La relación con la banca privada, en cuanto a garantizar financiamiento, hasta antes del problema del Virus ISA, operaba teniendo como garantía la Biomasa de los centros de cultivo, lo cual como resultado de la crisis dejo en evidencia no constituía un buen instrumento que asegurara los intereses de las entidades financieras. Por lo anterior es que el proyecto de ley actualmente en trámite considera mejores mecanismos para facilitar y otorgar certeza a la constitución y ejecución de garantías sobre las concesiones y autorizaciones de acuicultura. Lo anterior a objeto de dar mayores certezas a las partes en su relación financiera.

 42. Do the measures include the possibility to use aquaculture licences as collateral for bank credits?

R. Efectivamente se considera la posibilidad de hipotecar concesiones para obtener recursos del sistema financiero.

 43. What other measures, if any, have been, or are to be adopted to improve the financial situation of aquaculture companies in Chile?

R. Los procesos privados de reprogramación de la deuda y las mejoras que el Estado está introduciendo en la normativa para el establecimiento de garantías, son los instrumentos con los cuales se esperan superar los problemas financieros.

WTO - PHILIPPINES: protesters against fisheries trade liberalisation (including negotiations on fisheries subsidies?)

During the latest WTO Ministerial conference held in Geneva a number of demonstrations were held in down town but also around the WTO building.

One of these demonstrations included a group of fishermen from the Philippines. They were voicing their disapproval concerning the WTO’s negotiations which, among many other sectors, also affect trade fish products and the fisheries sector.

One of the banners that the “Progressive Fisherfolk Alliance in the Philippines” displayed during one of the demonstration read as follows:

“NO TO FISHERIES LIBERALIZATION - Seafish For Justice Network”.

The banner appears in a picture posted with an article in the “Trade Blog” of the World Development Movement (WDM) on 30 November 2009.

In the text of the article the author alludes to the fact that, according to the protestors the WTO and its policies are a threat to their livelihoods because of trade liberalisation in the fisheries sectors. The author also mentions that Filipino fishermen are against the WTO because “WTO rules allow multinationals the freedom to fish in Filipino waters”.

I must confess that was slightly puzzled by this last sentence. As far as I know no WTO rule imposes free access to the waters of one of its Members. In actual fact many WTO countries do not allow foreign fishing in their waters.

After reading the above mentioned article it is not clear to me whether the Filipino fishermen only oppose the WTO liberalising trade in fish products through the so called “NAMA” (Non-Agricultural Market Access) negotiations or whether they are also against the WTO disciplining subsidies to the fisheries sector. As a side comment it is interesting to see that the Philippines is a regular member of the “Friends of Fish” group of countries, pushing for a wide ranging ban of subsidies to fisheries.

For those interested here is the link to the article in the “Trade Blog” of WDM:

http://www.wdm.org.uk/lugaw-and-tuyo

And here is the link to the Youtube video with an interview of Pabs Rosales, leader of the Progressive Fisherfolk Alliance in the Philippines

CANADA: Newfoundland and Labrador granted CAD 3.4 million (USD 3.20) subsidies to the processing industry

On 19 July 2009 I wrote a post on Newfound and Labrador’s crisis and about the difficulties the fisheries industry (harvesters and processors) was going through. In my post I was also referring to the fact that Mr Hedderson, the Provincial Fisheries Minister at that time, was not persuade that the public aid had to be provided to the industry.

Well, after some follow-up research on this issue I found that, in the mean time, the Provincial Government had decided to provide subsidies to this industry.

According to a news release dated 14 July 2009

“…the Provincial Government agreed to provide CAD 3.4 million in rebates and suspension of processing licensing fees for the 2008 and 2009 fishing seasons. This refund is being provided to address the fact that there are no subsidies available to the fishing industry and that the industry is facing a difficult year.”

The subsidy was granted to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement between harvested and processors on the price of shrimps.

Here is the link to the official new release:

http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/fishaq/0714n06.htm

And here is the link to the press conference where Minister Hedderson announces the subsidy:

http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/fishaq/0714n06_video.wmv

UNEP: Regional Symposium on “Sustainability Criteria for Fisheries Subsidies: The Latin American Context” Guayaquil, Ecuador, 29-30 July 2009

UNEP is one of the most, if not the most, active organisations when it comes to provide information to negotiators, and to the general public, on the ongoing WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

I notice that in most of the events organised by UNEP environmental NGOs were being associated. This was the case of the above mentioned regional symposium were WWF co hosted the meeting.

The webpage of UNEP on this particular event includes links to the presentations given by the different speakers and to the symposium's report.

I found the presentation by Clarisse Morgan, from the WTO Secretariat, Rules Division, very interesting as it provides useful insights on the positions of the key players in the negotiation, not only in terms of groupings (e.g. the so called "Friends of Fish"), but also in terms of individual WTO Members (US, EU, Japan, Canada, Norway, etc).

I was also struck by one the paragraphs of the Symposium's report, i.e. paragraph 43, which I copy hereunder, on the issue of fishing in the high seas:

42. In discussing both the high seas issue and the need for effective sustainability criteria generally, several participants referred to the reality of “south-south” competition for fisheries resources and markets. Some of the most aggressively expanding distant water fleets today come from developing countries. Latin American fleets are generally not among the most expansionists. Several participants explicitly noted that meaningful sustainability criteria could be important in helping limit the distortions subsidies could introduce into major South South competitive relationships.

