fisheries subsidies

BLOG NEWS: "My Blog List" clean-up

2011-12-30T10:42:00.000+01:00

Readers have certainly noticed that some of the blogs appearing on my blog list had not been updated for a long time. So I have done some housekeeping: a couple of blogs have changed names. I have made the necessary changes so that readers can access the most up to date version. I have also removed an "idle" blog (not updated since several months).

INDIA: fishermen in the State of Karnataka get increased subsidy for... housing!

2011-12-29T19:25:00.002+01:00

According to the Daijiworld Media Network the Indian State of Karnataka has increased the housing subsidy fro fishermen from Rs 40,000 to Rs 60,000 (from USD 753 to USD 1130).

The article mentions that the State government "has set apart the sum of Rs. 11.41 crore for construction of 2,000 houses for fishermen in 2011-12." (Rs 11.41 crore is approximately USD 2.15 million).

The article also says that "...the Cabinet also decided to release Rs 2 crore to cooperatives of fishermen for granting loans at 3 per cent rate of interest." (Rs 2 crore amounts to + USD 377,000)

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=122320

USA: negotiating fisheries subsidies disciplines in the Trans-Pacific Partnership

2011-12-05T21:27:00.001+01:00

On 5 December 2011 the Office of the United States Trade Representative released a document titled "USTR GREEN PAPER ON CONSERVATION AND THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP".

In the paper it is stated that:

"The United States and other TPP countries have proposed TPP disciplines on subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, potentially lighting the way for a WTO multilateral agreement on fisheries subsidies."

I am impressed by the move of the move of the US "and other TPP countries" to propose binding rules (disciplines) in the context of bilateral/multilateral trade deals. I tried to find the documents relating to this proposals but I did not succeed. So if readers know more about the subject I will be very glad to hear (or read) from them.

When reading in detail the USTR text a number of questions came to my mind:

Will these "disciplines" apply in the same way to all countries in the TPP or will the rules take into account different degrees of development? Will they apply to trade (i.e. to products) among TPP participants? Or rather to the harvesting of some species? Does this mean that some countries that are providing subsidies now will have to change their policies because of bilateral/plurilateral rules?

At any rate, this is a remarkable (and bold) development!

Here is the link to the USTR document:

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/ustr-green-paper-conservation-and-trans-pacific-partnership

OMAN: USD 260 million subsidies for fishermen, over five years.

2011-11-27T19:21:00.001+01:00

An articlein the online edition of Oman Daily Observer mentions the figure of Omani Rial(RO) 100 million (or USD 260 million) over five years financial assistancepackage to the Omani fishing and aquaculture industry.

The article quotes Dr Hamed bin Said al Oufi,Fisheries Wealth Under-Secretary as saying that the bulk of the subsidies willgo to fisheries infrastructure. Dr. Al Oufi added that the planned amount was"is more than four times what was allotted during the previous Plan"and that "part of the allocation will also help finance the upgrade of thefishing fleet, marketing chain infrastructure, training, exploration of newmarkets, and improvements in the quality of fish."

Speakingabout the state of the Omani fisheries industry he said that: “Subsidies arenot the only thing that fishermen will need. There are other sources offinancing: the Oman Development Bank (ODB), for example, gives loans at almostzero interest rate. This is the future of developing the sector. Subsidies, onthe other hand, have two sides — a positive side and a negative side. Peopleget subsidies and don’t become active because they don’t have to pay backanything.”

Anotherinteresting statement by Dr. Al Oufi refers to the export prohibitions in placefor "five notified species" . Looking in the Internet for moreinformation on this export bans I found an article in the Oman Tribune where itis stated that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, issued a decisionbanning export of kanad (kingfish), sahwa (tuna), al gethar, and al safi forsix months, from December 1, 2011.

Here is thelink to the article on subsidies in the Oman Daily Observer:

http://main.omanobserver.om/node/72497

Here thelink to the article of the Oman Tribuneon the export prohibitions.

http://www.omantribune.com/index.php?page=news&id=106029&heading=Oman

USA: subsidies for at-sea monitoring (catch shares program)

2011-11-20T12:16:00.001+01:00

Recently I came aacross a couple of articles in the online edition of East-coast newspapers. Thefirst article, posted at Southcoasttofday.com, dated 13 October 2011, is titled“Senators say bill seeks to protect fishermen, taxpayers”. It is about a billco-sponsored by Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and Sen. Kelly Ayotte,R-N.H. that, if enacted, could, according to the newspaper “roll back” the catchshares programme in the ground fish industry. The newspaper quotes thefollowing a statement by Senator Kelly Allote:

"To date, these costs have largely been subsidized by taxpayers,and fishermen will soon have to bear these additional costs themselves, whichcould push small fishermen out of business completely."

In the article itis stated that the cost runs from 6 to 12 million USD per year. The fullstatement of Senator Allote can be found here:

http://ayotte.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=234

A later article, also in the Gloucester Time and dated 20 October 2011,refers to a field Senate Commerce Committee hearing in Boston, where NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Ms. Jane Lubchencoanswered questions from Senators on the implementation of the catch sharesprogramme in the East Coast. The articlementions Ms Lubchenco pledge to continue to subsidise the at-sea monitoringcost through April 2013.

There is also a reference to reference to a letter by Ms Lubchenco, inresponse to a letter from Senator Kerry, where she is ready to work with interested parties to issue,if necessary a commercial fishery "disaster declaration" related tothe impacts of the catch share regimen on the groundfishery. This “disasterdeclaration” can trigger the payment of subsidies to fishermen.

Here is a link to Senators Kerry’s webpage where readers can find the requestsaddressed by Senator Kerry to NOAA and the response letter from Ms. Lubchenco.

http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=82f44f61-919f-4aae-8804-03b4425749f4

Here is also the link to the Senate’s Commerce Committee website wherereaders can find the written statements related to the field hearing in Bostonon 3 October 2011:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Home

And here are the links to the press articles:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111013/NEWS/110130321/-1/NEWS10Senators%20say%20bill%20seeks%20to%20protect%20fishermen,%20taxpayersSteve%20Urbon

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x859490826/NOAA-chief-extends-monitoring-payments

I also include the link to two video's. One is from Senator Allote questioning a Department of Commerce nominee on fisheries issues:

And another from Mayor Carolyn A. Kirk, Democrat Gloucester Massachusetts asking President Obama "to Stop New Regulations Driving Small Businesses Out of Business". The video was posted on 4 October 2011, i.e. one day after the field hearing of the Senate's Commerce Committee:

New Zealand: foreing vessels (and foreign subsidies?) and charter agreements

2011-11-13T11:58:00.000+01:00

Some of my previous posts on NZ included a one titled "Domcumentary on NZ fishing practices" (15/08/2009).

New Zealand's authorities have taken these allegations very seriously and have launched a "Ministerial Inquiry into Foreign Charter Vessels" on these practices.

When going through some of the documents related to the inquiry and looking at the "nationality" of the vessels involved in the fishing operations (South Korea, Ukraine, Japan and Dominica) I wondered whether NZ companies where benefiting from subsidised fishing capacity, i.e. from vessels that would have been built with subsidies (investment susbsidies) and that would receive subsidies for operating costs (for example lower social security contributions) from the flag countries.

Perhaps readers have comments on this, i.e. the possible use of subsidised vessels, and its relation to WTO issues, such as the export of products that have benefited from subsidies (WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures).

Similarly to what the US vs. Canada softwoodlumber case highlighted, could we speak here of the "passing-through" of, say, a South Korean subsidy (for the construction of the vessel), to the NZ company operating the charter arrangement and exporting the product to a third country? Should counter-vailing measures be adopted, against whom should they be directed? Againts NZ or against South Korea?

Comments and views are welcome!

Here is the link to the page of the Fisheries Ministry's website with information on the inquiry:

http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Consultations/Ministerial+Inquiry+into+Foreign+Charter+Vessels/default.htm

And here the link to the "Nautical Blog" with a post on this issue (chartering in New Zealand):

http://nauticallog.blogspot.com/2011/04/holier-than-thou.html

EU: Commissioner Damanaki on the new EU's fisheries fund

2011-11-02T21:17:00.000+01:00

Ms Damanaki European Commissioner, in charge of Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, lifted a corner of the veil on the Commission's proposal for a future EU's fisheries fund. This happened during a hearing at the UK's Parliament House of Commons Select Committee on Envrionment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Here is the link to the UK's Parliament website with the video of the hearing. The discussion on the new fisheries fund takes place at the end of the hearing (from 12h22 on):

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9264

MALDIVES: governement sued because of non-disbursement of fisheries subsidies

2011-11-02T13:17:00.000+01:00

When looking in the Internet for news on fisheries subsidies I stumbled upon an article published in the online edition of the "Minivan News".

The title of the aritcle is "DQP sues Finance Ministry for non-payment of fisheries subsidies". According to the article the "Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) is withholding the budget allocated for fuel subsidies for fishermen".

Here is the link to the article:

http://minivannews.com/politics/dqp-sues-finance-ministry-for-non-payment-of-fisheries-subsidies-26914

NZ: interesting presentation by governement official on WTO negotiations

2011-11-02T13:15:00.000+01:00

Here is the link to a presentation by a New Zealand's governement official on the WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

http://www.seafoodindustry.co.nz/f1690,84125/84125_Haike_Manning_WTO_Fisheries_Subsidies.pdf

ALGERIA: minimum salary for fishermen for "biological stops"

2011-11-02T13:08:00.000+01:00

Algeria will be paying subsidies for fishermen who have to stop fishing activities to let fish reproduce. The subsidy cosnsists of a minimum guaranteed monthly salary of 18,000 Algerian Dinar (250 USD).

Here is the link to an article (in French) published by AFP - Romandie News

http://www.romandie.com/news/n/_Un_salaire_minimum_aux_pecheurs_algeriens_afin_de_proteger_les_popissons051020111510.asp

USA: subsidies for the shrimp processing industry in Louisiana

2011-10-01T12:16:00.000+02:00

According to the press a new shrimp processing facility will open in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

In some of the articles I found on the Internet it is mentioned that "the state [Louisiana] is providing a $1.09 million loan guaranty to Baton RougeShrimp, and the company is expected to utilize the state’s Enterprise Zone and Industrial Tax Exemption programs."

Here are the links to the articles:

http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110926/APN/1109260795

http://www.southerngovernors.org/articleview.aspx?articleid=7338

Congressman Faleomavaega mentions "U.S. tax payer subsidising right to fish"

2011-09-28T19:29:00.000+02:00

Here is a video posted by Greenpeace USA where Congressman Eni F.H. Faleomavaega of American Samoa welcomes the Greenpeace ship"Esperanza".

In the video he makes a reference the access agreement that the US has with some Pacific nations and to the fact that some fishing companies are benefiting from "U.S. tax payer subsidised right to fish".

INDIA: subsidies for fuel and out of board motors

2011-08-18T20:30:00.000+02:00

Public authorities in India, (central government and States) have an history of supporting the fisheries sector (see my post tagged “India”). India has also been very adamant at the WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies in defending the possibility by governments to give subsidies to fisheries, especially in developing countries. This is confirmed by the written proposals that India has submitted to the WTO.

Recently the State of Goa has published an order for the implementation/continuation of the of State Sector Scheme “Financial Assistance towards subsidy for purchase of Kerosene for Out Board Motor Operators”.

I copy here a couple of extracts of the order.

For fuel, fishermen eligible for the aid will receive a:

“lump sum subsidy of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) per year on a minimum consumption of 2000 litres of Kerosene.”

For Out Board Motors:

“The beneficiary will be entitled for financial assistance to the extent of 50% of the cost limited to Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) per O.B.M. of 8-10 HP to be shared by the State and the Central Government from the year 2011-12 of which the Central share shall be 50% of the eligible subsidy limited to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) and balance of Rs. 25,000/- shall be borne by the State Government. The bank will finance the loan amount to the extent of the cost of the out board motor hypotheticating the canoe of the applicant and considering the cost of the canoe as margin money and also taking into account of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) as a Government subsidy. Motor purchased with self finance are also eligible for subsidy at the above rate.”

Readers will note that the subsidy for the Out board motors receive financing from the Indian Central Government.

Here is a link to an article by the “Times of India” on this subsidy.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-07/goa/29861085_1_kerosene-new-scheme-subsidy

And here a link to the order published by the Government of the Indian State of Goa.

http://www.goaprintingpress.gov.in/downloads/1112/1112-14-SI-OG.pdf

USA: fisheries subsidies and budget crisis

2011-08-17T23:31:00.000+02:00

Readers are certainly aware of the budget crisis that a number of countries, including the U.S., are currently experiencing.

Subsidies to fisheries can take the shape of budget hand outs (do not forget that they can also be provided as tax rebates, or forgone government revenue as dubbed in WTO jargon). I found an article in the online edition of the Sun Sentinel discussing the issue of fisheries subsidies in the context of the U.S. budget crisis.

Here is the link to the article:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-08-07/news/fl-nncol-budget-fisheries-nikpour-08020110807_1_catch-shares-fisheries-fishing-industry

USA: Starkist and Tri-marine to benefit from government owned near-shore cold storage facilty?

2011-07-02T22:04:00.000+02:00

Some media have reported that Governor Togiola Tulafono of American Samoa is seeking to make available to Tri Marine International and to Starkist a 2,400 tonnes cold storage freeze facility, to be located in the Department of Port Administration in the port area. The local fishing fleet would also benefit from this facility.

Also according to press reports Governor Togiola is seeking federal financial assistance to finance the project.

Here a few links on the subject:

http://samoanews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=24775&edition=1300788000

http://www.samoanewsonline.com/publicviewstory.php?storyid=27119&newspaperid=189

MALDIVES: fisheries subsidies, for fuel, a matter of survival

2011-06-19T12:44:00.000+02:00

An opposition party (Dhivehi Qaumee Party or DQP) in the Maldives is pressing the government to quickly provide fishermen with 100 Million Ruffiya (USD 7.8 million) subsidies to the fisheries sector to help them purchase fuel. According to the article, this amount was already allocated by the governement in the 2011 budget.

Also according to the article the DQP argues that:

"...the industry has been going downhill and that the families of the fishermen are now living in hunger and poverty. The party said that the subsidies given to the fishermen to purchase fuel are given with the aim to lift of these burdens from them and to help them out."

This piece of news aroused my curiosity on the Maldives' fisheries industry.

In the 2010 Statistical Yearbook of the Maldives I found information about the number of fishermen active in the Maldives and made a few calculations.

The most recent data concerned 2007. In that year there were 13,648 fishermen in the Maldives. So this means that a 100 million Ruffiya subsidy allocation to the fisheries industry would translate into a 7,327 Ruffiya (or 571 USD) subsidy per fishermen in the Maldives.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.miadhu.com/2011/06/local-news/dqp-threatens-court-action-if-fisheries-subsidies-are-not-given-in-21days/

And here the link to the Statistical Yearbook of the Maldives:

http://planning.gov.mv/yearbook2010/yearbook/5_employment/5.9.htm

USA: PETERSON INSTITUTE's recipes for the USA on WTO's Doha illness

2011-06-13T15:18:00.000+02:00

There are a lot of ideas circulating on what the WTO Members should do on the current crisis that the WTO's Doha Round is going through.

Here is a link to a webpage from the Peterson Institute for International Economic with a policy brief titled "What Should the United States Do about Doha?"

http://www.bookstore.iie.com/publications/interstitial.cfm?ResearchID=1851

Not a word on fisheries subsidies.

MALAYSIA: more on fuel subsidies

2011-06-13T14:45:00.000+02:00

In March 2011 I wrote a post on Malaysia's subsidies to fuel used by fishermen.

In recent articles the Malaysian press has echoed the unhappiness of license holders of so called “C2 trawlers” about the removal of a super-subsidy given by the government.

These trawlers are offshore vessels of 70 GRT and above and operate beyond 30 nautical miles off the coast. Until 31 May 2011 these trawlers could buy diesel at the price Malaysian Ringgit or RM 1.25 (or 0.41USD). After that date they price they pay is RM 1.80 (or 0.59 USD).

According to the government, this is still a subsidised price.