Clearly developing countries are playing an ever more important role in fisheries, including by the expansion of their distant water fleets.

Here is the link to UNEP's web page on the symposium:

http://www.unep.ch/etb/events/Presentations_Symposium%20Ecuador29-30July.php

AUSTRALIA: subsidies for Blue fin tuna fishermen in South Australia

In a recent joint statement Tony Burke, Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Mark Arbib, Federal Minister for Employment Participation announced a number of government support measures to help tuna fishermen in Port Lincoln (Souther overcome the crisis triggered by severe cuts in the catch quotas for Southern Bluefin tuna.

I quote here some of the paragraphs that I found most interesting when reading the media release.

"Senator Arbib said support for the Port Lincoln workforce includes immediate access to Stream 2 Government employment services and funding for 150 nationally recognised training places for affected workers."

“These measures will ensure that workers receive fast, personalised assistance to help them get back into the workforce,” Senator Arbib said.

“Support for tuna fishers in Port Lincoln is essential to ensure the sustainability of the community and the industry,” Mr Burke said

We want to see Australia’s Southern Bluefin Tuna industry continue as a sustainable industry for the long term. That's the best option for jobs and regional economies.

Thus, the subsidies appear to aim, prima facie, at keeping the fishermen in the fishery. Such subsidies could be identified as "prohibited" in the sense of Article I.1(c) of the draft text agreement submitted by the Chair of the negotiating group, Ambassador Valles from Uruguay, to WTO negotiators. This is what one could deduct when reading Article II "General Exceptions" of the same draft text, in particular Article II (c), on exceptions to prohibited subsidies covering personnel costs.

I copy here Article II (c) of the draft text:

For the purposes of Article I.1(c), subsidies to cover personnel costs shall not be interpreted as including:

(1) subsidies exclusively for re-education, retraining or redeployment of fishworkers into occupations unrelated to marine wild capture fishing or directly associated activities; and

(2) subsidies exclusively for early retirement or permanent cessation of employment of fishworkers as a result of government policies to reduce marine wild capture fishing capacity or effort.

Though there is an important caveat on finding that the Australian subsidies would be prohibited. Indeed, if the subsidies are not specific to the fisheries sector, i.e. if they are available to all workers, irrespective whether they are fishermen or not, then they should not fall under the prohibition.

In relation to this issue of "specificity" I remember that the ICTSD had published in February 2008 an article by Marc Bénitah (remember my post of 22/5/09 on experts testifying at the Canadian House of Commons) titled "Five Suggestions for Clarifying the Draft Text on Fisheries Subsidies". One of this suggestions was "Determine specificity". Watch this spot.

Here is the link to the official press release:

http://www.maff.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/december/employment_and_training_support_for_tuna_workers

And here the link to the article by Marc Bénitah in ICTSD's "Bridges" Volume 12 • Number 1 • February 2008:

http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridges/3146/

CANADA: provincial aid for another seafood processor

In previous post I was referring to aid provided by the Canadian Province of Nova Scotia to seafood processors.

A few days ago the Provincial government granted a loan guarantee of CAD 2.5 million (USD 2.35 million) to another seafood processor, namely D. B. Kenney Fisheries Ltd. in Digby County. The guarantee will be provided through the Industrial Expansion Fund, which is administered by the Provincial governement.

According to Nova Scotia's Economic Development Minister Percy Paris, the seafood processor is part of a group of 14 companies and has sales of about $15 million.

Here is a link to the press release:

http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-406279-Loan-guarantee-for-DB-Kenney-Fisheries-Ltd.html

and to an article on the Net:

http://www.canadaviews.ca/2009/11/26/province-supports-a-home-grown-seafood-processor-in-digby-county/

WTO: Is the US the stumbling block in the road to a WTO Agreement on fisheries subsidies?

This is the conclusion one could draw from reading some of the press articles reporting on the recently concluded WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva.

These articles suggest that the best way to salvage the Doha round is to "smash the deal into digestible pieces" (as put in an article by LauraMacInnis of Reuters published on Thu Dec 3, 2009).

Another article by Jason Rhodes, also in Reuters, titled "WTO urged to spin off fishing pact to protect seas" is more specific and refers to Oceana and its campaign to  promote a quick agreement on fisheries subsidies.

"Oceana, a lobby group based in the United States, said on Tuesday a potential fisheries agreement could be spun out from the Doha agenda, which requires full consensus across all politically sensitive negotiating areas to be clinched. "I think the fisheries negotiations are one of few issues that have made steady progress in the Doha Round," Oceana's Courtney Sakai said, suggesting success in fishing could provide a model for trade talks in other areas such as clean fuels. "The world's fish need a WTO deal, not necessarily a Doha deal, and soon," she said. The soonest a Doha deal could be clinched is next year, but doubts are growing about whether that 2010 goal is achievable.

So, Oceana would like to see an stand alone agreement for this negotiating subject, completely detached from the 'Rules negotiating chapter' and, obviously from the other two big chuncks of the round, namely agriculture and NAMA. Or, put otherwise, take out fisheries subsidies from the so called 'single undertaking' (nothing is agreed until everything has been agreed).

Well, it seems that the first person who will have to be persuaded that the single undertaking has to be abandoned is Mr Kirk, the US chief negotiator.

In the first article I was referring to, on smashing the WTO deal in digestible pieces, Mr Kirk is quoted as saying:

"We want you to go ahead and do duty-free, quota-free, we want you to go ahead and do cotton, but you'll kind of figure out what the U.S. will get down the line, and I felt: What about nothing's decided until everything's decided?" Kirk said.

The problem seems to be that fisheries subsidies is not the only "digestible piece" into which the Doha round could be smashed.

Other "pieces" into which the Doha round could be smashed, such as an agreement to cut subsidies to the cotton industry in rich countries, or a commitment by these same countries to provide duty free quota free access to least developed countries, an agreement on Geographical Indications (pushed by the EU) or a revised anti-dumping agreement that would not include "zeroing", are not very digestible by the US, at least not now.

I suggest thus to Oceana that they use all their power of persuasion to bring the US administration to digest what is on table now, if they want to see new WTO rules on fisheries subsidies. There are other "dishes" on the table with more digestible food (think for instance of agriculture, environmetal goods). It is by eating the whole 'menu" that WTO Members will ensure that everybody gets comparable levels of satisfaction (or disatisfaction) at the end of the meal.

Here are the links to the articles:

WTO urged to spin off fishing pact to protect seas

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-44384120091201

Calls grow to smash WTO deal into digestible pieces

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B229G20091203

WTO: UNEP video on fisheries subsidies

Some of you may have already seen the short documentary that UNEP has posted on YOUTUBE on fisheries subsidies and the WTO. The title of the video is "Caught Out - The way forward inf fisheries subsidies negotiations"

I will quote some of the statements made by two individuals representing two key actors in the ongoing discussions on fisheries subsidies at the WTO. Here are their names and the sentences that I found were important:

Pascal LAMY, Director General of the WTO:

"Fisheries subsidies is one area where the connexion between sustainability, environmental protection and trade opening can support each other. A sort of win-win-win relationship which is what we are trying to do between UNEP and WTO."

"What was achieved in Doha and then in Hong Kong is an agreement, a mandate, that WTO Members should negotiate strict disciplines on fisheries subsidies."

Achim STEINER Executive Director UNEP:

"The negotiations on fisheries where unusual from start since, unlike in any other trade negotiations, there was an environmental outcome set as an objective from the beginning."

Both speakers point to the environmental dimension of the negotiations. Mr Steiner goes even further and asserts that "...an environmental outcome [was] set as an objective from the beginning".

This statement is somewhat debatable. In my view there is nothing in the main Doha Ministerial Declaration, and more specifically in Paragraph 28, which would point to an explicit environmental outcome with the rang of objective, in relation to fisheries subsidies.

It is true that there is a cross-reference to Article 31 "Trade and Environment", but this article refers mainly to relationships between WTO and Multilateral Environmental Agreement (MEAs), exchange of information between WTO and MEA's Secretariats and tariff reductions in environmental goods. Though I miss a clear reference to an objective, as it is the case in the three aforementioned items, for the fisheries subsidies negotiations.

In my view, the setting of environmental objectives came only with the Hong Kong declaration. The language of this declaration (Paragraph I.9. in Annex D) is clear in terms of setting environmental objectives "[...] the Group should strengthen disciplines on subsidies in the fisheries sector, including through the prohibition of certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and over-fishing, [...]"

This was not the case in what Mr Steiner calls "the beginning", i.e. the Doha Declaration. I copy here Paragraph 28:

"In the context of these negotiations, participants shall also aim to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countries. We note that fisheries subsidies are also referred to in paragraph 31."

Here is the link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol6XR3S_-UI

WTO: the Worldbank enters the fray of fisheries subsidies and the WTO

On 18 November 2009 the Worldbank announced the release of a document titled "Concluding Doha: it matters". The paper advocates a rapid conclusion of the ongoing negotiations.

Besides explaining the benefits, in terms of market access, that WTO Members would reap from the completion of the Round the Worldbank notes that:

"On the environmental front...there will be benefits from disciplining subsidies that encourage overfishing and from lowering tariffs on technologies that can reduce global warming. Over 75 % of global fish stocks - crucial for food security in many developing countries - are overexploited with a resulting loss for the world economy of USD 50 billion."

This statement by the Worldbank comforts the view, held by many, that new rules in fisheries subsidies will solve, first and foremost environmental problems. An outsider could then ask the question: why has this subject been placed under the Rules chapter negotiations and not under the "Trade and Environment" chapter?

Curiosly enough a similar question could be asked about fish products. They are being put in the same basket as cars, computers or wash-machines when it comes to negotiating reductions on import tariffs. Fish products are covered by the so called NAMA negotiations (Non-Agricultural Market Access) negotiations.

(Note that marine mammals appear to fall under the so called agricultural products. I noticed this when reading Canada's request for consultations (the first step of in a WTO legal challenge) on the EU's trade ban on seal's products. Among the violation invoked by Canada there is one that concerns the WTO's agreement on Agriculture, i.e. Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement prohibiting

Here is the link to the Wolrdbank announcement:

http://go.worldbank.org/DMB9K1PKC0

And for those interested Canada's request for consultations with the EU on the latter's ban on trade of seal's products has WTO references WT/DS400/1, G/L/909, G/TBT/D/36, G/AG/GEN/87 and is dated 4 November 2009. Note also that Norway and Iceland joined Canada against the EU.