As to how this super-subsidy worked one of the articles (1) mentions that:

“The government subsidises 25,000 to 28,000 litres of diesel equivalent to RM31,250 (10,271 USD) and RM35,000 (11,503 USD) for each vessel every month and all Zone C2 vessels could use up to an average of 14 million litres of diesel every month”

Here are links to press articles on this issue:

(1) http://www.theborneopost.com/2011/06/08/trawler-operators-still-enjoying-subsidy-for-diesel/
(2) http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/05/19/trawler-operators-upset-over-subsidy-move/

WTO: Ideas on helping WTO Doha negotiations forward -> freeze and reduce fish subsidies by 10% the first year

2011-06-12T18:56:00.000+02:00

In a previous post I included a quote from a article of a former Indian Ambassador to the WTO, where he set out his views on the possible ingredients (fish not on the plate!) for salvaging the Doha Round.

In the mean time other articles have been published in the voexeu.org website. Some authors writing on the WTO Doha Round have proposed that "middle trading powers" should

"Freeze all harmful fisheries subsidies and offer to reduce them by 10% in the first year provided a critical mass of members do the same;" Richard Baldwin and Simon J. Evenett © voxEU.org

I wonder which countries the authors have in mind when writing about "middle trading powers"?

This quote can be found here:

http://vox.cepr.org/index.php?q=node/6573

WTO: "US Demands may Kill WTO Agreement" (and so one on fisheries subsidies?)

2011-06-12T11:40:00.001+02:00

I found a very interesting video with an interview of Timothy A. Wise, Research Director of the Global Development and Environment Institute (GDAE) at Tufts University.

The interview appears under the heading "US Demands may Kill WTO Agreement".

Here is the link to the website with the video:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6831

WTO: "Slim chance of success for "Doha Lite" trade talks" (according to Reuters)

2011-06-02T17:09:00.002+02:00

Here is the link to an article by Reuters with an analysis of the situation of the WTO's Doha Development Agenda Round. Not very optimistic I must say.

The article includes good insights on the discussions about the composition of a "Doha-lite" package: abolition, mainly by developed countries, of subsidies to the cotton industry, Duty-Free Quota Free access to markets for the poorest countries. These are important issues for many least developed and developing countries.

Not a word on fish subsidies in the article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/businesspro-us-trade-wto-doha-idUSTRE74U6ZS20110531

WTO: more of Hollywood in fisheries subsidies negotiations

2011-05-30T10:21:00.000+02:00

In my 31 Oct 2009 post titled “WTO: fisheries subsidies and Hollywood under the same roof” I discussed how some celebrities were supporting NGOs in lobbying for strong WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies.

In another post of 3 Nov 2010 titled “NZ/WTO: Tim Groser on film stars and WTO fisheries subsidies” I discussed Tim Groser’s (NZ Minister responsible for Trade) comments on the role played by celebrities and Hollywood stars in international negotiations, especially in the area of climate change.

On 11 May 2011 the WWF issued a press release announcing that:

“Today, Mission Blue, Oceana and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) delivered a letter to President Obama calling for renewed U.S. leadership at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to end subsidies that contribute to overfishing.

In the letter, 77 prominent environmental leaders and groups, including conservation organizations Oceana and WWF, marine scientists Dr. Sylvia Earle and Dr. Daniel Pauly, and celebrity activists Leonardo DiCaprio, Chevy Chase and Darryl Hannah wrote, “The United States has played a strong role across successive administrations, to achieve new rules for fisheries subsidies at the WTO. Recent developments at the WTO may threaten to derail years of progress towards a successful result. We urge you at this important juncture to send clear and public signals that a genuine ‘win’ on fisheries subsidies remains a critical priority for the United States at the WTO.”

I am sure that Tim Groser, as Trade Minister of a country which is championing the adoption of very strong rules on fisheries subsidies at the WTO, will be very happy that celebrities and Hollywood give their support this time to this cause.

Here is the full link to the full text of the press release.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2011/WWFPresitem21254.html

OMAN: subsidies for the purchase of fishing vessels, engines, gear, fish processing equipment, etc

2011-05-29T12:28:00.001+02:00

A recent press release from Oman's Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (17 May 2011) announced a new regulation which provides for a whole array of subsidies for the artisanal fishing sector.

According to the press release the new regulation:

"...includes subsidizing the artisan fishing sector for purchasing fishing boats, engines, instruments and equipment used in the artisan fishing boats, as well as the artisan fishing accessories, in addition to the subsidy allocated for purchasing the long fishing threads, electric cranes used in the artisan fishing boats and GPS and other equipment."

and

"also included the coastal fishing subsidy for purchasing and possessing fishing equipment, quality control devices, subsidizing the fishing industries, such as, the fish drying and preparation equipment whether by salting, smoking or storing."

Here is the link to this press release:

http://www.omannews.gov.om/ona/english/newsDetails_inc.jsp?newsID=51651

Another press, of 18 May 2011, article of ONA (Oman News Agency) gives a few figures of the Omani fishing sector

"The fisheries sector is one of the major contributors to non-oil/gas generated income, but it is seen as having an even much greater potential with Omani fishing waters being regarded as among the richest in the world. The sector and associated industry plays a vital role in the economy, as well as in the livelihoods of tens-of-thousands of fishermen and employees in the fisheries industry. The sector’s huge growth can be directly related to its importance and the confidence placed in it by public and private sector investors. It generated substantial income with figures for 2009, showing that over 158,000 tonnes of fish with a value of RO104 million were landed, a growth of four per cent compared to 2008. In 2010, local authorities have worked hard to ensure that specified rules and regulations are adhered to by fishermen."

And here is the link to the above press article:

http://www.timesofoman.com/innercat.asp?detail=45062&rand=

WTO: ingredients for salvaging the Doha Round (fisheries subsidies not included!)

2011-05-10T21:29:00.003+02:00

Ujal Singh Bhatia, former India’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the WTO in Geneva has written on 10 May 2011 an interesting piece in Voxeu.org, a website on research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists. There is a link to it in my blog list.

To salvage Doha Mr Bathia suggests:

"Based on this broad understanding of the situation, a three pronged approach needs to be explored:
Seriously contentious issues like the Market Access issues, Agricultural Subsidies, and Rules may be segregated for continuing consultations under agreed terms of reference.
The segregated package has to be internally balanced to allow for incentives and trade offs for all players.
Stand alone agreements to be finalised on less contentious issues.
The areas for focus are fairly obvious to those close to the negotiations.¹
The third component would be a Ministerial decision to initiate a work programme for institutional reform in the WTO."

Ujal Singh Bhatia © voxEU.org

The areas for focus arementioned in footnote 1 and they are the following:

"Specifically, Trade Facilitation, all aspects of Export Competition in Agriculture including Export Subsidies, Transparency Mechanism for RTA’s, LDC Waiver in Services, NTB’s package in NAMA, Ministerial decisions on Para 31(i) and 31(ii) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, Implementation of the Hong Kong decision on Duty Free Quota Free treatment for LDC’s, a Ministerial decision on the Monitoring Mechanism for S&D provisions, as well as a Ministerial Decision on the issues raised by the C-4 on Cotton."

It is interesting to see how this list compares with other lists, such as the one proposed by the US, which includes, next to trade facilitation, fisheries subsides or the liberalisation of trade in the so called "environmental goods" but no "cotton" or duty-free quota-free for LDC's.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/6497

EU: WWF and its allies call for real reform of the EU's Fisheries Policy (also of subsidies?)

2011-05-06T12:48:00.000+02:00

Just before the start of the European Seafood Exhibition in Brussels the WWF posted on its website a leaflet on the above subject with as head title "A shared vision for sustainable European fisheries"

I went through it and to my great surprise I did not find the "s" word, i.e. subsidy, subsidies, (financial) support. So, this piece of policy (not negligible) does not appear in this document. You could read such absence in different ways. One could be: subsidies must go, they should disappear, so do not mentioned them. The other way of reading the document would be: do not touch subsidies, keep them as they are (or at least at the same level). Another way of looking at it would suggest that, as subsidies are such a contentious issue, it is better not to address them.

I found also interesting the sentence that reads as follows:

"This reform should seek to maximise the economic benefits for society through the sustainable management of these vital and renewable resources for future food security."

This sounds like agriculture. Would this mean that the EU has to ensure that it can be self sufficient in its supply of fish products, for food security purposes?

At any rate, the EU subsidses the production of the leaflet! Should we call this a virtuous (or good, or green) fisheries subsidy? I leave the answer to the readers of this blog.

Here are a few links on this document:

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/policy/wwf_europe_environment/initiatives/fisheries/fisheries_policy/wwf_industry_alliance_cfp/

http://www.wwf.eu/fisheries/cfp_reform/?194279/WWF-and-its-Allies-call-for-real-reform-in-European-Fisheries

USA: subsidies for sector start-up costs and dock side monitoring for New England fishermen

2011-05-06T12:02:00.000+02:00

Here is a catch from the Net!

Here are a couple of links with information on the above subject. The one with the presentation titled Accessing Federal Funding for Dockside Monitoring & Sector Operations slides (in PDF) is particularly interesting as it provides a nice overview of how the programme works.

http://www.gmri.org/upload/files/Dockside%20Monitoring%20Funding%20Presentation.pdf

http://www.gmri.org/upload/files/Dockside%20Monitoring%20Funding%20FAQs.pdf

USA: proposal for fuel subsidies for commercial fishermen in Maine

2011-05-03T21:10:00.000+02:00

In recent weeks I have written a few posts on fuel subsidies.

Here is one on a bill in the State of Maine to Refund the Sales Tax Paid on Fuel Used in Commercial Fishing Vessels

The Republicans in Main are proposing a series of tax cuts, including taxes on fuel used by fishing vessels. In one press article (see link hereunder) State Senator Trahan is quoted as saying that "The elimination of the sales tax on fuel used in the Gulf of Maine is aimed at encouraging fishermen to bring their fish to Portland, rather than Massachusetts".

Here is the link with official information on the bill on fishing vessels :

http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280039215

Here the article on tax cuts (including in fuel for fishing vessels) proposed by the Republicans in Maine:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/gop-plan-for-budget-calls-for-tax-cuts_2011-04-15.html

WTO: is the Doha Round now under "life support"?

2011-03-29T23:55:00.000+02:00

In my previous post I was discussing the "noises" that were coming from Geneva concerning the state of play in the WTO's Doha Development negotiations.

Well, it seems that today the Director General of the WTO discussed with delegates from the member countries the seriousness of the situation.

Here are a few articles and press releases on the issue:

US deals blow to global trade deal hopes

http://arabnews.com/economy/article334733.ece

U.S. questions value of early Doha trade text

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/idINIndia-55960320110329

In Spanish:

OMC: brecha entre partes en negociaciones sobre ronda de Doha son "inmensas"

http://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/suiza_y_el_mundo/internacional/OMC:_brecha_entre_partes_en_negociaciones_sobre_ronda_de_Doha_son_inmensas.html?cid=29878472

In French:

OMC/Doha: les écarts restent "immenses", pesant sur l'espoir d'un accord en été

http://www.romandie.com/infos/news/201103291830171AWPCH.asp

And here is the statement of the US delegate at today's meeting in Geneva:

http://geneva.usmission.gov/2011/03/29/ambassador-punkes-statement-on-doha/

WTO: Is the Doha Round entering a (very, very) delicate phase?

2011-03-27T23:07:00.000+02:00

This weekend I stumbled upon an interesting (and somewhat alarming) article, dated 24 April 2011, in the online edition of the Brazilian newspaper "O Globo". The article was titled "Com possibilidade remota de acordo, Rodada de Doha está em xeque".

Translated into English the title would read something like: "Because of the remote possibility of an agreement, the Doha Round is now in check"

According to the article, which was quoting

Brazil

's Ambassador to the WTO, "the situation is serious".

Further, and referring to people who are closely following the negotiations, the article says that the negotiators are working on four scenarios:

1) continuity,

2) change of approach, i.e. keep trying, but with some adjustments,

3) "uncontrolled landing", featuring a dramatic end to the Round Doha, and

4) "organised ending", i.e. a way to suspend the process, without hurting the credibility of the multilateral trading system.

On the last scenario the article mentions that "It is the first time that the fourth hypothesis comes from the backstage and reaches the ears of other country Members of the organisation".

And last but least the article concludes by pointing the Mr Lamy who "concerned about the poor prospects about an agreement […] will start in the next month, a series of bilateral meetings.

Here is the link to the article:

http://oglobo.globo.com/economia/mat/2011/03/24/com-possibilidade-remota-de-acordo-rodada-de-doha-esta-em-xeque-924079024.asp

The website of the Brazilian Ministry for External Relations (Itamaraty) has included this article in the Ministry's press review:

http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/selecao-diaria-de-noticias/midias-nacionais/brasil/globo-online/2011/03/25/com-possibilidade-remota-de-acordo-rodada-de-doha

The situation appears indeed to be so serious that Mr Lamy, in the press conference following a panel discussion in the "Brussels Forum" of the German Marshall Fund on Saturday 26 March 2011, said that he would not answer questions related to the Doha round as he had a a session with the whole membership on Tuesday (29 March 2011) and he needed to talk to the WTO Membership before talking to journalists.

Here is the transcript of the link to the transcript of the press conference:

http://brussels.gmfus.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Brussels-Forum-Press-Release-following-G20-en-Vogue-2.pdf

MALAYSIA: fuel subsidies

2011-03-27T17:44:00.000+02:00

Malaysia is one of the countries in South East Asia that provides subsidies to its fishermen.

The Start Online reported last year (13 July 2010) on the answer by Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry Minister Datuk Noh Omar to a question by MP Datuk Sapawi Ahmad. Mr Sapawi asked on amount of subsidies distributed to traditional fishermen and ministry efforts to curb overfishing by licensed trawler boats.

According to the newspaper article:

"The government distributed 4.66 billion litres of subsidised diesel and 314.55 million litres of petrol worth RM3bil to fishermen in the last four years. Some 6.075 tonnes of fish worth RM36.45bil were landed from 2006 to 2010. The subsidies help to meet fuel cost, which comprises 70% of their operating cost."

The equivalent of RM (Malaysia Ringgit) of 3 billion is, at today's exchange rate, USD 990 million. This means that a yearly fuel subsidy of USD 247,5 million was provided by the government to fishermen in that country.

Compared to the total value of landings (yearly average of RM 9.11 billion or USD 3 billion) the yearly fuel subsidy represented around 8% of the total value of the catch.

Here is the link to the article:

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7/13/nation/20100713151942&sec=nation

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: fuel subsidies for poor fishermen

2011-03-27T16:41:00.000+02:00

Even in the "land of plenty (of fuel)" fishermen need subsidies to purchase their fuel.

Recently I came across an article published on 7 May 2010 in the online edition of the "The National" (United Arab Emirates).

In the article it is mentioned that:

"Almost 600 Emirati fishermen are to be given subsidies totalling Dh3.8 million per year to support their struggling businesses."

The amount of Dh 3.8 million corresponds to + USD 1 million.

It is also stated that boat engines are supplied by government to some fishermen. Here is a paragraph of the article:

"The ministry already supplies some fishermen with boat engines. Assistance is offered to those who have no other jobs and depend on the fishing to support their families. It also depends on how often they go fishing. For Ali al Mansouri, the head of the Abu Dhabi Fishermen Co-operative, the allowance would contribute to saving the traditional profession. "One of the reasons people are leaving this profession is the high cost of the fishing trip," he said."

Here is the link to the full article:

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/hundreds-of-struggling-fishermen-share-dh3-8m-fuel-subsidy

WTO: Pascal Lamy meets environmental NGOs in the USA...and discusses fisheries subsidies

2011-03-27T15:53:00.000+02:00

Oceana's website reports on a visit by the WTO's Director General, Pascal Lamy, to the headquarters of this organisation.

According to the post in "The Beacon" (a blog in Oceana's website) Mr Lamy participated in a roundtable discussion with ten environmental organisations focusing "on promoting an open and active dialogue about trade and the environment and the WTO’s ability to address both."

The only "trade and environment" subject that appears in the blog's post is fisheries subsidies.

I wonder whether other "trade and environment" subjects, currently negotiated in the context of the WTO's Doha Round, were discussed during the meeting. I am thinking here of the negotiations on the reduction or elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to "environmental goods and services". Examples of environmental goods and services: waste management tools, catalytic converters, air filters, biofuels, or consultancy services on wastewater management.

Another subject being negotiated under the trade and environment chapter are the relations between the WTO and the so called "Multilateral Environmental Agreements" or MEAs.

Here is the link to the post in Oceana's blog "The Beacon" on Mr Lamy's meeting with US environmental NGOs.

http://na.oceana.org/en/blog/2011/03/oceana-hosts-wto-director-general-pascal-lamy

PAPUA NEW GUINEA: fisheries agreements (and more) in PNG's WTO TRADE POLICY REVIEW

2011-03-26T17:54:00.000+01:00

The WTO offers a wealth of information on fisheries issues. The WTO's Secretariat Report on PNG's Trade Policy is an illustration of it.