USA: Congress discussing a bill on subsidies to the fisheries industry (2)

In this post I will comment on some of the written statements presented by witnesses at the hearing.

I will start with the statement by Mr. Nikolao Pula, Director, Office of Insular Affairs, Department of the Interior. When reading Mr. Pula’s statement I thought that, when touching WTO issues, his intervention could be summarized as follows: “Coordination between U.S. agencies works!” and “How to avoid the (ugly?) word subsidies”.

I copy here the relevant passages of his statement:

In the introduction Mr Pula said:

“Also, the United States is working to eliminate practices in ongoing World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations that have for decades let to over-capacity and over-fishing, particularly with regard to the build-up of foreign fishing fleets. This legislation could have implications for that important effort.”

And here is what he stated in the conclusion:

“The Administration is supportive of efforts to strengthen the economy of American Samoa, but has several concerns regarding the implementation of H.R. 3583. First, the Administration is actively working in the WTO to strengthen the rules regarding fisheries, and the proposed legislation may have implications for that effort.“

So, the Department of the Interior seems to have coordinated this statement with the Office of the US Trade Represenative (and with NOAA and NMFS?).

This statement appears to have been carefully, and cleverly, drafted avoiding the ignominious and embarrassing (so it seems for the Obama Administration) word “subsidies”, especially in combination with the word “fisheries”.

Notice how Mr Pula referred to WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies:

“…the United States the United States is working to eliminate practices in ongoing World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations that have for decades let to over-capacity and over-fishing, particularly with regard to the build-up of foreign fishing fleets. “

Subsidies have become “practices” !

And:

“First, the Administration is actively working in the WTO to strengthen the rules regarding fisheries, and the proposed legislation may have implications for that effort. “

The WTO is strengthening the rules regarding…fisheries! Mr. Pula stopped short of adding the awkward and distressing word “subsidies”.

I do not think this was an oversight. Reflecting on this way of putting things to the Committee I thought that perhaps Mr. Fula was right. As negotiations seem to develop I would not be surprised if the WTO, perhaps unwillingly, would contribute to an strengthening of fisheries management of WTO Members willing to subsidise their fishing industry (see my post of 24/10/09).

NORWAY: monetising the benefit of compulsory supply to a coastal region

In a previous post on Norway I was discussing something called the "leveringsplikt", I.e. The obligation imposed on vessel owners to supply companies in a particular geographic area.

In the official regulations it is stated that this landing obligation is intended to guarantee a stable supply of raw material to processing companies from the cod trawlers' fleet. The fish to be delivered under this obligation has been harvested under special quotas in specific areas. Among some of the interesting features of this system we find a price setting system. It would be complicated to give a short explanation in this post, so I will leave it for now.

What I want to discuss in this post is that vessel owners that are are subject to this duty to supply a specific area can buy back, or should we say, redeem themselves from such duty. In other words, they can pay a sum of money to the local authorities and in exchange of it, land the fish in the place of their choosing.

There are examples of such redemption of the landing obligation.

In 2008 an agreement was reached between a fishing company, "Giske Havfiske", and the commune of Hasvik. The company agreed to pay NOK 17.5 million (USD 3 million) to Sorvaer Kystfiskeinvest AS. This company, owned by a holding company in which the commune of Hasvik has a 49 % stake, will administer the funds received from "Giske Havfiske".

Among other provisions of the settlement, as reported by the press, it is worth mentioning that Sorvaer Kystfiskeinvest SA will invest in vessels and in the purchase of ownership shares in vessels over 80 feet.

The above settlement was backed by the Norwegian Fisheries Directorate and Ms Pedersen, who was the Fisheries Minister at that time, expressed her satisfaction for the solution reached.

I found thus a very good example of the monetisation of this subsidy, which consists in fact of a regulatory intervention by the government but which comes down to the provision of a good to a private company.

Readers will argue that the companies in the areas benefiting from such compulsory deliveries do buy the raw material and that fishing fleets under this obligation got their quota on condition that the harvest should be landed in a particular area.

Apart from the fact that, from an international trade perspective, one can construe this obligation as an export restriction, one can also ask oneself the question whether such landing obligation constitutes a subsidy in the sense of the WTO's Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement.

Well, to begin with the government is directing a private company to supply a good to a number of companies that are located in a specific geographical area. Or put differently, the latter companies have a guaranteed supply of goods (raw material). In the absence of such landing obligation it could happen that the processing companies would have to buy this raw material at a higher price and it could even happen that no fish would be landed in the areas concerned.

The Giske Havfiske case help us to get a flavour of the amount of the subsidy that is being provided by the government to the processing industry in the Hasvik commune.

Clearly the supply obligation was considered by Giske Havfike as something that prevents it from getting the best price from the fish it harvest and it is ready to make a direct payment to the commune in other to elude this obligation.

Here is an article from FiskarenFiskeribladet (in Norwegian) on the issue:

http://fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?side=101&lesmer=7765

And here one from Finmark Dagblad (in Norwegian):

http://www.finnmarkdagblad.no/nyheter/article3595752.ece

USA: Congress discussing a bill on subsidies to the fisheries industry

Last week, on 4 November 2009, the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife, led by Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU), held a legislative hearing on the following bill:

• H.R. 3583 (Faleomavaega): To provide for a subsidy to sellers and buyers of fish directly delivered to American Samoa from vessels with United States fisheries endorsements that manufacture for the United States. "American Samoa Protection of Industry, Resources and Employment Act"

Among other items the bill proposes payments amounting to USD 200 per metric ton to processors buying tuna and to USD 200 per metric ton to US vessels, fishing under the authority of Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council or areas covered by the United States South Pacific Tuna Treaty, or which has an American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit (issued pursuant to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region).

The above payments would be financed by a tax of 6.25% on transhipment of tuna to non-US vessels operating in the above mentioned areas or to non-Samoan processors.

Personally I find that this bill could create some problems for the US.

First of all the subsidy could be discriminatory as it would benefit US vessels only. Furthermore the transhipment tax is tantamount to an export tax. Remember that the US has recently launched dispute settlement proceedings against China for putting barriers to exports of raw materials.

Secondly this bill is in stark contrast with the US position in the ongoing negotiations on fisheries subsidies. Indeed the US appears to be supporting the draft negotiating text which includes prohibitions on subsidies to the processing industry and income and price support subsidies (such as the proposed USD 200 essel payment for each ton delivered to the processing industry in American Samoa.

I will come back on this remarkable bill.

Here is the link to the hearing at the U.S. Congress:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=27&extmode=view&extid=305

WTO: reporting on the last "informal" negotiating meeting on fisheries subsidies

For those interested.

Hereunder is the link to the latest report by ICTSD on the ongoing negotiations on fisheries subsidies:

http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/58554/

ANGOLA: new boats for small-scale fishermen

When hearing the words "fisheries subsidies" one thinks, in most instances, of money given to fishermen. But this is only a way to provide subsidies to fishermen. A transfer of goods (as written in the definition of a subsidy in Article 1 of the WTO Agreement) is also a subsidy.

In Angola the government is now handing over boats to fishermen so that they can increase their harvest and have better livelihoods.

Here is the link to a press article in AngolaPress (in Portuguese) commenting on this announcement:


http://www.portalangop.co.ao/motix/pt_pt/noticias/sociedade/2009/9/43/Vice-ministro-das-pescas-entrega-embarcacoes-Chitatela,eceefbec-0b90-4bec-b41c-6984c2ecccdf.html

UK: Isle of Man stops (for now) with subsidies for the purchase of vessels, engines and whinches

Reading the news posted in the website www.fishupdate.com I discovered that the Isle of Man was giving subsidies to its fishermen for capital investments in the fleet. But I also learned that the Isle of Man authorities are stopping, at least for now, with such subsidies.

In the official announcement posted in the Isle of Man Government one can read:

"The Isle of Man is the only country in Northern Europe that continues with vessel grants of this nature, and evidence from the UK, where a similar Scheme was abolished over 20 years ago, indicates that young skippers still manage to progress into the industry."

Did the Isle of Man Government suddenly realise that such subsidies could become prohibited at the WTO? Nevertheless I do not now what would be the consequences of such prohibition on this "country".

Is the Isle of Man member of the WTO because the UK is a member of this organisation? And because the UK is member to the EU, who would be the defendant if litigation would take place against the Isle of Man?

 Here is the link to the article in www.fishupdate.com:

http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/12968/DAFF_Announces_Temporary_Closure_of_Support_Schemes.html

And here the official announcement:

http://www.gov.im/daff/animals/fish/seafishing/ViewNews.gov?page=lib/news/daff/daffannouncestem.xml&menuid=11570

USA: "charitable" fisheries subsidies and the WTO

The Gloucester Times published a few days ago an article titled "Leader urges federal action". The article discusses, among other things, how the introduction of the so called "catch shares" is taking place.

In the article there was a reference to:

"[…] groups of cooperative organized fishermen on Cape Cod, who are receiving subsidies from the Pew Environment Group, […]

This seems to confirm what I wrote in my post of 1st June 2009 "USA: public private partnership in subsidies for the fishing sector", namely that US fishermen are being subsidised with public and private money.

Now, from a WTO perspective one could ask whether this would be a "prohibited" subsidy according to the draft text presented by the Chair of the negotiating group, Ambassador Valles Galmes, in November 2007 (document TN/RL/W/213 of 30 Nov. 2007).

The answer would be …perhaps not. Why? Because Ambassador Valles' draft text includes an exception for this type of subsidy. Article II e) of the draft text reads as follows:

"Nothing in Article I shall prevent governments from making user-specific allocations to individuals and groups under limited access privileges and other exclusive quota programmes".

So, if "user specific allocations" cover allocations for the introduction of catch shares, then such private subsidies, which by the way are tolerated by the US authorities, could be exempted from a prohibition.

Here is the link to the article in the Gloucester Times:

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_story_300220512.html?keyword=topstory

WTO: fisheries subsidies and Hollywood under the same roof

Readers of my blog will have noticed that a number of NGOs are in close competition as regards the visibility that fisheries subsidies negotations can give to their action in ocean's related issues.