The Report, dated 12 October 2010 with WTO reference WT/TPR/S/239, includes under Chapter IV "TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR" a section on "AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHERIES".

On Fisheries I noticed that there were a number of paragraphs describing fisheries agreements that PNG maintains with third countries.

"50. Most tuna is caught by licensed DWFN purse seiners paying access licence fees to catch fish for overseas processing. Access agreements are in place with China, Chinese Taipei, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. Negotiated annually, they establish allowed vessel numbers and the access fees, which are set under the plan at 6% of the catch's f.o.b. value. Total access fees average some K 50 million annually. There are currently 140 licensed vessels. DWFN vessels must meet certain mandatory port requirements. PNG bans transhipment at sea and requires the use of designated ports for transhipment and inspection."

So, PNG has fisheries agreements with a number of its "neighbours" in the region: China, Chinese Taipei, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea.

But there is one more fisheries agreement with a Distant Water Nation, namely the U.S.

"54. U.S. purse seine vessels also fish in PNG's EEZ under a multilateral treaty administered by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), extended for ten years in 2003 (Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States)²⁷. While the U.S. fleet has declined substantially to well below the cap of 40 vessels, fishing has increased significantly since 2009 because Taiwanese boats that traditionally fished in PNG waters re-flagged to fly the U.S. flag. The Plan set the TAC for tuna under the U.S. Treaty and the FSM Arrangement (see below) at 20,000 tonnes. However, in practice it seems that U.S. vessels are not subject to TAC limits or any conservation and management practices, but are monitored by the NFA under the VDS. As a member of the Palau Arrangement for Management of the Western Pacific Purse Seine Fishery, PNG is committed to reducing the number of DWFN vessels annually by 10%, and to give priority to Palau Arrangement members in granting fishing licences. The NFA is updating the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) registry of tuna fishing vessels (both domestic and LBFVs) operating in PNG's EEZ to effectively track them using the VDS. This complies with the latest European regulation, effective in 2011, aimed at improving traceability of all fishery products traded with the EU. However, the authorities are concerned that the stringent EU requirements of the IUU Regulation will impose compliance difficulties for PNG-located vessels, many of which are foreign, thereby threatening its European exports. They indicated that such exports are already beginning to be affected, and that PNG needs substantial technical assistance to enhance compliance possibilities as well as to administer such arrangements effectively."

²⁷ Originally a total of 50 vessels could operate in the EEZs of participating Pacific island nations. Total fees paid by the U.S. to the FFA are US$21 million, of which US$3 million is from the U.S. tuna industry. Of this, 15% is divided equally among FFA members, and the rest distributed pro rata based on tuna weight landed in each EEZ. The U.S. Government pays the other US$18 million to the FFA as aid.

What I found intriguing in this paragraph is the sentence:

"While the U.S. fleet has declined substantially to well below the cap of 40 vessels, fishing has increased significantly since 2009 because Taiwanese boats that traditionally fished in PNG waters re-flagged to fly the U.S. flag"

Did this transfer of vessels from Chinese Tapei to the

U.S.

include subsidised vessels? Or where subsidies provided by Chinese Taipei to its vessel owners to sell this vessels to the U.S.?

Another piece of information that I found interesting is the discrimination, as far as the price of fishing licences is concerned, between local and foreign fleets fishing when accessing the same fishing grounds and fishing for the same species.

I will discuss this in another post.

USA: fisheries management - increasing catch quotas as an emergency measure... to help fishermen?

2011-03-26T17:04:00.000+01:00

A recent press release dated 14 March 2011 by NOAA attracted my attention.

The first paragraph of the press release reads as follows:

"A new emergency increase to the butterfish fishing limit will enable squid fishermen off the northeast, who often catch butterfish unintentionally while fishing for squid, to continue working, while still protecting the butterfish stock."

Further, in another paragraph one can read:

“We’re taking swift action to raise fishing limits and to address the economic challenges faced by fishermen,” said Eric Schwaab, assistant NOAA administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “Working with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the fishing industry we are taking advantage of the flexibility in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to allow more fishing while still continuing programs to rebuild fish stocks for the long-term benefits they provide.”

So, by raising the "fishing limits" for a by-catch species for squid fishermen, NOAA is helping fishermen to address the economic challenges they are facing.

This is a demonstration that fisheries management can take into account the economic challenges that fishermen have to face. In other words, when setting catch limits fisheries managers can take into account, in addition to scientific advice, other factors such as the "economic challenges faced by fishermen".

Here is the link to the press release:

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/hotnews/NR1106/

And here is a link to an article in the East Hampton Star on this subject:

http://www.easthamptonstar.com/dnn/Home/News/CommercialFishermenGetReprieve/tabid/14504/Default.aspx

WTO: fisheries subsidies and Fisheries Management Systems (in the WTO)

2011-03-26T15:59:00.000+01:00

On 26 February 2011 I wrote a post on the reporting by the ICTSD on the February informal meeting of the Negotiating Group on Rules, where fisheries subsidies were dicussed.

The Fisheries Forum Agency (FFA) has recently published on its website the January and Feburary issues of its "FFA Fisheries Trade News".

The article on fisheries subsidies negotiations gives a very detailed account of the work accomplished by negotiators from 7 to 11 February 2011.

One interesting feature of the very detailed information provided by the authors of the article comes at the end of it. It concerns the work done by the two ‘Friends of the chair’ who had to gather WTO Members' views "on what they considered to be the core elements of a fisheries management system (FMS)"

I reproduce hereunder the table published with the article with the synthesis of the work carried by the "facilitators" on fisheries management.

As mentioned by the authors of the article Fisheries Management can become an important part of new WTO rules on fisheries susbidies as the exceptions for developing countries to subsidy prohibitions could be made dependent on fulfilling minimum requirments in the management of fish resources.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.ffa.int/node/444

Core/Mandatory Elements
Tools (i.e. indicative, not compulsory)
1) Institutions and legislative
(someone to ‘manage’ the FMS – a FM authority)
2) Stock assessment
Key: data collection to allow with a degree of certainty what one’s resource-base is and what is the level of outtake (i.e. an ‘output’ element)
Trend series to assess resource base
Level of sophistication depends on context
3) Fishing capacity
Count boats and measure composition of fleet (e.g. size), maybe also gear (i.e. an ‘input’ element)
Vessel registry (not necessarily for smallest boats though)
Licences/permits (depending upon fishery)
4) Fishing effort/capacity management
Utilisation of data on stocks and fishing capacity based on: a) input controls; b) output controls
Depending on fishery:
a) input controls (e.g. closed seasons, limits of gear or vessel size/numbers, etc)
b) output controls (e.g. total allowable catch, vessel-specific quotas, etc)
5) MCS – based on different levels of national/ supra-national authority
Key: some form of catch control is necessary to identify some form(s) of violation
Sampling, controls at port, fishing cooperative level, customary level, VMS and/or GPS onboard especially when operations in different zones, etc.
6) Enforcement
Administrative penalties
Criminalisation
Indigenous methods (e.g. moral pressure)

MALDIVES: fuel subsidies for fishermen

2011-03-20T13:03:00.000+01:00

According to an article posted in the "Haveeru Daily" of the Maldives the governement is providing help to farmers and fishermen to purchase fuel.

According to the article an amount of Rufiyaa 100 million (around 8 million USD° seems to have been earmarked in 2011 for this purpose.

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/details/34424

INDIA: India and WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies

2011-03-20T12:24:00.000+01:00

I went recently on a “trawling” expedition, not at sea but on the Internet.

Here is part of the “catch”.

I found an Indian website called “Fish Global” (fishglabl.org). This website is about “Strategies and Preparedness on Trade and Globalisation in India for Fishery Sector”.

In this website there are a few pages on India and the WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies. One page relates to the visit that the former Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules, Mr Guillermo Valles paid to India in early September 2009 “to interact with stakeholders in the field of fisheries to know about the ground realities of the fishing sector in India.”

In the webpage it is stated that:

It is apprehended that new rules on fisheries subsidies, which are being negotiated could seriously jeopardize the future of lakhs of fishermen in India. The new moves would seriously curtail the ability of India and other developing countries to provide support to their artisanal and small fishermen and encourage fishing in their Exclusive Economic Zone.

And further:

It is also feared that final result of some of the proposed condition could lead to the take over of the fishery management function from the member country of the WTO and to hand it over to a third party such as the FAO. This would result in constraining the Government from implementing schemes aimed at supporting fishermen in a sustainable manner as any new subsidy scheme would be permitted only if prior stock assessment has been undertaken which is reviewed by FAO. There is a need for India to retain the flexibility to develop marine infrastructure without being tied to onerous obligations.

Here is the link to the page:

http://www.fishglobal.org/fishglobal_news.asp?id=14

USA: "coastal fishing industry fears rising fuel prices"

2011-03-20T11:50:00.000+01:00

The effects of high fuel prices are also being felt in developed countries.

The title of this post is the title of an article published in the "Charlotte Observer" on 8 March 2011.

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/08/2120623/coastal-fishing-industry-fears.html

PHILIPPINES: tuna fishermen hit by high fuel prices

2011-03-20T11:17:00.003+01:00

The Sunstar, a newspaper from the Philippines, reported on 9 March 2011 that some tuna fishermen in General Santos City, the “Tuna Capital of the Philippines” are, or are considering, halting fishing operations because of the high oil prices.

According to the newspaper, for some fishing operations, such as handline fishing boats:

“For a single large-ticket hand line fishing expedition in the high seas that lasts for 30 to 45 days, the operational cost could run from P500,000 to P1 million, with Lim saying that fuel eats 60 percent to 65 percent of the amount.”

Here is the link to the article in the SunStar.

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/local-news/2011/03/08/oil-price-hikes-take-toll-tuna-players-143747

BLOG NEWS: Oil Price Information

2011-03-14T10:40:00.000+01:00

High oil prices are becoming (once again) a big problem for fishermen around the world.

I have added two "gadgets" to my blog with price information on oil.

WTO: the Trade Negotiations Committee "zeroing" on fisheries subsidies negotiations

2011-03-13T14:52:00.000+01:00

At the March 8 « informal meeting » of the Trade Negotiations Committee Pascal Lamy, who is chairing this Committee, provided the Committee with “a brief overview of the latest developments across the board in the negotiations”.

When discussing the developments in the “Rules” chapter, under which new rules on fisheries subsidies are negotiated, Mr Lamy’s statement was the following:

“In the Rules area, area, Members are continuing their consideration of the bracketed and un bracketed issues in the 2008 Chair text and of new proposals tabled, including those on fishery subsidies by Argentina and the ACP Group. These processes have been supplemented by the work of Friends of the Chair, and more recently, by the work of small numbers of delegations in Contact Groups. The aim of all of these processes is to try to generate technically viable options which could then be considered by the Negotiating Group as a whole. Meetings in these different configurations will continue throughout the month of March.

On regional trade agreements (RTAs), the Group has started the review of the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs as required by paragraph 23 of the General Council Decision, with a view to making it permanent. Indications are that Members are generally satisfied with the functioning of the Mechanism and would agree to making it permanent based on a few adjustments to the current text. Discussions on systemic issues which remain dependent on the submission of text-based proposals by Members have also taken place based on a proposal from Bolivia; the group has also discussed the possibility of a forward looking work programme. The Chair is planning further consultations on 14 15 March followed by an open-ended meeting on 17 March.”

So, Members are considering, among other things, proposals on fisheries subsidies. They also seem working on Regional Trade Agreements.

But, are they working on anti-dumping (including “zeroing”) or on horizontal subsidy disciplines?

Here is the link to the WTO page with the statement by Mr Lamy.

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/tnc_dg_infstat_08mar11_e.htm

CHINA: fuel subsidies for 20 million fishermen

2011-03-13T12:17:00.000+01:00

A recent article by the Chinese news agency Xinhua mentioned that the Chinese government will continue providing subsidies to fishermen to purchase fuel for fishing operations.

According to the article “In 2006 alone, the central budget allocated two batches of subsidies at 3.18 billion yuan”.

Converted into USD at current exchange rates this makes around 580 million USD. What it is unclear to me is whether the figure corresponds to one batch only. If this were to be the case then for 2006 the total subsidy amount would be 1160 million USD.

The article goes further indicating that a Ministry of Agriculture official stated that “the ministry will strengthen the implementation of the policy in the country's 12th Five-Year Program period (2011-2015).”

I also wonder whether the Chinese fishermen pay taxes on their fuel.

Here are the links to the article (one to Xinhua and another to the People's Daily online):

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/07/c_13765575.htm

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90860/7311555.html

WTO: reporting on informal negotiating meetings on fisheries subsidies (9)

2011-02-26T17:36:00.000+01:00

The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development) has recently reported about another informal meeting of the WTO's Negotiating Group on Rules where fisheries subsidies were discussed.

According to the article (published in Bridges Trade BioRes, Vol.11, nr. 3 of 21.02.2011) the meeting took place from 7 to 14 February 2011.

It seems that "important" subjects have been debated at the meeting, not least fuel subsidies! I was also struck by the approach that the new Chair is taking to move the negotiations forward. Always according to the ICTSD article the Chair has set up four "working groups", on high seas fisheries, on artisanal/small-scale fisheries, on income support and on fuel subsidies. The groups are made up by a number of countries.

The Chair has also two "new friends of the chair", one Delegate from New Zealand and one from the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat to work on "reciprocal and shared access to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)." I wonder whether this subject covers fisheries agreements.

Here is the link to the ICTSD article:

http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/101297/

INDONESIA: video on the WTO, fisheries subsidies, tariffs and access to fisheries resources

2011-02-13T14:18:00.000+01:00

I found this interesting video in YOUTUBE.

I recommend you to watch it.

USA: still more subsidies for jobs in Samoa's tuna processing industry

2011-01-31T21:24:00.000+01:00

Readers of this blog have surely noticed that I have following developments on the subsidies provided by the US to the tuna canning industry in American Samoa.

Well, the saga continues. According to Samoa News Governor Togiola Tulafono has signed the “tax exemption certificate” for StarKist Samoa. This exemption is from American Samoa’s taxes and it is granted by the Governor of American Samoa on some or all taxes (except for individual income tax) forup to 10 years for the establishment or expansion of qualifying industrial or business enterprises under American Samoa’s “Industrial Incentives Act”.

Also according to the press there were some strings attached to the cerificate, in particular in terms of jobs.

Note that this exemption adds to postponement with for one year, by the U.S. Congress, of federally mandated minimum wage increases, and to extension the “30A” tax benefit for another two years. I will discuss this 30A tax benefit in another post.

Here is the link to the article on this issue in Samoa News.

http://www.samoanews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=22919&edition=1295949600

WTO: new book on fisheries subsidies

2010-12-31T18:08:00.000+01:00

Just a quick post before the year 2010 ends.

Here are the references for a publication on the very subject of fisheries subsidies.

Good reading!

"Fisheries Subsidies under International Law" by Chen-Ju Chen.

Edited by Springer Verlag.
Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, Vol. 20 (2010) ISBN: 978-3-642-15692-2

http://www.springer.com/law/book/978-3-642-15692-2

MEDIA: presenting "FST" (FISHERIES SUBSIDIES TELEVISION)

2010-12-28T15:50:00.001+01:00

Here is the December 2010 edition FST news program.

USA: fisheries subsidies at the latest WTO Review of US Trade Policy (4)

2010-12-27T12:12:00.000+01:00

When reading (once more) the minutes of the Trade Policy Review meeting (WTO doc WT/TPR/M/23/Add.1) I noticed that the word fishermen appears in the answer a question put by Argentina on the Trade Adjustment Assistance programme.

Here is the question:

AGENTINA (page 7)

Which sectors in agriculture, manufacturing, and services have benefitted and what were the amounts?

RESPONSE: The reauthorized TAA program has not been in operation long enough to evaluate the impact of expanded eligibility and increased benefits. The following overview provides basic information on the expanded TAA programs, including a summary of the numbers of workers and industries covered by TAA certifications.

Program Overview

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), and Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance (RTAA) programs are authorized under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. These programs are collectively referred to as TAA, and provide assistance to workers who have been adversely affected by foreign trade.

The ARRA reauthorized and modified the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers program. The TAA for Farmers program helps producers of raw agricultural commodities and fishermen [emphasis added] adjust to a changing economic environment associated with import competition through technical assistance and cash benefits. The ARRA is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, and the 2009 appropriation for the TAA for Farmers program was $90 million. (More information on TAA for Farmers is available at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/ITP/TAA/taa.asp)

This sounds like "income support" subsidies, somenthing which has been labelled as a prohibited subsidy in the 2007 draft Chair's text for a WTO agreement on fisheries subsidies (doc TN/RL/GEN/213).

What could shield these subsidies from such a prohibition is that the US could argue that they are non-specific, i.e. available not only to fishermen but also to workers in other sectors.

USA: fisheries subsidies at the latest WTO Review of US Trade Policy (3)

2010-12-26T18:50:00.000+01:00

As part of the Trade Policy Review WTO Delegations can make statements. These statements are recorded in document WT/TPR/M/235 of 1 November 2010.

I found the statement by the representative of the European Union most interesting.

I copy here what he/she said:

EUROPEAN UNION (page 41)

280. We note with some surprise that the Secretariat has not given any coverage to the fisheries sector. We would like to understand the reasons for this omission, which deprives Members of valuable information, the U.S. being one of the world's major fishing nations and traders of fish products. So an explanation would be in order.

This is correct. The fisheries sector was not subject to analysis. This is in stark contrast with what happens for other WTO Members (e.g. the EU!) where the fisheries industry has been subject to a very thourough scrutiny.

USA: fisheries subsidies at the latest WTO Review of US Trade Policy (2)

2010-12-26T18:23:00.002+01:00

Here is another question put to the US in the context of the Trade Policy Review that mentions fisheries subsidies. The question was asked by SINGAPORE and it concerned the composition of the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC).

As you can see fish subsidies negotiations are high on the agenda of the work of this Committee.

QUESTIONS BY SINGAPORE (page 340)

Question 7

The U.S. in its Government’s Report (WT/TPR/G/235, Page 16, Para 61), has indicated that “members of the five policy advisory committees are appointed by USTR or in conjunction with other Cabinet officers”. The environment policy advisory committee is called the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC) and is managed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

Singapore would like to enquire on the membership composition of the TEPAC, how regularly meetings are convened and its current priority issues of interest. In addition, we would like to seek the U.S.’ clarification if classified/privileged information about the U.S.’ FTA partners is divulged to these private sector advisors.

RESPONSE: The TEPAC is comprised of senior level representatives from the business sector, environment and consumer non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academia, and think tanks. TEPAC ’s full membership can be found on USTR’s website. The TEPAC meets several times a year at a senior level and more frequently at a staff-level, where TEPAC members’ liaisons participate. TEPAC has broad interests, and most recently some of its priority areas of interest have been the WTO fish subsidies negotiations, trade and climate change, and the TPP negotiations. All TEPAC members are required to have a security clearance so that relevant classified/privileged information can be shared with them under agreed procedures.

USA: fisheries subsidies at the latest WTO Review of US Trade Policy

2010-12-26T18:08:00.005+01:00

The tenth Trade Policy Review of the United States was held in Geneva on 29 September and 1 October 2010.

Readers may remember that wrote a post on 21/09/2008 quoting questions and answers related to fisheries issues in the context of the 2008 WTO Review of Trade Policy.

This time again a number of WTO Delegations asked questions to the US on the fisheries sector and on subsidies provided to this industry. The full report of the meeting where the questions/answers is inlcuded in WTO document WT/TPR/M/235/Add.1 of 1 November 2010.

I copy hereunder this year's questions and the answers by the US administration.

QUESTIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (pages 225-228)

(iv) Subsidies and other government assistance

WTO Secretariat's Report, page 64, Table III.9

Table III.9, concerning federal subsidies programmes notified to the WTO, gives the amounts relating to subsidies in the fisheries sector for fiscal years 2005-2008. The Report does not provide any information on fisheries subsidies beyond 2008.

In the framework the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) an amount of US$50 million has been earmarked to subsidise aquaculture. Baitfish growers and catfish farmers are eligible if their 2008 feed costs were at least 25 percent of their total operating cost. They also are eligible if their feed costs are 25 percent above the average cost of feed from 2003-2007.

59. Can the U.S. confirm the above information?

RESPONSE: Yes.

60. Are the products farmed by the beneficiaries competing with those products covered by anti-dumping proceedings against catfish products from Vietnam?

RESPONSE: The Farm Service Agency’s 2008 Aquaculture Grant Program will provide block grants to state Departments of Agriculture that agree to provide assistance to eligible aquaculture producers for losses associated with high feed costs during the 2008 calendar year. For more information, see http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/fsa_recovactplans_aag052709.pdf.

61. Did the beneficiaries of the above mentioned subsidies receive funds from collected antidumping duty revenues under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 ("Byrd Amendment")? If so, could the U.S. provide figures on the amounts disbursed?

RESPONSE: The annual report for CDSOA payments, which lists all the disbursements and recipients in 2009, can be found at: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_ dump/.

62. Could the U.S. confirm the above information? If so, will the above subsidies be notified to the WTO and when?

RESPONSE: We confirm the information cited in the referenced press release. If appropriate, the measures at issue would be notified by the United States in its next WTO subsidies notification, which is due June 30, 2011.

63. Have the U.S. authorities assessed the impact of the above subsidies on existing fishery resources? If not, how will they ensure that the subsidies granted to New England fishermen do not result in overcapacity and overfishing?

RESPONSE: The new management system being implemented in the Northeast groundfish fishery is intended to reduce overcapacity and encourage ecological sustainability.

64. With regard to the amounts of US$546,000 and US$954,000, which percentage of these amount cover operational costs, such as crew, fuel, gear, insurance etc?

RESPONSE: No portion of that funding will be used for the operational costs of fishermen. The funding will be used entirely for sector management and infrastructure development.

65. Does the US$10 million subsidy package relate to a declared "commercial fisheries disaster"?

RESPONSE: The measures described by the EU do not relate to a declared “commercial fisheries disaster”.

66. If not, have the beneficiaries of the above subsidies separately benefited from commercial fisheries disaster assistance under either § 308 of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, or § 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act? If so, could the U.S. provide information on the amounts disbursed?

RESPONSE: No, the $5 million amount is being provided to the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine in order to set up permit banks at the state level; it is not for individuals. Also, the funding for fishing sector managers is going to the Gulf of Maine Research Institute for sector management. The referenced beneficiaries have not separately benefited from commercial fisheries disaster assistance under either § 308 of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, or § 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act since 1999.

Ms. Jane LUBCHENCO, Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, in her written statement, when presenting the NOAA 2011 budget request before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce at a hearing on 3 March 2010, stated the following: "NOAA recently released a draft catch share policy to encourage the consideration and adoption of catch shares wherever appropriate in fishery management and ecosystem plans and amendments, and will support the design, implementation, and monitoring of catch share programs. Catch share programs give fishermen a stake in the benefits of well-managed fisheries, and therefore greater incentive to ensure effective management. To support NOAA’s policy, this budget includes an increase of $36.6 million, for a total request of $54 million, to establish a National Catch Share Program. This program will provide a national framework to develop, manage, and improve catch share programs in fisheries across the Nation. This increase will also continue the transition of the Northeast ground fish (multispecies) fishery to sector management as well as support new voluntary catch share programs in the Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Coast regions."

67. Could the U.S. provide more information about these "catch share" programmes? Will the beneficiaries of these funds have to purchase their "catch shares" or will they get them at no cost? Can catch shares be traded among participants in the fishery? Could these catch shares be used as collateral when entering into credit arrangements with lenders (e.g. banks)?

RESPONSE: The shares are determined based on the catch history of participants in that fishery. The shares are not free, are not owned by the participants, and cannot be used as collateral.

68. Could the U.S. elaborate on the use of the requested funds (US$54 million) for "…the transition of the Northeast ground fish (multispecies) fishery to sector management…"?

RESPONSE: The $54 million was requested by NOAA for development and implementation of catch share programs on a national scale. A portion of that funding will support the development, implementation and management of the Northeast groundfish fishery. Other fisheries around the nation will use the funding to develop and manage their own catch share programs. These actions will promote ecological sustainability. This is a request to Congress, which has not yet been acted upon.

On 24 May 2010 Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced a "Fishery Failure Determination" in Gulf of Mexico under Section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. According to the press release, Secretary Locke stated that “Commercial and recreational fishing provides vital jobs to the region and is essential to the Gulf Coast’s unique culture and heritage.” With regard to the assistance requested under this "Fisheries Failure", the press release mentions that "The administration has requested US$15 million of supplemental funding as a backstop to address this disaster, as well as US$5 million of economic development assistance through the Economic Development Administration. In addition, the administration is requesting unemployment coverage for this disaster, and the Small Business Administration is offering economic injury disaster loans, which can help fishermen and other affected businesses."

69. Have the requested US$15 million of supplemental funding as a backstop to address this disaster, as well as US$5 million of economic development assistance through the Economic Development Administration, been granted?

RESPONSE: The requested $15 million and $5 million amounts in supplemental funding was appropriated on July 29, 2010, when President Obama signed H.R. 4899, the “Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010” into law. On September 23, 2010, the Economic Development Administration published a notice of the Gulf Oil Spill Supplemental Funding Opportunity in the Federal Register (75 FR 57900). The notice describes the general policies and application procedures for the supplemental funding opportunity.

70. With regard to the unemployment coverage specifically requested for this disaster, can the U.S. provide figures about the amounts paid to the beneficiaries?

RESPONSE: The estimated benefit outlays for unemployment insurance claims that were filed due to unemployment caused by the oil spill have been approximately $1.9 million.

71. With regard to the injury disaster loans, could the U.S. provide details about the terms under which such loans are granted?

RESPONSE: Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) are working capital loans to help small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives and most private, non-profit organizations meet necessary financial obligations that cannot be met as a direct result of the oil spill disaster. The loans are limited to entities that cannot provide for their own recovery. An applicant must have an acceptable credit history, show the ability to repay the loan and provide collateral, if available. The interest rate is 4.00% for businesses and agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere. The term of the loan may be up to 30 years, based on the borrower’s ability to repay. The law limits EIDLs to $2 million for alleviating economic injury caused by the disaster.

According to information published by Georgia's state authorities, a grant of US$1 million was awarded in May 2010 to assist with building improvements at the location of a manufacturing and distribution facility for Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC d.b.a. Chicken of the Sea International, under Georgia's Economic Development, Growth and Expansion Fund. The total estimated cost of the project is $21.5 million and the jobs to be created amount to 310 new jobs in four years.

72. Are the U.S. authorities aware of similar subsidies (grants) to the fish processing industry allocated to companies in this sector? If yes, could information about such subsidy programmes be provided?

RESPONSE: It should be noted that the Georgia assistance was provided under a job creation program available to all industries. For the latest information on other programs, please see the U.S. subsidies notification (G/SCM/N/186/USA).

WTO: reporting on informal negotiating meeting on fisheries subsidies (8)

2010-12-26T17:09:00.001+01:00

It seems that the Negotiating Group on Rules met recently. This is what the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Develoment (ICTSD) is reporting in "Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest" (Volume 14, Number 44, 22 December 2010).

According to ICTSD Delegates discussed papers from Korea (TN/RL/GEN/168), Brazil, India, China and Mexico (TN/RL/GEN/163) which I discussed in my post of 13 February 2010, and Australia (TN/RL/GEN/167).

I assume that this was an "informal" meeting as no official record has been published.

Here is the link to the ICTSD article:

http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/98986/

MALAYSIA: fishermen should stop relaying on (fuel) subsidies.

2010-12-26T16:49:00.001+01:00

Malaysia's Deputy Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Johari Baharum said a few weeks ago, “All industries in Malaysia have asked for help, and we have given so many subsidies”.

Citing fishermen as an example, he said, “We give each fisherman RM200 (USD 64) a month as well as fuel subsidies and incentives."

He said this in October 2010 in the framework of the Aquafair Malaysia 2010 at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre.

Here is the link to the article.

http://freemalaysiatoday.com/fmt-english/politics/barisan-nasional/11414-agri-sector-must-stop-relying-on-subsidies-says-johari

CENTRAL AMERICA: government-to-government(s) fisheries subsidies?

2010-12-26T11:46:00.000+01:00

My previous post was about Argentina, this one is about the Central American Region.

Here is a press release, in Spanish, about a donation by the government of Taiwan to the "Organización del Sector Pesquero y Acuícola del Istmo Centroamericano (OSPESCA)" for the "Proyecto de Apoyo al Proceso de Integración de la Pesca y la Acuicultura Centroamericana (PRIPESCA)".

The donation, USD 641,666, is part of a total of USD 4,400,000 that Taiwan will pay for the financing of the above project.

Here is the link to the webpages (in Spanish) of the OSPESCA project:

http://www.sica.int/ospesca/ospesca_breve.aspx?IdEnt=47

ARGENTINA : fisheries agreement with China?

2010-12-26T11:19:00.000+01:00

From time to time I have a look at fisheries websites around the world.

Recently I found a number of websites in Argentina that are commenting on the effective implementation by Argentina and China of a “Acuerdo de Cooperación sobre Pesca”.

I was struck by the fact that China would be offering cuts in import duties for products from Argentina. I wonder how China will be able to grant such duty cuts only to Argentina (because of the fisheries agreement) without going against the non-discrimination principles of the WTO.

Here are a few links to articles (in Spanish) about this issue.

http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/destacados/18_11_2010/34005_a_favor_de_los_que_estan_en_contra

http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/destacados/14_04_2010/29972_preocupante_propuesta_de_convenio_pesquero_con_china

http://www.pescare.com.ar/n2406.htm

http://www.pescare.com.ar/n2504.htm

http://www.youtube.com/pescare2#

USA: more subsidies, this time to shrimpers

2010-12-26T10:50:00.000+01:00

I copy here a new release by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Texas Farm Service Agency on subsidies for U.S. shrimpers in the Gulf og Mexico region.

Deadline to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Shrimp - Dec. 23, 2010

(COLLEGE STATION, TX), December 16, 2010 - Juan M. Garcia, Executive Director of USDA's Texas Farm Service Agency (FSA) reminds producers of the December 23, 2010 deadline to apply for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program for 2008 shrimp.

Shrimp assistance is approved for Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas.

"TAA provides technical training and financial benefits to eligible producers whose commodity, in this case shrimp, has been adversely impacted by foreign competition," said Garcia. "After the Dec. 23 deadline, no applications will be accepted as there are no late file provisions for TAA."

FSA County Offices will accept applications for 2008 shrimp through December 23, 2010. The application form is available at FSA offices or at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa/taaforms.asp.

For eligibility and application details, contact your local FSA office. Information is also available on the Foreign Agricultural Service Web site at www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa.

Note that the aid programme mentioned in the news release predates the "Deepwater Horizon" oil spill disaster. Also note that some shrimpres in the Gulf of Mexico could have received subsidies coming from anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of shrimp from a number of developing countries.

USA: (more) subsidies to the processing industry - tuna canneries in American Samoa

2010-11-24T11:11:00.000+01:00

More "life-support" measures for the ailing tuna canning industry in American Samoa.

Hereunder a copy a press release by the American Samoa Government announcing President Obama's decision to delay for two years the federally mandated minimum wage increase.

Published on American Samoa Government (http://americansamoa.gov)

Home > President Obama signs H.R. 3940 to delay American Samoa minimum wage increase for two years

-------------------------------------

President Obama signs H.R. 3940 to delay American Samoa minimum wage increase for two years
Created 09/30/2010 - 15:41
Submitted by Newsroom on Thu, 09/30/2010 - 15:41
Announcement
(UTULEI: Thursday, September 30, 2010) –Governor Togiola Tulafono today expressed his sincere gratitude to President Barack Obama for signing legislation that will delay the minimum wage increase scheduled to take effect in American Samoa for 2010 and 2011.

Governor Togiola said the delay in minimum wage hike, through H.R. 3940, is a much-needed blessing for the Territory.

“We have truly been spared another disaster and this hold on the minimum wage increase, even if it’s for only two years, will allow us time to work with this very important issue,” said Governor Togiola. “I am very grateful to President Obama for his favorable consideration and expeditious action. When I received the great news this afternoon, I breathed a huge sigh of relief, and thanked God for His direction and help. The minimum wage issue has made it impossible to attract investments because of the uncertainty it has created. I truly welcome this two-year suspension, but it is not the ultimate solution we need.”

Governor Togiola said there are so many hardworking and caring people to thank for the wonderful news for American Samoa.