This time it was OCEANA the one that stole the show, literally !!

According to a press release by OCEANA, relayed by some media, Hollywood actor Ted Danson, visited Geneva on 29 October 2009 and met diplomats who are involved in the ongoing negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

I was struck by one of the comments that Mr Danson made while being interviewed in Geneva.

"You are subsidizing the boats to do exactly the wrong thing," Danson said at the WTO's Geneva headquarters. "One of the fastest ways to deal with this problem, is to take boats off the water. If you cut subsidies, you are going to cut their ability to do the wrong thing."

So, you could interprete Mr Danson's statement, in particular "One of the fastest ways to deal with this problem [of overfishing], is to take boats off the water" as meaning that the best thing is to stop fishing altogether.

The other interpretation, perhaps closer to Mr Danson's true intentions is that you can give subsidies to fishermen to take boats off the water. I am sure Mr Danson would agree exempting subsidies for the scrapping of fishing vessels.

When looking into Mr Danson's filmography I found that he played in the movie "Saving Private Ryian". Well we could invite him to play in the movie "Saving fisheries subsidies negotia tions". Though in this latter movie the enemy to be defeated is not the German army but a very obscure beast called "anti-dumping negotiations" which is also active in the "Rules" battlefield. Mr Danson could advise embattled negotiators that "zeroing" on the beast, so as to kill it quickly, could be a decisive move in saving fisheries subsidies negotiations.

Here is the link to the press release by OCEANA and the article by the Associated Press with the interview to Mr Danson.

http://na.oceana.org/en/news-media/press-center/press-releases/trade-policy-essential-to-sustainable-seafood-movement

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-h8fo0AE4NbiXYroLPbnnGGF2EAD9BKS8601

WTO: fisheries subsidies and fisheries management

A week ago I was discussing how some NGOs and international bodies had published in their websites information about the informal meetings of the WTO Rules Negotiating Group. According to the information published by FFA the next informal meeting will take place on 29 and 30 October 2009 and will cover Article V (Fisheries Management) of the Chair's Draft negotiating text (document TN/RL/W/213 of 30.11.07)

Readers may remember that the discussions at the recent meetings, as reported by the above organisations, take place on the basis of a "Roadmap" that the Chair of the Group, Ambassador Valles (Uruguay) submitted to WTO Members in December 2008 (document TN/RL/W/236 of 19.12.08).

I copy hereunder the questions that the "Roadmap" addresses to WTO negotiators on this article. At the end of the post the reader will find the full text of Article V.

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT CONDITIONALITIES

17. The discussions in the Negotiating Group indicate that participants generally believe that exceptions – both general and S&D – should not be unconditional, given their potential to undercut the effectiveness of the disciplines on subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing.

 18. The discussions also have indicated a widely-shared view that the principal conditionalities should pertain to fisheries management, a central component of which would be stock assessments, in part because of the difficulties of directly measuring the effect of particular subsidies on particular wild capture fisheries due to the mobile and undomesticated nature of the resource.

 19. There are, however, differing views as to how much detail WTO fisheries subsidies rules should contain on fisheries management, in respect of both the substantive basis of such conditionalities and the appropriate fora and mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing their implementation. There has been considerable debate on the approach taken to these issues in my first draft text.

 

20. I would ask participants to reflect on the following questions:


(a) Are there other conditionalities that should be applicable to exceptions (general and S&D), either in addition to or instead of fisheries management conditionalities?

 (b) How important is it for the effective operation of the disciplines that all Members' fisheries management systems and measures adhere to a common standard, and how prescriptive should that standard be?

(c) If a common standard is not necessary or not acceptable, how could the effectiveness of different Members' systems in controlling overcapacity and overfishing be monitored and enforced?

• - What would prevent one Member with ineffective management from overfishing stocks that were safeguarded/replenished by another Member's effective management measures?

d) Given that an international consensus already exists in respect of a substantial number of international fisheries management instruments, and those instruments themselves take account of the capacity constraints of developing countries, does it make sense to draw inspiration from those instruments for the substantive content of management conditionalities for using exceptions from the prohibition?

• (i) If not, why not?
• (ii) If so, how could the typically non-binding nature and relatively general and flexible wording of those instruments be reconciled with a binding prohibition of subsidies that contribute to overcapacity or overfishing, and binding conditionalities concerning fisheries management where exceptions are used?

(e) What role should stock assessments play in any management conditionalities?

• (i) If stock assessments are considered unnecessary, why, and how could overfishing and overcapacity be monitored in the absence of stock assessments?
• (ii) If stock assessments are considered to be a necessary element, how could the rules take into account Members' different capabilities while ensuring that the assessments are as reliable and robust as possible?
• (iii) To what extent if at all should the results of stock assessments form part of any conditionalities?

(f) Is it logical to require a stock assessment before a capacity-enhancing subsidy is provided?

• (i) If not, why not?
• (ii) If so, what practical problems would need to be resolved?
• (iii) What timing and review mechanism for such stock assessments could best reconcile a Member's need to implement a given subsidy on the one hand, and other Members' need for multilateral surveillance/transparency in respect of the fisheries resources that would be affected by it on the other hand?