“It is important to give credit where it is due. I want to thank Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii for his continuing support of American Samoa and helping to direct our attention to issues that we can address effectively to help our own cause. I wish to also express my thanks to our Congressman Faleomavaega Eni for his role in keeping track of this situation and asking the Senate and the House memberships for this relief. I look forward to our efforts in working with him for a permanent solution to our minimum wage to propose in the future.”

Governor Togiola also thanked U.S. senators and representatives and their respective staffs for their support in the successful passage of this very important federal legislation for American Samoa.

“This great news is also giving me hope that we will be able to work with Congress, on both sides of the aisle, to forge a permanent solution to the wage issues as well as our economic development needs. If we do not have a permanent solution for this issue, it will continue to be a major set back for near future developments. We need a permanent solution that makes sense for us and will help us effect more effective economic development,” said Governor Togiola. “I wish to recognize with gratitude and appreciation the special understanding given to my plea to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and his staff. I have never met the senator, but the good relations that my Washington staff have with him and his staff have enabled us to appeal to him for help, and he was gracious in his response and assurances.”

Governor Togiola gave thanks to the White House staff for their support in always being helpful; and also to his attorney and staff in Washington D.C. for the great assistance and diligence in pursuing Congressional help to achieve success in this matter.

“I wish to also thank the Fono for their support and I know that our people here in American Samoa have also been praying for relief, and God has answered us favorably. We give thanks to God for His guiding hand in these endeavors,” said Governor Togiola. “We have truly been spared another disaster, so now we have a lot of work to do in the next two years to ensure that this issue is resolved in the best interest of our people and our businesses.”

---americansamoa.gov---

Announcement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:

http://americansamoa.gov/news/2010/president-obama-signs-hr-3940-delay-american-samoa-minimum-wage-increase-two-years

NZ/WTO: Tim Groser on film stars and WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations

2010-11-03T16:42:00.000+01:00

Some of the readers of this blog may remeber that on 1 February 2010 I wrote a post commenting Tim Groser’s speech in London on 8 December 2009 titled “Trade and Climate Change: A Negotiator's Perspective”.

In this speech Mr Groser, former Chair of the WTO’s negotiating group where fisheries subsidies are discussed, sets out his views on the dynamics of international negotiations. I can not resist the temptation to re-copy here some of the passages of his December 2009 speech.

"There will be film stars, vegans, people running around in polar bear suits. This is, ladies and gentlemen, international diplomacy in action. Is it likely to lead to anything useful?”
“Highly experienced and astute Secretariat officials, working closely with experienced negotiators from a number of countries, will be developing a text covering the key issues contained in the unmanageable draft legal text and on which firm political decisions are required - mitigation targets, financing in both the short and long term, capacity building and other key elements of the earlier Bali Action Plan.”

Well, Mr Groser revisited these subjects, i.e. the dynamics of international negotiations and the role of film starts, in his address to the international Food and Agriculture Trade Policy Council (IPC) Conference in Sao Paulo.

In this post I will comment Mr. Groser’s comments on the role film stars (or Hollywood) in international negotiations:

“We should be thankful for small mercies. With complete collapse staring us in the face, we salvaged at least the Copenhagen Accord. This was produced by a small group of Heads of Governments of some major countries, operating in an unplanned and one could say haphazard way.
They had no choice, and thank goodness they did take the initiative. However, it was a modest return from the investment of so much high-priced political talent - not to mention the pre-Copenhagen hype, based around the absurd negotiating scenario of ‘No Plan B'. I will leave to others to describe the contribution made by Hollywood film stars to the process. Rationality, one could say, was at a premium and we paid the price in terms of the mediocrity of the result.”

So, Mr Groser leaves to others to describe the contribution made by Hollywood film stars to the process. Thinking of what happens in the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations I am sure that OCEANA will describe the contribution of film stars to these negotiations as very positive. They invited Ted Danson to come to Geneva (see my post of 31/10/2009 titled “WTO: fisheries subsidies and Hollywood under the same roof”) to persuade negotiators to rapidly conclude the Doha round so that an agreement could be reached in new fisheries subsidies rules.

By the way, that OCEANA values very much the role of film stars in WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations is also demonstrated by the fact that that he testified before a the US Senate Committee on Finance (Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness) on 14/07/2010 as OCEANA Board Member.

But Ted Danson is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the links of OCEANA with Hollwywood. Check OCEANA’s webapges on its SeaChange Summer Parties. The list of film actors is rather long.

A final comment on Ted Danson: interestingly Ted Danson joined the “Bored to Death” comedy television series. I hope he will not be “Bored to death” because of the lack of progress in the Doha negotiations.

What is not clear to me is what Mr. Groser meant with the closing sentence in the paragraph dealing with film stars: “Rationality, one could say, was at a premium and we paid the price in terms of the mediocrity of the result.” I can not believe Mr. Groser was speaking about fisheries subsidies negotiations. My reading is that he was talking about climate change negotiations only.

This is a first delivery in my comments on Ted Groser speech. There will be other posts especially on the part of the speech about why he considers the fisheries subsides negotiations as worthwhile.

Here are two links where readers will find Tim Groser’s speech:

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/address+international+food+and+agriculture+trade+policy+council+ipc+conference

http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/10/27/address-to-food-agriculture-trade-policy-council/

WTO: INDIA notifies subsidies to the WTO

2010-10-24T12:12:00.000+02:00

In the previous post a presented questions from CANADA and the US on the subsidy notification to the WTO by Korea.

I had a look at the WTO website to see whether other WTO Members had made notification recently. India was one of these Members. The document reference is G/SCM/N/186/IND of 18 October 2010. The first paragraph of the 2 page long notification of INDIA reads as follows:

The following notification constitutes the Government of Republic of India's new notification of information on programmes granted or maintained at the central government level in India. In general, the period to which the following information applies is for the Financial Years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09.

INDIA notifies only those subsidies "maintained at the central governement level", meaning that if subsidies are granted at state or subfederal level, these are not included in the notification.

Also interesting to note is that India is making the notification for a period covering five fiscal years. My reading of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Article 25, is that WTO "Members agree that, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article XVI of GATT 1994, their notifications of subsidies shall be submitted not later than 30 June of each year and shall conform to the provisions of paragraphs 2 through 6."

Finally, I was struck by the fact that India's notification concerns only one "subsidy programme", i.e. "Preferential tax policies for certain enterprises". I found nothing in the notification concerning the "subsidy assistance programmes" maintained by India's Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA).

WTO: subsidies notifications - Republic of Korea - (the US puts questions on fish subsidies)

2010-10-24T11:29:00.000+02:00

Here are the questions put by the US and the corresponding replies by Korea. The WTO document reference is G/SCM/Q2/KOR/37, of 15 October 2010.

Reading through the replies I was struck by the fact that Korea is planning subsidies for the construction of "long range" fishing vessels.

Question 1

According to publicly available sources, the Korea Fisheries Association said the fuel subsidy provided by the government to the fishing industry is the most important program, accounting for up to 50 per cent of total fisheries subsidies. Please describe the nature and operation of this program, and the amounts provided under the program during the period covered by the new and full notification.

Reply

The following information is without prejudice to whether the program is covered by Article 25.2 of the SCM Agreement. For the nature and operation of the program, Article 106-2 of the Act on the Restriction of Special Tax Treatment provides as follows.

Article 106-2 (Abatement or Exemption of Value-Added Tax, etc. on Petroleum Products for Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, and Coastal Passenger Ships)

(1) Among the following petroleum products (referring to the petroleum products under the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act; hereafter referred to as "tax-free petroleum" in this Article), the value-added tax on the supplies delivered on or before June 30, 2012 and the individual consumption tax, the traffic, energy and environment tax, the education tax, and the driving tax on the supplies released from a manufacturing place or a bonded area on or before the afore-stated date shall be reduced or exempted as prescribed by Presidential Decree, while the value-added tax on the supplies delivered during the period between July 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012 and the individual consumption tax, the traffic, energy and environment tax, the education tax, and the driving tax on the supplies released from a manufacturing place or a bonded area during the afore-stated period shall be abated by 75/100 of each tax under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree:

1. Petroleum products required by a farmer, a forestry person, or a fishery person specified by Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "farmer, forester, or fisherman" in this Article) for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, or fisheries, which are prescribed by Presidential Decree; and

2. Petroleum products supplied directly to the Korea Shipping Association established pursuant to the Korea Shipping Association Act for the use in passenger ships operating on coastal waters.

(2) In cases where certain petroleum products delivered to a petroleum distributor (hereafter referred to as a "petroleum distributor" in this Article) prescribed by Presidential Decree, including a gas station, with the value-added tax, the individual consumption tax, the traffic, energy and environment tax, the education tax, and the driving tax already levied thereon and supplied to a farmer, forester, or fisher falls under paragraph (1) 1, the petroleum distributor may file an application under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree to have the refund of the tax amount otherwise exempted or have the tax amount payable or collectible reduced by the amount.

(3) A farmer, forester, or fisherman who desires to have tax-free petroleum supplied shall file a report on the current status of agricultural machines, forestry machines, or ships and facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree in possession (hereafter referred to as "agricultural machines, etc." in this Article) and the fact that the person has engaged in agriculture, forestry, or fisheries, under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree, with a cooperative under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act Agricultural Cooperatives Act, a cooperative under the Forestry Cooperatives Act Forestry Cooperatives Act, or a cooperative under the Fisheries Cooperatives Act Fisheries Cooperatives Act(hereafter referred to as a "cooperative acting as an institution responsible for control of tax-free petroleum" in this Article), and shall also file a report on a change within 30 days from the day on which such a change occurs, if any change in the reported matters occurs, such as the acquisition or transfer of an agricultural machine, etc., the death of the farmer, forester, or fisher, and giving up the agricultural, forestry, or fishery business.

(4) A farmer, forester, or fisher who desires to have tax-free petroleum supplied shall obtain a card for purchasing tax-free petroleum or a delivery order prescribed by the Presidential Decree and issued by a cooperative acting as an institution responsible for control of tax-free petroleum (hereafter referred to as "tax-free petroleum purchase cards, etc." in this Article).

The total amount of fuel subsidy provided to the fishing industry was 788 billion won in 2007 and 614 billion won in 2008.

Question 2

The Korean press has reported that Korea plans to allocate 7.09 trillion won (US$6.24 billion) in investment funds and loans to the Korean fisheries industry. The Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries stated that it would also launch 38 new long-range fishing vessels to replace old boats and that up to 1,085 fishing boats will be given light-emitting diodes as fish-luring lights. Please provide further details on these plans and the proposed terms and conditions on the investment funds and loans.

Reply

The following reply contains information for the period not covered by 2009 new and full subsidy notifications which had been circulated in the G/SCM/N/186 … series.

Total amount of funds and loans for the five-year period between 2010 and 2014 was set at 7.12 trillion won including 1.39 trillion won in 2010 (fixed), 1.39 trillion won for 2011, 1.44 trillion won for 2012, 1.44 trillion won for 2013 and 1.46 trillion won for 2014 (estimated and subject to change depending on the final national budget plan of each year).

Under the Old Fishing Vessel Replacement Program, the Korean government provided 16.4 billion won of loan for replacing two vessels in 2010 with condition of 4 per cent interest rate and repayment for seven years after a lapse of three years. The limit of loan was set at 70 per cent of the total construction cost. The other 36 vessels are planned to be replaced during 2011-2014.

"The Program to Support Vessels to Install LED Lights" aims at energy saving and carbon emission reduction. In the program, it is planned to grant 6.5 billion won to 1,085 vessels which will be equipped with LED lights from 2009 to 2013. Each year 1.3 billion is granted to 217 vessels. The government grant is provided to cover 40 per cent of the total installing cost.

WTO: subsidies notifications - Republic of Korea - (Canada puts questions on fish subsidies)

2010-10-23T12:32:00.000+02:00

Lack of transparency and opacity are among the biggest problems confronting a number of stakeholders in the current debate on fisheries subsidies.

The very poor record in notifications to the WTO of subsidies to the fisheries sector is one of the issues that a number of governments, NGOs and academia have pointed as main obstacles to have an informed discussion and a clear picture of what are the real effects of subsidies on the fish resources.

Some countries are reporting subsidies to fisheries in the context of WTO Members’ notification obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures.

The Republic of Korea is one of them. The last “New and Full Notification” from Korea is dated 7 May 2010 and has the WTO reference G/SCM/N/186/KOR.

The interesting thing about the notification to the WTO is that other countries can asks questions to the notifying Member on the content of the notification.

I copy hereunder the questions that Canada asked to Korea on fisheries subsidies (WTO ref. G/SCM/Q2/KOR/35 of 15 October 2010).

Question re Support for Fishing Activities

The stated purpose of the subsidy is to relieve financial burden and support stable fishing business operations by providing lower rate loans. Canada would like to have more information on the specific types of fishing activities and business operations that this programme supports.

Reply

The loan is given to the fishermen regardless of fishing gear type as long as the fishermen have the rights to fish in accordance with related laws and regulations. This includes fishermen engaged in aquaculture and inland and marine capture fishing activities.

Question re Support for Aquaculture Fishery Development

The policy objective of this programme is to have a stable supply of fishery products by supporting the development of aquaculture fishery under the changing circumstances of domestic and overseas fisheries production environment. Could the Republic of Korea please explain the meaning of "changing circumstances of domestic and overseas fisheries production environment"?

Reply

That may include, for example, changes in demand for fishery products, changes in annual catches in the coastal and off-shore waters, consumers' concern for sanitary condition of fishery products, and environmentally friendly and responsible aquaculture.

Question re Support for Old Fishing Vessel and Equipments Replacement

According to the description of the policy objectives, this programme ensures navigational safety through replacement of old vessels and vessel equipments. Could you provide more details as to what type of vessel equipment is supported by this programme? How many and which types of vessels have benefitted from this programme?

Reply

Under this programme, two old pelagic fishing vessels were replaced during 2007-2008 with imported used fishing vessels.

Question re Support for R&D of Environmental Technology Development Projects

Could Korea elaborate on the types of "cutting-edge environmental technologies" that have received support?

Reply

There have been 271 R&D programmes (i.e. "cutting-edge environmental technologies") that have received support under Development of and Support for Environmental Technology Act during 2007-2008, and they are categorized into five sectors as following:

• Core post-processing technologies which are the basis for pollution reduction in various environmental factors
• Preventive anti-pollution technologies such as those used for development of sustainable eco-friendly materials, products and manufacturing process
• Environmental technologies to actively cope with international environmental issues
• Original technologies for environmental fusion area
• Technologies used for combining relevant effective environmental technologies

COLOMBIA: Subsidies to aquaculture, contingent on export

2010-10-18T12:48:00.000+02:00

Aquaculture seems to be spared (at least from now) from new disciplines on subsidies to fisheries.

Fish farming has become, over the years, an important source of supply of fish products. This is the case in developed countries (e.g. Norway) and in developing economies (e.g. China, Chile, Vietnam, etc). The growth in this industry is such that we could witness very soon aquaculture overtaking capture fisheries in terms of supply of fish products for human consumption.

Some countries do realize the key importance of this sector and are providing financial help to fish farmers. A few days ago I stumbled upon a Colombian scheme whereby fish farmers involved in the production of shrimp, tilapia and trout receive subsidies for “inputs”, on condition that they export their produce.

According to the information posted in the website of Colombia’s “Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural” the programme is funded with COP Colombian Peso 5,000 million (USD 2.8 million).

Here is the link to the aforementioned website (in Spanish) announcing the scheme:

http://www.minagricultura.gov.co/07presupuesto/07a_cin_acuicul.aspx

And here the link to the full text of the scheme:

http://www.acuiculturaldia.com/Documentos/reglamento_tecnico_iae_mayo21_2010.pdf

WTO: reporting on informal negotiating meeting on fisheries subsidies (7)

2010-10-16T14:48:00.001+02:00

A few days ago I wrote a post about a REUTERS « alert » quoting the Chair of the negotiating group as he spoke over the “new tone in the talks”.

The ICTSD has published in its website an article on the negotiating meeting which, according to the ICTSD, took place in the week of 4 October 2010.

An interesting feature of the meeting is that, always according to ICTSD, there was a plenary session (on 4 and 5 October) followed by discussions in smaller groups of delegates.

The article mentions that the latest submissions by the BRICs (Brazil, China, India) and Mexico (doc. TN/RL/GEN/163) and by the US (TN/RL/GEN/165) were discussed.

I discussed the BRICs + Mexico’s submission in my post of 13 February 2010. This submission included a proposal to prohibit to developed countries those « subsidies arising from the further transfer, by a payer Member government, of access rights that it has acquired from another Member government to fisheries within the jurisdiction of such other Member.». I wonder how those WTO Members that are very dependent on access fees paid by developed countries did react to this proposal.

I also discussed the US paper in my post of 24 April 2010. I also wonder whether there was some discussion about the suppression by the US of the exceptions for subsidies for retraining for activities other than fishing, re-education and early retirement.

It would also be interesting to know whether the US had, in relation to exceptions for disaster relief , “further thoughts as to its scope and placement as technical discussions of the text continue.” (see paragraph 8 in page 2 of the US submission).

I imagine that the oil spill (a man-made disaster) in the Gulf of Mexico is providing enough food for thought to US negotiators on the scope and placement of exceptions for “disaster relief”. One suggestion could be to allow for “privately funded subsidies” (such as those requested by the State of Louisiana) to the fisheries sector.

Here is the link to the article by ICTSD:

http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/86991/

WTO: the new Chair of the negotiating group "goes public"

2010-10-09T13:44:00.000+02:00

Here is a link to an article by Reuters (8 October 2010) on the latest (informal?) negotiating meeting in Geneva.

The title of the article is "WTO negotiators sense new tone in fish talks"

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6971VG.htm

USA: the State of Louisiana asks BP to fund a large aid package to the fishing industry

2010-09-26T12:58:00.000+02:00

In August 2010 Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal called BP to provide funds for a long-term testing and a marketing campaign to convince consumers seafood from his state is safe. More specifically he asked BP to fund a funding of a USD 173 million plan to ensure the safety of Louisiana seafood and restore consumer confidence.

Governor Jindal made this call after he announced on 19 August 2010 that BP had agreed to fund a three-year, USD 13 million fishery-resource monitoring plan.

In actual fact the total cost of the “Louisiana Seafood Safety Response and Certification Plan”, which could cover a 20 year implementation period, has been estimated at USD 457 million.

According to the plan USD 276,703,354 would be spent in media purchases for the public education campaign. A detailed reading of the yearly budgeted amounts reveals that during the first five years of the plan a yearly amount of USD 20-30 million would be spent in “ad buys”, i.e. media purchases.

If, for the sake of argument, BP would agree to provide this funds to the Louisiana’s budget, or to disburse them as directed by Louisiana’s authorities, would this a subsidy in the sense of the WTO’s Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures?

I referred to a similar situation where fishermen in Cape Cod where getting “subsidies” from the Pew Group (see my post of 1 November 2009 “USA: "charitable" fisheries subsidies and the WTO”)

Here are links to:

Governor’s Jindal announcement on 19 August 2010:

http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/81910Fishery.html

A letter dated 15 September 2010 from Lousiana’s Department for Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Robert Barham reiterating the call for BP to fund an Extensive Seafood Testing, Certification and Marketing Plan to Robert Dudley Chief Executive Officer of BP Global.

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/32931

Lousiana’s Department for Wildlife and Fisheries page, which includes a link to the plan

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/louisiana-seafood-safety-response-and-certification-plan

NORWAY: report on aid provided to the cod sector

2010-09-26T12:06:00.000+02:00

Some readers may remember that, in late 2009, I wrote various on the aid measures that the Norwegian government took to help companies in the cod sector to withstand the crisis creted by low prices in the consumer market.

Well now NOFIMA, a state controlled, business oriented research group working in research and development for the aquaculture, fisheries and food industry in Norway, has published a report on the crisis.

In the press release by NOFIMA (31 August 2010) one can read:

“In order to help the situation, the authorities implemented a series of measures. These included offering loans and guarantees, funds for marketing and subsidies for the transportation of fish between different regions. The cod quotas were also increased.”

Here is the link to the English version of the press release:

http://www.nofima.no/marked/en/nyhet/2010/09/that-s-why-the-cod-had-trouble

And here the link to the report (in Norwegian):

http://www.nofima.no/filearchive/Rapport%2023-2010.pdf

BRAZIL: fisheries subsidies notification to the WTO

2010-09-05T11:23:00.000+02:00

The WTO Secretariat published on 1 September 2010 the document "New and Full Notification Pursuant to Article XVI.1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures" by Brazil. The reference number of this document is G/SCM/N/186/BRA. The document is available at the WTO website.

Under the section "FISHERIES INCENTIVES" only the "PROGRAMME FOR DIESEL OIL SUPPORT" is notified.

I copy here the contents of this section.

III. FISHERIES INCENTIVES
A. PROGRAMME FOR DIESEL OIL SUPPORT
1. Title of programme

Programme for Economic Subvention to the Price of Diesel Oil Used by Fishing Vessels.

2. Period covered by the notification

From January 2007 to December 2008.

3. Policy objective and/or purpose

To equalize the price of diesel oil paid by national fishing vessels with the international market price.

4. Legislation and authority

The programme was established by Law 9445, of 14 March 1997, regulated by Decree 4969, of 30 January 2004, and by the former Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries - SEAP (presently the Ministry for Aquaculture and Fisheries) Normative Instruction 18, of 28 August 2006. The Ministry for Aquaculture and Fisheries is responsible for the administration of the programme.

5. Form of subsidy

The reimbursement of the difference (if below 25 per cent) between the diesel oil price paid by the beneficiary and the international market price.

6. To whom and how the subsidy is provided

Recipients: Fishing vessel owners or charters (natural or legal persons); professional fishermen and fishing industries.

Benefits will be granted when there is a difference of up to 25 per cent between the price of the fuel paid by national vessels and the international market price.

7. Total amount

Fiscal Year 2007: R$ 25.5 million.
Fiscal Year 2008: R$ 20.5 million.

8. Duration

Not defined.

9. Trade effects

N.A.

PHILIPPINES: Subsidies for fish workers affected by tuna a fishing ban

2010-09-05T11:02:00.000+02:00

Here is a press release by the Philippines' Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on the above subject:

Press Releases

DOLE launches action program to workers affected by the tuna fishing ban

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in Region 12 launched Friday, February 26, 2010 the DOLE Action Program for workers displaced due to the tuna fishing ban in General Santos City.

DOLE 12 Regional Director Atty. Ma. Gloria Tango said that initially, the DOLE provided emergency employment assistance to workers displaced due to the ban by adopting the 60-40 mode of payment to workers for a period of 30 days. Sixty percent of the prevailing minimum wage in the region will come from DOLE while the remaining 40 percent will be shouldered by the participating affected company.

Tango said that the Damalerio Fishing Corporation (DFC), a group of companies composed of Celebes Tuna Fishing Corporation, Tuna Venture Corporation and Damalerio Fishing Enterprise availed of the said package of assistance that will benefit a total of 207 displaced workers.

Tango turned over the 1st tranche amounting to P456,435.00 representing the 60 percent of the workers minimum wage to Aurea Damalerio, President of the Damalerio Group of Companies held at the fishport compound last February 26, 2010.

The displaced workers of the companies will do maintenance work such as painting, welding, carpentry, electrical/mechanical repair, net-mending, refrigeration and hardware stock inventory.

Tango also said that NH Agro Industrial, Inc., another tuna fishing company affected by the closure of the 2 pockets in the Western and Central Pacific shall avail of DOLE’s Kabuhayan Starter Kits for its displaced workers or their beneficiaries.

She also said that youth beneficiaries/dependents of said workers will be prioritized in the Special Program for the Employment of Students (SPES) or the Kabataan Information Technology Opportunities (K-ITo) as mentors if they qualify.

Other affected companies may also avail of the Workers’ Income Augmentation Program (WINAP) of DOLE.

http://ro12.dole.gov.ph/default.php?retsamlakygee=93&resource=cfe6055d2e0503be378bb63449ec7ba6

CANADA: subsidies for the fish processing industry

2010-09-05T10:49:00.000+02:00

I copy here under a press release by the Provincial Government of New Brunswick.

As you can see this Canadian Provincial Government is "providing a $3-million forgivable loan as part of a $12-million project that will help maintain more than 1,000 jobs in southwestern New Brunswick."

According to an online article of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, if Connors maintains the 1.000 jobs in Blacks Harbour, the loan will not have to pay back the loan.

News Release
Business New Brunswick
Province supports efficiency upgrades at Blacks Harbour fish processor
24 June 2010 Media Contact(s)
Ashley Bursey, communications, Business New Brunswick, 506-461-0942, ashley.bursey@gnb.ca; Mike Randall, communications, Connors Bros., 506-878-3025.

BLACKS HARBOUR (CNB) - The provincial government is making an investment to help Connors Bros. complete efficiency upgrades to its processing plant. Premier Shawn Graham made the announcement today.

Graham made the announcement during a tour of the plant with Fisheries Minister Rick Doucet; Nabil Salib, plant general manager and company vice-president; Tony Hooper, company vice-president; and Ron Schindler, company executive vice-president.

"This company has been a vital part of our provincial economy since the 1890s," said Graham. "As we move toward a self-sufficient future, our plan for lower taxes and our strategic investments in key industries are helping companies to jump into new markets and diversify their products. Connors Bros. is an important example of how the revitalization of a traditional industry can carry a company successfully into the future."

The provincial government is providing a $3-million forgivable loan as part of a $12-million project that will help maintain more than 1,000 jobs in southwestern New Brunswick.

Connors Bros. is one of Canada's oldest food producers and the largest producer of canned sardines worldwide. In 2004, the operations of Connors Bros. merged with those of Bumble Bee Seafoods LLC and Clover Leaf Seafoods Co.

"We are proud to call Blacks Harbour the Sardine Capital of the World," said Schindler. "The assistance from the province means we can continue to produce a variety of high-quality canned seafood to compete in a global market. This modernization initiative will improve plant efficiencies and working conditions while helping us become more energy-efficient. These changes will be good for business, for our employees and for our future."

The Blacks Harbour plant is the only sardine cannery in North America. Its various companies produce canned tuna, salmon, sardines, clams, oysters, other specialty seafood products and canned meat products to a global market.

"In New Brunswick, our people are our greatest resource," said Doucet. "Our government is pleased to support one of our province's oldest and most significant employers as it continues to improve this facility for its workers and to find innovative solutions to stay competitive in a dynamic world marketplace."

24-06-10

Here are the links to the Provincial press release and to the story published by CBC:

http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/news_release.2010.06.1072.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/06/25/nb-sardines-conners-bros-jobs-607.html

WTO: fisheries subsidies negotiation and developmental aspects of the Doha Round

2010-08-29T12:59:00.000+02:00

The WTO Secretariat published on 19 August 2010 a revision (nr. 4) of a document titled “DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE DOHA ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS”

(WT/COMTD/W/143/Rev.4).

This Report (or note) was established by the WTO Secretariat following a request by WTO Members for a background paper for the 54th Session of the CTD of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD), held on 5 October 2005, at which this Group undertook a preliminary review of the "developmental aspects" of the Doha Round of negotiations.

In this latest revision of the note the Secretariat writes the following on fisheries subsidies negotiations (numbers refer to paragraphs):

107. Finally, in the area of fisheries subsidies, developing Members point in general to the important role that fisheries can have for poverty alleviation, livelihoods and food security. Concerning possible new disciplines on fisheries subsidies, some developing Members favour very strict disciplines with few exceptions and limited S&D, while others seek broad exemptions from any new disciplines.

108. In November 2007, on the basis of the mandate from Ministers at Hong Kong, the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR) tabled his first draft texts covering anti-dumping, subsidies and countervailing measures, and fisheries subsidies. These were consolidated texts that addressed a wide range of issues in all of these areas, based on the proposals and discussions that had preceded them. The texts contained specific proposed language from the Chairman on the issues addressed, with no brackets or alternatives. On fisheries subsidies, the Chairman's text took the form of an entirely new annex to the SCM Agreement, proposing a comprehensive set of new disciplines in this area. These texts, which were discussed in detail during 2008, all proved to be very controversial, and the gaps on the most politically sensitive issues were not narrowed through the discussions. In December 2008, therefore, the Chairman circulated new, "bottom-up", texts on anti-dumping and on subsidies and countervailing measures, proposing specific language where in his view there was the greatest possibility for convergence, and for the most sensitive issues replacing his former proposed language with square brackets summarizing the range of positions of delegations. For fisheries subsidies, such an approach was not possible as there is no pre-existing set of disciplines in this area. The Chairman thus circulated a roadmap for discussion, containing a set of detailed questions on the major issues needing resolution. The Group completed its discussion of these texts in early 2010, and has begun considering new proposals that have been tabled in various areas of its mandate.

112 112. Concerning fisheries subsidies, the main proponents of new, sector-specific disciplines comprise a group called "Friends of Fish", which includes a number of developing country Members. For the developing country proponents, the main concern is the artificial competitive advantage created by subsidies, which affect access to fish and contribute to the depletion of the resource. Most Members (developed as well as developing) have stressed the need for effective S&D as part of any fisheries subsidies package. Of particular concern in this regard are small-scale, artisanal fisheries and any subsidies thereto, as well as payments that some developing Members receive from foreign governments for access to the fisheries in their waters. Aquaculture is another area of considerable interest to many developing country Members, which seek to ensure that any new disciplines would not interfere with these activities. The 2007 Chairman's text on fisheries subsidies proposed S&D provisions to address developing Members' subsidies to different scales of fishing operations, and to address access payments. In addition, the scope of the text was limited to subsidies to marine capture fisheries (i.e., it did not extend to aquaculture). The Chairman's 2008 roadmap pursued these and other issues, which the Group discussed in detail during 2009. Since then, new proposals have been tabled, inter alia, by several groups of developing Members seeking to redefine the S&D provisions in different ways.

(d) Possible gains to developing countries
113. An eventual clarification and improvement of any of the rules under negotiation will increase the predictability of the trading system to the benefit of all Members. Moreover, an appropriate balance of rights and obligations will permit developing countries to pursue their development objectives and at the same time guard against practices that have a negative impact on their trade. In this regard, effective disciplines on the fisheries subsidies of the major subsidizing Members will benefit developing Members in terms of access to fisheries resources and in terms of reduced distortion of trade in fisheries products. Another area where balance is crucial concerns trade-offs between the costs and administrative burdens of the contingency protection system and its capacity to ensure fairness and transparency.

WTO: fish starring in the latest WTO's "World Trade Report" (2010)

2010-08-24T11:23:00.000+02:00

Readers monitoring developments at the WTO would have noticed that the 2010 issue of the "World Trade Report.

There is a lot of talk on "fish" in the document.

The document also deals with measures by countries restricting exports of natural resources. The Report underlines the fact that these measures can have the effects of subsidies as they lower domestic price of the products concerned, which in turn makes the domestic (processing) industry using these products more competitive.

I found that recent post in the "International Economic Law and Policy Blog" (one of the blogs appearing in "My blog list") highlighted this issue when commenting on the WTO's Report.

Here is the link to the post:

http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2010/08/export-quotas-and-production-quotas.html

And here the links to the WTO document and to an article by the ICTSD on Report.

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr10_e.htm

http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/81818/

USA: subsidies for the tuna processing industry

2010-07-10T11:26:00.000+02:00

One million USD for the tuna cannery of Chicken of the Sea in Giorgia.

Here are the news releases on this:

EDGE Fund – Toombs County Development Authority and Chicken of the Sea

Lyons, GA – A $1 million EDGE grant from the OneGeorgia Authority to the Toombs County Development Authority provided assistance with building improvements to benefit the location to Georgia of a manufacturing and distribution facility for Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC d.b.a. Chicken of the Sea International, one of the top producers of canned/pouched tuna capturing 25 percent of the US market share.

Chicken of the Sea located into an existing 212,000 SF industrial building previously occupied by Simonton Building Products, Inc. In addition, COS constructed a 13,968 square-foot freezer facility connected to the existing building needed for its tuna canning operation. The facility is situated on a 27.02-acre site in the Toombs Corporate Center on US Hwy 1 north of Lyons.

Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC (TUS) is a subsidiary of Thai Union International, Inc. (TUI) which is based in San Diego. This processing and canning operation for TUS is the first in Georgia. Chicken of the Sea will invest $20, 000,000 in the facility and create 310 new jobs within four years. The raw tuna is shipped straight from the Port of Savannah to process into shelf stable canned tuna, and then shipped throughout the United States.