(g) Given the existing role of the FAO in discussing FAO members' substantive implementation of various international fisheries instruments, what specific problems/concerns would there be if that role were enhanced in respect of stock assessments and/or fisheries management systems?

• - Would the problems be the same if the review at the FAO were similar to reviews of notifications by WTO bodies (i.e., multilateral review among members, for transparency, rather than a mechanism for approval, whether by a panel of experts or a multilateral body)?

(h) Why, if at all, would the WTO be better-positioned to perform such reviews of fisheries-related information?

• - How could the necessary expertise be built into any WTO-based review of fisheries management, without the WTO becoming a fisheries management organization?

Article V Fisheries Management

Any Member granting or maintaining any subsidy as referred to in Article II or Article III.2(b) shall operate a fisheries management system regulating marine wild capture fishing within its jurisdiction, designed to prevent overfishing. Such management system shall be based on internationally-recognized best practices for fisheries management and conservation as reflected in the relevant provisions of international instruments aimed at ensuring the sustainable use and conservation of marine species, such as, inter alia, the Fish Stocks Agreement, the Code of Conduct, the Compliance Agreement, technical guidelines and plans of action (including criteria and precautionary reference points) for the implementation of these instruments, or other related or successor instruments. The system shall include regular science-based stock assessment, as well as capacity and effort management measures, including harvesting licences or fees; vessel registries; establishment and allocation of fishing rights, or allocation of exclusive quotas to vessels, individuals and/or groups, and related enforcement mechanisms; species-specific quotas, seasons and other stock management measures; vessel monitoring which could include electronic tracking and on-board observers; systems for reporting in a timely and reliable manner to the competent national authorities and relevant international organizations data on effort, catch and discards in sufficient detail to allow sound analysis; and research and other measures related to conservation and stock maintenance and replenishment. To this end, the Member shall adopt and implement pertinent domestic legislation and administrative or judicial enforcement mechanisms. It is desirable that such fisheries management systems be based on limited access privileges . Information as to the nature and operation of these systems, including the results of the stock assessments performed, shall be notified to the relevant body of the FAO, where it shall be subject to peer review prior to the granting of the subsidy . References for such legislation and mechanism, including for any modifications thereto, shall be notified to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("the Committee") pursuant to the provisions of Article VI.4.

V.2 Each Member shall maintain an enquiry point to answer all reasonable enquiries from other Members and from interested parties in other Members concerning its fisheries management system, including measures in place to address fishing capacity and fishing effort, and the biological status of the fisheries in question. Each Member shall notify to the Committee contact information for this enquiry point.

WTO: more on "farmland agreements"

Doing some desk research on this issue of "farmland agreeemnts" I fell upon a webpage at the Wilson Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Washington, USA)  reporting on a panel discussion on the subject of  "Land Grab: The Race for the World's Farmland".

Here is the link to the aforementioned web page:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.item&news_id=532332#

WTO: after fisheries agreements, "farmland agreements"?

In my post of 26/08/2009 I referred to fisheries agreements as one of the "hot issues" at the WTO DDA negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

Now it seems that governments are negotiating bilateral agreements with a view to secure farmland to the farmers of one of the Parties or to guarantee food supplies to the population of one of the countries.

An example of the first type of farmland agreements is the one recently concluded between South Africa and the Republic of Congo whereby Congo will give South African farmers access to up to 10 million hectares of farmland.

Here is a link to an article on this:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=nw20091020221302711C267231

And here the link to a website covering this type of agreements:

http://farmlandgrab.org/

Should this types of agreements be covered by new WTO subsidy disciplines?

NORWAY: fisheries subsidies in political parties' manifestos. Part II the Christian Democratic Party

I started a few posts ago with a series on the manifestos of the Norwegian political parties as posted in their websites, in the run-up to the elections in mid-September of this year.

Today I will discuss the manifesto of the Kristelike Folkeparti (Krf).

This party was not in office in the previous government and will continue in the opposition for the next four years. Interesting to note is that the Prime Minister of the government in power from 2001 to 2005, Mr Bondevik, was the leader of this party.

Here are some of the promises made by Krf prior the election:

- keep ownership Norway's fisheries and aquaculture industries in Norwegian hands.

- give increased weight to local employment when allocating fishing quota.

- maintain the obligation to supply (leveringsplikt) to encourage local processing. The non-respect of the supply obligation should have consequences for the subsequent allocation of fishing quota.

- increase the harvest of pinnipeds (seals) and work towards international acceptance of of this harvest, within ecological sustainability.

With regard to the regulatory framework Krf wants to maintain the main pillars upon which rests the Norwegian fishing industry, the Participants law (Deltakerlov) and the Raw fish law (Råfisklov).

On pinnipeds (seals) the Krf considers that, because a large population of pinnipeds is tantamount to a large consumption of fish, a higher harvest of seals and pinnipeds is necessary.

Here is the link to the manifesto (section on fisheries and aquaculture):

http://www.krf.no/ikbViewer/page/krf/politikk/politisk-program/artikkel?p_document_id=23039

CHINA: strategic importance of fisheries (and subsidies?)

In my previous posts I have been citing China as one of those WTO members that would like to have a broad margin of manoeuvre to grant subsidies to its fishing (and aquaculture industry). Actually China’s very first written submission to a WTO Negotiating Group was about fisheries subsidies (TN/RL/W/9 of 20 June 2002).

During summer time of this year I read an article published by the Jamestown Foundation and titled “Strategic Implications of Chinese Fisheries Development”.

I will quote two paragraphs of this article, which I found very informative:

“To mollify angry fishermen, the Chinese authorities have offered substantial subsidies to displaced fishermen and also supported aquaculture as a viable economic alternative to marine fisheries. Indeed, the aquaculture sector has witnessed enormous growth in China during the last decade.“

 “Yet, Chinese fishing fleets’ activities are much more than a regional issue.  Although China’s distant water fishing (DWF) fleet was only created in the mid-1980s, by 2006 it has grown to nearly 2,000 vessels operating on the high seas and in the EEZs of 35 countries [12].  The Chinese DWF fleet is actually supported by subsidies from the central government as part of an effort to divert Chinese fishermen out of local waters that have been fished out.  For instance, according to an authoritative source, the number of Chinese fishing vessels in West African waters at any one time could be close to 300 vessels at any given time [13].”

12. Guifang (Julia) Xue, “China’s Distant Water Fisheries and Its Response to Flag State Responsibilities,” Marine Policy 30 (2006), p. 653.

13. Wang Ning (ed.), Handbook on Long-Distance Fishing Technology and Economy (Beijing:  Ocean Press, 2002), p. 74.

The full reference of the article is the following:

Lyle Goldstein , “Strategic Implications of Chinese Fisheries Development” China Brief, Volume: 9 Issue: 16 (August 2009)  The Jamestown Foundation, Washington.

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35372

WTO: developing countries divided over the issue of exemptions to subsidy disciplines

In my previous post I was referring to the discussions, as reported by ICSTD and FFA, on the "Roadmap" issued by the Chair in December 2008. Apparently, the main subject discussed was Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT) for Developing Members (Article III of the Chair's 2007 draft text) and General Disciplines (Article IV).

Readers familiar with the ongoing WTO DDA (Doha Development Agenda) negotiations will have noticed that S&DT is a very difficult subject of negotiation. Among the main reasons why it is so difficult to debate S&DT we find the exceptions from the general rules that can be granted to developing countries. Fisheries subsidies negotiations are no exception to such difficulties, the more that benefiting from S&DT provisions could mean exemptions from certain rules, in particular from the prohibition to provide some subsidies.

If you have followed my posts on the WTO negotiations you would have noticed that developing countries can be divided into two coalitions, I will call them Group A and Group B:

- Group A: gravitates around the so called "Friends of fish" group. These developing countries are of the view that S&DT should be limited and subject to to very specific conditions (e.g. measurable parameters such as boat length, area of fishing operations, etc.). A key issue for these countries is to have a definition of artisanal fisheries. Among the countries that belong to this coalition we can cite: Chile, Peru, Pakistan, Colombia and Argentina.

- Group B: would like to obtain the broadest possible exemptions from a ban on fisheries subsidies. This group opposes the use of "rigid parameters" to limit the possibility of benefiting from such exemptions. Developing WTO members of that can be included in this coalition are: India, China, Indonesia. They have been joined lately by Mexico, Ecuador and Brazil.

If we look a little bit closer into the membership of the above coalitions we will notice that in Group A we find, broadly speaking, two types of developing countries. "Type 1" are characterised by the fact that they have the means to provide support to their fishing industry, yet because of "policy" reasons they do not want to be seen as "subsidisers". A clear example of this type of developing country is Chile. "Type 2" are countries that have limited means to support their industry and that are very keen to avoid that other developing countries (competitors) start massively subsidising their fishing industry. Argentina could and Peru could be counted as corresponding to "Type 2" of countries.

Both types (1 and 2) of countries in Group A have though one thing in common and that is that they want to keep in check their fellow (competing) developing countries from opening the money tap in a way that could affect their own competitiveness.

The membership of Group B is a more homogeneous one. To start with they are countries that have the financial muscle to assist their fishing industry and, perhaps more important, their policies are geared towards an expansion of their industrial base in many sectors, including fisheries. Another characteristic, although not common to all of the countries in Group B is the existence of a very large group of small scale fishermen (India, China and Indonesia).

 I found also fascinating how that this latest split in the developing countries, i.e. Brazil, Mexico and Ecuador joining China (or Group B) has resulted in neighbouring countries going apart: Peru in Group A, Ecuador in Group B, Argentina in Group A, Brazil in Group B. I do not think that this is a coincidence. These "pairs" of countries are fishing nations and,for some fish especies,direct competitors in world markets.

To conclude this post i will copy hereunder how the ICTSD and the FFA pictured the split among developing countries:

FFA:

"Interestingly, in the past, Brazil has been a "friend" of the 'Friends of Fish', but appears to have broken away from the group on the issue of S&DT, delivering a separate joint statement with China, Ecuador and Mexico."

ICTSD:

"Despite the differences among the statements, at least one official was struck by the similarities across the countries and groupings. All of those present agreed on the dual importance of curtailing overfishing and ensuring that developing countries have access to adequate flexibilities, the delegate said."

Personally I think that the ICTSD assessment is perhaps somewhat optimistic.

According to FFA the next meeting is scheduled for 29-30 October and will cover Fisheries Management (Article V).