The EDGE Fund, a specialized incentive tool, is used to enhance Georgia’s competitiveness in attracting significant economic development projects. It is a program providing “deal-closing” funds when one rural Georgia community competes for a business location or expansion with another state or country.
• Required elements: a recommendation for funding from a state agency; private investment commitment and job creation commitment from the beneficiary business.
• Benefits must exceed costs.
• Clawback provisions require partial repayment in the event job-creation or private-investment commitments are not met.

Who can apply?
Eligible applicants for EDGE funding are general-purpose local governments, local-government authorities, joint or multi-county development authorities in any of the directly eligible counties or conditionally eligible counties. Eligible sub-recipients are legally established business entities.

How much money is available?
EDGE Funds are not limited in amount. Grant and/or Loan amounts are recommended by the Georgia Department of Economic Development and are based on economic impact and demonstrated need.

How can the funding be utilized?
EDGE funds may be used for the purchase of publicly owned assets such as land and site development; infrastructure improvements; and publicly owned/ privately leased assets, such as land, buildings & machinery and equipment. Demonstration that relocation or expansion will enhance the overall economic security of the county is an important consideration. Applicants are encouraged to seek the advice of the Authority prior to submitting an application.

Here’s how it works:
Applications are online at www.onegeorgia.org and are accepted on an ongoing basis. Funding is used only when the industry is actively considering a location in another state.

http://www.onegeorgia.org/projects/17/EDGE-Fund---Chicken-of-the-Sea

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Toombs County Development Authority / Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC d.b.a. Chicken of the Sea International

EDGE grant funds of $1 million are awarded to assist with building improvements at the location of a manufacturing and distribution facility for Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC d.b.a. Chicken of the Sea International (COS). Chicken of the Sea is one of the top producers of canned/pouched tuna capturing 25 percent of the US market share. The company, located in an existing industrial building, constructed a 14,000 square-foot freezer facility that is connected to the existing building. The facility is situated on a 27 acre site in the Toombs Corporate Center on US Hwy 1 north of Lyons. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC (TUS) is a subsidiary of Thai Union International, Inc. (TUI) which is based in San Diego. The parent company is the second largest processor of tuna in the world and with the opening of the Georgia plant; Thai Union Frozen Products anticipates that it will become the largest tuna processor in the world. The Toombs County canning operation is the first in Georgia for TUI and its’ many subsidiaries.

* EDGE Award: $1 million / Total Project Cost: $21.5 million
* 310 new jobs in four years / Interstate competition: South Carolina

http://gov.georgia.gov/00/press/detail/0,2668,78006749_78013037_160994537,00.html

WTO: Director-General Pascal Lamy on fisheries subsidies on World Environment Day (5 June 2010)

2010-06-20T13:01:00.000+02:00

Mr Pascal Lamy made a statement on World Environment Day and referred to fisheries subsidies negotations as an area where the WTO is helping to protect world oceans. On the issue on reaching a deal on this negotiating subject Mr Lamy said:

"A deal in the WTO would mean richer oceans for future generations and would constitute a triple-win for trade, environment and development".

What strcuk me is that Mr Lamy did not say a deal in the context of the Doha Round but rather... a deal in the WTO...(outside the Doha Round?).

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news10_e/dgpl_05jun10_e.htm

WTO: fisheries subsidies should be part of the single undertaking...according to Barbados and New Zealand

2010-06-20T12:49:00.000+02:00

Mining in the internet n the issue of fisheries subsidies negotiations I found an interesting interview that “Subsidy Watch” an electronic newsletter that provides news, commentary and analysis related to subsidies and sustainable development published in May 2009, in its issue 39.

The interviewed were Matthew A. Wilson, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Barbados to the United Nations and other International Organisations at Geneva and Alice Tipping, Second Secretary to the WTO for the New Zealand Permanent Mission in Geneva. According to Subsidy Watch “Japan and the European Commission were also asked to respond, but did not do so before our publishing deadline.” I wonder whether the US were also asked to respond to the questions.

The last question is about whether the WTO should stick to the single undertaking when it comes to fisheries subsidies negotiations. I copy hereunder the full question and the answers, highlighting the passages with references to fisheries subsidies staying in the single undertaking.

SW: What are the odds that the fisheries subsidies negotiations move to another venue if the WTO talks remain stalled for too long? In a related question, if the round as a whole does not progress in the near future, would you endorse having the fisheries negotiations ‘carved out’ so that they could proceed separately?

Barbados: I am confident that the Round will be completed. The talks are not stalled. We are still having meetings and negotiations and there is still much to discuss and agree to in the area of fisheries, so it is too early to begin looking at shifting the venue or carving out any negotiations for early harvest. The DDA is clear on the issue of the single undertaking, so all issues will have to be adopted by Ministers simultaneously. I do believe that, even in the unlikely event that we were not to finalise the negotiations on fisheries, the issue of sustainability, fisheries management and the developmental aspects of fisheries have been sufficiently ventilated over the past few years, especially by important NGOs such as the WWF, the ICTSD and OCEANA, that engagement on this issue would be continue. The key is for the FAO and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations to follow through on some of the issues being discussed at the WTO, even in the event that there is no formal agreement.

New Zealand: The WTO is the appropriate venue for multilateral negotiations on fisheries subsidies for two key reasons. First, the problem is as much economic and trade-related as it is environmental. Over a third of global fish production is traded internationally, making fish one of the most traded ‘agricultural’ commodities. Fish and fish products account for around 13 percent of global ‘agricultural’ trade. The World Bank and the FAO, in their 2008 report entitled “Sunken Billions”, estimate that the potential benefits of this trade are far less than they should be; the economic losses in the global marine fisheries industry, resulting from inefficiencies (including subsidies) and overfishing add up to US$50 billion per year— that’s US$1.5 trillion over the last 30 years.

Second, disciplines around fisheries subsidies should be derived from, and consistent with, existing disciplines around general subsidies. The WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures’ existing disciplines set a solid, multilaterally agreed legal framework for these trade measures, and the terminology and concepts involved have been interpreted and clarified by the dispute-settlement process over many years. It is the logical institutional and legal base from which to build a new set of disciplines on fisheries subsidies.

These negotiations provide a unique opportunity to create effective disciplines on fisheries subsidies that deplete fish stocks on which the livelihoods of vulnerable communities depend. The negotiations are an integral element of the Doha Development Agenda, and New Zealand believes the final disciplines should form part of the outcome of the Doha round as a whole.

Here is the link to the full text of the interview:

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/analysis/the-wto-fisheries-negotiations-interviews-with-barbados-and-new-zealand

WTO: current stalemate in the Doha Round - "Two issues need to be resolved".

2010-06-20T12:12:00.000+02:00

Last May the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) held the Bahrain Global Forum in Manama, on the subject “Rebalancing Global Geo-economic Strategies for Security, Growth and Development”.

One of the key speeches (a special address) was delivered by Pascal Lamy on Sunday 16 May 2010. The title of this special address was “Reshuffling the Deck of Global Economic Cards". By the way, I did not find this speech in the WTO’s website (Speeches of the Director General).

While in his speech Mr Lamy did not explicitly refer to the negotiations on “Rules” nor to fisheries subsidies, there was talk about fisheries in the ensuing Q&A session.

A number of media echoed the contents of this Q&A session. One of the statements these media quoted was the following:

"Two issues need to be resolved: one is a technical negotiation over fishery subsidies, and the other is that the Obama administration needs the political will to take a Doha Round bill to Congress and get it passed," Lamy said.

Here are the links to the “Special Address” and to the Q&A question:

http://www.iiss.org/conferences/bahrain-global-forum/speeches/special-address/special-address-pascal-lamy/

http://www.iiss.org/conferences/bahrain-global-forum/speeches/special-address/qa-session/

And here the links to media discussing Mr Lamy’s statements:

http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=395351

http://www.dynamicexport.com.au/news/world-trade-to-rise-up-to-10-percent-wto01042/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jArswzvUuxWL8K9i3m3MfiLsi8rw

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/news/latest-news/16017-free-trade-resilient-during-world-crisis

USA: USD 18 million federal subsidies underway for American Samoa (and its tuna cannery)

2010-06-19T16:35:00.000+02:00

American Samoa is getting a USD 18 million money transfer as part of the efforts of the local government to keep alive StarKist Samoa.

I copy here under the passage of the bill H.R. 4213 “The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010” explaining the rationale for the transfer:

"American Samoa economic development support. Existing possessions credit corporations with active business operations in American Samoa were allowed an economic development tax credit to offset their U.S. tax liability on income earned in American Samoa from active business operations. This credit was based on the corporation’s employment and capital investment in American Samoa. As a result of the economic downturn, those domestic corporations have been unable to utilize the economic development credit. The bill would provide a payment to the American Samoa Government for stimulating economic development in American Samoa in an amount equal to the cost of the economic development credit. This proposal is estimated to cost $18 million over 10 years."

Here is the link to the document:

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr4213_summary.pdf

And here is an extract of the press realease of 20 May 2010 by Congressman Faleomavaega in which he clearly states his views on how the money should be used.

“Because StarKist would have been entitled to 30A tax credits worth up to $18M if it had been operating at a profit, the money we have now been able to set aside as a direct payment to ASG is intended to be used to put our tuna cannery workers back to work at StarKist Samoa. This is why I will be entering in to discussions with the U.S. Department of Treasury, ASG and the Fono to make sure the funds are used for their intended purposes.”

“Also, to be clear, the entire $18M will be available in FY2010, if H.R. 4213 is signed into law. If signed into law, this will be the good news we have been waiting for as it will provide ASG with the means it needs to help StarKist until we can put a more long-term solution in place.”

“Again, I thank my colleagues in the House and Senate for their strong show of support, and I look forward to working hand-in-hand with Governor Togiola and our Fono leaders and members as we do all we can do to save our tuna industry which is our largest private sector employer,” Faleomavaega concluded.

This is the link to the press release by Congress Faleomavaega:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/as00_faleomavaega/Housewaysandmeansandsenatefinancetaxcredit.html

USA: fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico asking for USD 100 million subsidies

2010-06-05T12:44:00.000+02:00

Here is a link to the website of the "Gulf og Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance" with the text of a "Joint Letter to Congress for Gulf Disaster Funding" filed on 21 May 2010.

http://shareholdersalliance.org/joomla/index.php/newsandupdates/46-gulf-disaster-funding-letter-to-congress

The closing paragraph of the letter reads as follows:

"In closing, we urge you to approve a minimum of $100 million in funding for direct assistance to adversely affected commercial and recreational fishermen and fishing communities, to improve fisheries science, and to make fisheries more resilient to harm caused by human activities. These funds should be provided to and managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in a manner that is consistent with the conservation and management objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as well as the goals of the agency."

USA: subsidies for fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico

2010-05-26T21:32:00.001+02:00

"Commerce Secretary Gary Locke Announces Fishery Failure Determination in Gulf of Mexico". This is the title of the announcement by the Department of Commerce for financial help (or subsidies) to fishermen affected by the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Here are the figures (at least the preliminary ones):

"The administration has requested $15 million of supplemental funding as a backstop to address this disaster, as well as $5 million of economic development assistance through the Economic Development Administration. In addition, the administration is requesting unemployment coverage for this disaster, and the Small Business Administration is offering economic injury disaster loans, which can help fishermen and other affected businesses."

When reading the text of the release I was thinking of the latest submission by the US to the WTO on fisheries subsidy rules. Readers of this blog may remember that in my post of 26/04/2010 I was quoting a paragraph of the US document where the US indicated the following:

"We note that exceptions for 'disaster relief' are now placed in Article I.1 ("Except . . . in the exceptional case of natural disaster relief, the following subsidies . . . shall be prohibited"). While we have not come to a firm view, disaster relief may be covered more appropriately in Article II. We have not addressed the disaster relief exception in this submission, but may have further thoughts as to its scope and placement as technical discussions of the text continue."

My guess is that the US has made up its mind on this issue, i.e. that man made fisheries "failures" or "disasters" (such as an oil spill) is a good reason to provide subsidies to fishermen.

Here is the press release announcing the good news for US fishermen affected by the "fisheries failure":

http://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2010/05/24/commerce-secretary-gary-locke-announces-fishery-failure-determination

BLOG: blog on fisheries and aquculture (in French)

2010-05-22T12:21:00.000+02:00

For those who understand this beatiful language: here is a very comprehensive and informative blog on fisheries and aquaculture with emphasis on French and EU issues.

I am adding it to my list of favorites blogs.

http://aquaculture-aquablog.blogspot.com/

WTO: reporting on informal negotiating meeting on fisheries subsidies (6)

2010-05-18T19:25:00.000+02:00

It seems that the WTO negotiating group on Rules discussed from 3 to 7 May the submission on Special and Differential Treatment by Brazil, India, China and Mexico and the paper by the US toughening the conditions to get an exemption from a wide ranging prohibition.

Here is the link to the ICTSD web site with the report on the negotiating session

http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/75726/

WTO: Natural (fishery) Resource Subsidies, the next battle at the WTO on fisheries subsidies?

2010-05-14T12:59:00.000+02:00

Browsing the WTO website I found a very interesting article titled “Natural Resource Subsidies” by Matthew S. Yeo, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP. This article is published under the section “Discussion forum: World Trade Report 2010 Trade in Natural Resources: Challenges in Global Governance”

In this article the author make numerous references to the a dispute between Canada and the US regarding the pricing of natural resources, the so called Softwood Lumber case.

Interesting to note is that in this dispute Canada maintained that the way fishing rights are allocated (for free, through auctioning, etc) is a matter for the WTO Member and referred to the fact that the US was not asking fishermen to acquire fishing rights through an auction.

In the “softwood lumber” case the following issues, which could be relevant for fisheries, were raised:

First, whether the way a government grants harvesting rights constitutes a subsidy. or not.
Underlying the first issue emerges the question as whether comparisons can be made between different countries, in other words, whether “cross-border” benchmarks to find and measure “benefit” can be used.
And third whether this benefit can be passed on downwards to other parts of the industry.

As I said before this dispute has raised a number of issues that could resurface in the future, either in the context of WTO’s Dispute Settlement or… in the next WTO negotiating round (not this one).

Here under are some of the issues that could be subject to discussion in a re-negotiation (in a perhaps not so distant future) of WTO fisheries subsidies disciplines:

The right obtained from the government to harvest a natural resource is tantamount to a government financial transfer in the meaning of Article 1 of the Subsidies Agreement… thus “free access” to fisheries resources could be a subsidy to fishermen.
Pricing a natural resource and benefit: for the determination of a “benefit” the SCM Agreement does not require markets to work perfectly, neither to work equally in all member countries… so, we need to change the SCM Agreement (and its future annex on Fisheries Subsidies) to require the allocation of fishing rights based on a market mechanism.
Some types of regulatory interventions by the government, even if they have significant trade effects, are shielded from the disciplines of the SCM Agreement... thus regulatory actions such as compulsory domestic landings, export prohibitions, no user-charging or cost recovery in fisheries would not be actionable under the current SCM Agreement.

In sum, will be the future debate on fisheries subsidies target regulatory actions instead of direct financial transfers?

Watch this spot!

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr10_yeo_e.htm

NGOs: increased competition on fisheries subsidies among NGOs. "Mission blue" joins the pack

2010-05-13T12:14:00.000+02:00

Fisheries subsidies has become, overtime, one of those subjects on which a number of environmental NGO are "competing" when it comes to drawing the attention of the general public.

Over the last few days “Mission Blue” (Sylvia Earle Foundation) has teamed up with OCEANA to send a letter to G-20 leaders asking them to “halt overfishing subsidies”.

The key paragraph in the letter reads as follows:

"We urge G-20 leaders to pledge to not further expand fishing subsidy programs and give their highest priority to a strong outcome in the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations."

Personally I was struck by this very candid, and I would add, audacious request by these NGOs to countries such as Brazil, India or China (all members if the G-20) which are in the process of expanding their fishing fleets, including by the provision of subsidies.

As regards WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies these countries have also been very clear in rejecting strict rules that would limit their ability to provide subsidies to vast segments of their fishing fleets (small-scale or artisanal fisheries). If any doubt; please refer to my previous posts on the negotiating submissions tabled by these countries.

On the other I would expect that fishermen in some developed countries would be tempted to (immediately) underwrite such statement. Keeping the "status quo" in the level of subsidies, in times of budget cuts, could be seen a rather satisfactory situation, at least from the point of view of teh beneficiaries of the subsidies.

Here is the link to letter:

http://na.oceana.org/sites/default/files/G-20_Ad_for_Hill_Times_FINAL.pdf

And here the links to Oceana and to Mission Blue pages where reference is made to this letter:

http://na.oceana.org/en/blog/2010/05/letter-to-the-g-20-stop-fishing-subsidies

http://www.mission-blue.org/

WTO: Pascal Lamy on fisheries subsidies, again.

2010-05-13T11:35:00.001+02:00

The Director General of the WTO has, once again, referred to fisheries subsidies as a prominent negotiating subject in the WTO Doha Round.

He did that recently, during a speech he delivered at the Round Table Centre for Public Studies in Santiago on 15 April 2010.

This time he framed his reference to fisheries subsidies by underscoring how important "trade rules" are for WTO Members. Here is the paragraph of Mr Lamy's speech where he speaks about fisheries subsidies:

We all know that governments could do things to restrict trade without infringing their WTO obligations, but the rules draw a line beyond which it is not possible to go without breaking the system, and more importantly in my view, the WTO has created a culture of cooperation. The trade rules have stood to the protectionist pressures but we now need to ensure that this culture of cooperation brings the Doha Round to its completion. We need to ensure that the rules of the WTO, which are a public good, are improved and updated. Failure may be costly on a global scale. Take the example of fishery subsidies. We have a mandate to negotiate the prohibition of certain subsidies which contribute to over-capacity and over-fishing. Present disciplines are inadequate. Scientific studies tell us that over 80 per cent of fish stocks are over-exploited. We need action and for that, we need leadership from our membership. The coastal population in Chile which has been severely affected by the earthquake and which is dependent on fishing activities knows this only too well.

So, according to Mr Lamy trade rules are a "public good" to be improved and updated and are critical to fight problems such as over-capacity and over-fishing.

What I miss in this paragraph, and in the speech, is a reference to the fact that these rules relate to the use of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures. Nowhere in the speech could I find these (ugly?) words. And yet, Chilean fish products, i.e. farmed salmon, have been subject to anti-dumping measures imposed by the U.S.

Rules on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy are also discussed under the so called “Rules” chapter and it seems that, unless progress is made in these “nasty” area of what the EU has called “trade defence instruments” (and in all other areas of the WTO Doha Round), no new rules on fisheries subsidies will be agreed. This holds true, provided WTO Members will continue to stick to principle of the “single undertaking”.

Here is the link to Mr Lamy’s speech:

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl153_e.htm

WTO: new (and tough) submission by the US on new rules on fisheries subsidies

2010-04-26T21:45:00.006+02:00

On 21 April 2010 the US made a new submission (document TN/RL/GEN/165 of 23 April 2010) on fisheries subsidies to the WTO’s negotiating group on “Rules”.

The document includes very detailed proposal some of which, as mentioned in the document, “tighten and strengthen” a number of provisions of the draft Chair’s text of November 2007.

In my view, the following are the most salient points of the US submission:

The Chair’s 2007 draft text is for the US the basis of the negotiation
According to the US, “[…] there appears to be broad support for some provisions in the text that are important complements to the core prohibition. Among these complementary provisions are Article I.2 (a prohibition on subsidies affecting fish that are "unequivocally overfished"), Article IV (a "general discipline" on fisheries subsidies) and Article V (fisheries management).”

On the nature of the rules that the US is putting on the table I was struck by the by times, but not always, very detailed proposals made as regards the fisheries (biological) parameters that are to be used to in relation to the status of fish stocks. As an example I quote here footnote 3 of the document on what the US understands to be an overfished stock:

“A fish stock is manifestly overfished if the stock is at such a low level of abundance that mortality from fishing needs to be restricted to allow the stock to rebuild to sustainable levels. Manifestly overfished stocks include cases in which: (a) the stock has significantly reduced spawning biomass or reproductive capacity; or (b) the stock is recovering from such a low level of abundance or potential for collapse, but further expansion of exploitation would adversely affect recovery.”

I write "by times" because on capacity the US is saying (in footnote 4) the following:

“For purposes of this Annex, the term "capacity" means the ability to harvest fish, as determined on the basis of widely accepted methods for assessing such ability, including standards and guidance developed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and relevant international fisheries organizations.”

So, what would happen in case a WTO Member a domestic definition of fishing capacity, different from the FAO or from those used in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations? Or if the FAO definition is different from the definition used in a given RFMO?

As mentioned before, the toughening of the exceptions under Article II of the draft Chair’s text is one of the key features of the paper. The US has removed from the Chair’s draft the provision that allowed WTO Members to, for example, subsidise the replacement of engines on condition that they are less polluting. Here is what the US states in the introductory part of the submission:

We have sought to tighten the drafting of some of the exceptions to the prohibition to prevent their being used to create unintended loopholes. For example, a subsidy to lessen the "environmental impact" of fishing, as in the current text, could be read as covering subsidies for energy-efficient engines, which would enhance fishing capacity; we have therefore limited the exception to subsidies lessening the impact of fishing on "marine habitat."

The provisions allowing for subsidies for social purposes are also "gone": here is what the US say in an explanatory note:

"Note: We have deleted the language in the Chair's text under Article II(c) (exceptions to Article I.1(c) for subsidies for, e.g., retraining for activities other than fishing, re-education and early retirement) because we believe that these subsidies should not be prohibited in the first place. In our view, they could be clearly excluded through an appropriately targeted definition of which "personnel costs" should be prohibited in Article I.1(c), rather than through an exception in Article II. In this connection, Members should have a fuller discussion as to what other kinds of "social safety net" provisions should not be prohibited."

And the exception to the prohibition for "disaster relief" (which the US provides from time to time) has also disappeared!:

"We note that exceptions for "disaster relief" are now placed in Article I.1 ("Except . . . in the exceptional case of natural disaster relief, the following subsidies . . . shall be prohibited"). While we have not come to a firm view, disaster relief may be covered more appropriately in Article II. We have not addressed the disaster relief exception in this submission, but may have further thoughts as to its scope and placement as technical discussions of the text continue."

A remarkable submission!

BRAZIL: subsidies for the construction of four new ocean going vessels

2010-04-18T12:59:00.000+02:00

According to the a press release from the Brazilian Ministry for Fisheries and Aquaculture, four new tuna vessels that will operate from the State of Bahia.

The boats will be financed with help from the federally managed PROFROTA programme.

Here is a link to the press release from the Federal government.

http://www.presidencia.gov.br/estrutura_presidencia/seap/noticias/ultimas_noticias/aprovada_construcao_quatro_embarcacoes/

US: questions from CANADA on the US notification to the WTO of subsidies to fisheries

2010-04-18T12:48:00.000+02:00

From the document G/SCM/Q2/USA/38 of 6 April 2010 titled "SUBSIDIES - Replies to Questions Posed by CANADA Regarding the New and Full Notification of the UNITED STATES"

Question 4

Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Programme: Fisheries R&D (page 38)

In an answer to Canada's question regarding the previous US notification, the United States mentioned that duties on fishery imports have increased over the past five years, meaning that the funding from other sources was not necessary. Canada would like to know if it is still the case, i.e. is duty revenue still sufficient to fund the programme?

Reply

Yes. The programme is capitalized through annual transfers by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of Commerce equal to 30 per cent of the gross receipts collected under the customs laws on imports of fish and fish products.

Question 8

Alaska's Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund (page 65)

While it is stated that this fund provides long-term, low interest loans to commercial fishing businesses, details are not provided as to the exact type of fishing activities financed by this programme. Please provide details or examples.

Reply

While Article 25 does not require the level of detail asked for in the question, for transparency purposes, the United States provides the following answer. The Commercial Fishing Revolving Fund funds a variety of activities related to commercial fishing. Loans are made for purchasing gear and quota shares for Halibut and Sablefish. The state also makes loans to help fisherman satisfy past due federal tax obligations; makes loans to qualified Community Quota Entity communities to purchase quota shares; and makes loans for the purpose of improving the quality of seafood products.

USA: NOAA asking USD 54 million for the implementation of "catch shares"

2010-03-08T18:56:00.001+01:00

I copy here under an extract from the written statement of JANE LUBCHENCO, Ph.D. Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator when presenting the NOAA 2011 budget request before the US Senate Committee on Commerce at a hearing on 3 March 2010.

"NOAA recently released a draft catch share policy to encourage the consideration and adoption of catch shares wherever appropriate in fishery management and ecosystem plans and amendments, and will support the design, implementation, and monitoring of catch share programs. Catch share programs give fishermen a stake in the benefits of well-managed fisheries, and therefore greater incentive to ensure effective management. To support NOAA’s policy, this budget includes an increase of $36.6 million, for a total request of $54 million, to establish a National Catch Share Program. This program will provide a national framework to develop, manage, and improve catch share programs in fisheries across the Nation. This increase will also continue the transition of the Northeast ground fish (multispecies) fishery to sector management as well as support new voluntary catch share programs in the Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Coast regions."

Here is the link to Ms Lubchenco full statement:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=258a8c85-c278-4ce6-899e-fdb43f6de665&Statement_id=b62b84e4-1ebf-4d96-9a03-dd15ef17749b&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=3&YearDisplay=2010

CANADA: throne speech mentions fisheries management as outdated (sic) and promises change

2010-03-08T12:28:00.001+01:00

On 3 March 2010 er Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, delivered the Government's Speech from the Throne.

Here is what she said on fisheries:

It (Canada's governement) will introduce new legislation to reform Canada’s outdated system of fisheries management.

Does this mean that fisheries subsidies will be prohibited in Canada? Or that Individual Fishing Quotas will be introduced with the help of subsidies, as it is the case now in the US?

Watch this spot.

Here is the link to the speech:

http://www.sft-ddt.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1388

WTO: reporting on informal negotiating meeting on fisheries subsidies (5)

2010-03-08T12:10:00.004+01:00

Trawling is a typical way of catching fish. It is also something you can do, with modern technology, to catch news on items that are of interest for individuals. And the interesting thing about trawling for news is that your “gear” can be very selective, taking very little “by-catch”.

Lastly I have been trawling for reports on informal meetings of the WTO negotiating group dealing with fisheries subsidies. The result was rather disappointing: only “by-catch”.

Apparently the above mentioned negotiating group, also called the “Rules” group, met at the beginning of March 2010. According to the “Business Standard”, an Indian newspaper, the group discussed the (thorny) issue of the “zeroing” methodology (used by the US) in anti-dumping.

As it is the case with other negotiating subjects groups of countries are formed to push (or counter) standpoints and proposals. In this case, i.e. negotiations on WTO rules on antidumping, a coalition has been formed that calling itself the “Friends of Anti-dumping” (or FANs). The members of the FANs are: Japan, Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Israel, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Taipei, Thailand and Turkey.

These countries are seeking to tighten the rules of anti-dumping by, among other things, prohibiting the use of zeroing.

It is interesting to see how alliances can differ depending on the issue. In the anti-dumping negotiations one finds countries that are siding “against” the US (e.g. Chile, Thailand, Mexico, Colombia and Norway) while in they are supporting the US positions in the fisheries subsidies negotiations, especially in calling a broad ban on most subsidies to fisheries.

I will close this post by referring to another article, this time from the “Third World Network”, in which it is mentioned that he “Rules” group also met during the first week of February 2010, though no word about fisheries subsidies’ negotiations.

Here are the links to the above mentioned articles:

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-seeks-banzeroing-methodology/387604/

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/wto.info/2009/twninfo20090206.htm

US: NOAA grants additional USD 10 million to New England fishermen

2010-03-06T18:01:00.000+01:00

You may remember that on 11 July 2009 I commented on the announcement by Recently, two U.S. Senators, Olympia Snowe (Republican, Maine) and Jack Reed (Democratic, Rhode Island) on the fact that the federal government (NOAA) distributed USD 10 million in 2009 for various New England fisheries programs, including “aid for fishermen affected by regulations”.

This year another USD 10 million Is to be allocated to New England fishermen. I copy hereunder Senator’s Collins (Republican, Maine) on the subsidy allocation:

SENATOR COLLINS ANNOUNCES FUNDING FOR MAINE AND NEW ENGLAND FISHING INDUSTRY
March 1, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. -
U.S. Senator Susan Collins today announced that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) will provide $10 million in additional funding to support New England's groundfish industry. The Maine Department of Marine Resources will receive $2 million to set up a permit bank for fishing permits, through which fishing opportunity will be preserved for small and remote communities in Maine.
"This funding is critical to sustaining Maine's fishing industry and our fishing communities," said Senator Collins. "As fishermen and their families struggle with strict regulations and other burdensome costs in this difficult economy, this assistance is welcome news."
In total, NOAA plans to spend $10 million to assist New England's fishing industry as follows:
• $5,000,000 to support permit banking programs. Permit banks are collections of fishing permits purchased and held by an organization to provide access rights such as days-at-sea and annual catch shares for qualifying fishing vessels.
• $546,000 in direct aid for fishing sector managers and vessel operators
• $4,000,000 for dockside and at-sea monitoring, which will create jobs for monitors and observers in local communities.
• $485,000 for NOAA's Fisheries Service for infrastructure and programmatic support.

The above announcement can be found here:

http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=1bfe6fab-802a-23ad-452d-15fc0cbea0dd&Region_id=&Issue_id=&CFID=36027315&CFTOKEN=13102270

For those interested in the NOAA press realase:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100301_support.html

US: could a USD 100 million anti-dumping settlement become a fisheries subsidy?

2010-02-14T12:49:00.000+01:00

Recently US media reported that the Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA) had sought to end anti-dumping tariffs on Thai shrimp in exchange for a cash payment estimated at $100 million or more to be distributed among U.S shrimp producers.

Actually it seems that the initiative for such settlement came from Thailand, eventhough it is not clear whether the initiative came from the Thai authorities, from the Thai exporters or from both.

The SSA maintains that said that eliminating the anti-dumping duties in exchange for the settlement is the best option for the industry as the punitive import duties will be subject in to the so-called “sunset review”, i.e. a re-examination of the anti-dumping duties before they come to an end.

Should the outcome of the review be that there is no need for further anti-dumping duties then US shrimp harvesters will be fully exposed (again) to foreign competition.

But perhaps more interest is the fact that, even if anti-dumping duties would be extended after the sunset review, U.S. shrimpers would not be able to get the proceedings of moneys collected through such duties.

A document posted in the SSA’s website explains at length how the subsidy previously received by US shrimp harvesters will be terminated soon because the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act or CDSOA program (remember the so-called “Byrd-amendment”) will be phased out and the proceeding of antidumping duties remain with the US Treasury.

As an illustration of the subsidy paid the SSA document mentions the figure of USD 106 million made available to the US shrimp industry in the year 2006.

Here is a link to the web site of the Southern Shrimp Alliance where the aforementioned document (“Domestic Industry and Thai Frozen Foods Association Submit Joint Request for Revocation of Antidumping Order on Shrimp from Thailand - Questions & Answers – 27 December 2009) can be found.

http://www.shrimpalliance.com/

And here a link to an article from “The Daily Comet” (Lafourche Parish, Louisiana) on this issue:

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20100128/ARTICLES/100129256/1026?p=all&tc=pgall#

WTO: the BRICs and Mexico make proposals on "small-scale fisheries" and on... fisheries agreements

2010-02-13T19:19:00.001+01:00

This week the so called BRICs (Brazil, China, India) and Mexico have made a joint written proposal modifying the Chair’s draft text agreement of November 2007.

The main thrust of the proposal is to present the other Members of the WTO with a definition of the so called « small scale fisheries ». According to this group of countries « small scale fisheries » have to be defined according to « socio-economic criteria ». Here are two paragraphs of the introductory part of the submission setting out the rationale for such proposal.

Here are extracts of the introductory part:

On the issue of small-scale, artisanal fisheries, the proponents decided to bring forward a definition based on socio-economic criteria, inspired by the current Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. We believe that this is the best way for striking a satisfactory balance, in the absence of internationally-agreed definitions on those fisheries activities by other Organizations more directly involved in fisheries issues. Each Member should be able to work on its own definition, insofar as the criteria set forth in the future WTO disciplines are observed.

On the larger scale fisheries, criteria such as the boat size and the area of capture were replaced with provisions structured on the rights Members have under the international law. For those activities the controls in Articles IV and V would fully apply, in order to implement the Hong Kong mandate consistently with its main goal: to bar harmful fisheries subsidies that create over-fishing and produce overcapacity, as well as distort trade or production. Artificial distinctions such as the Exclusive Economic Zone limitation and the 10 meters threshold were thus deleted.

Another important feature of the proposal is that it introduces new language, under Article III, that would prohibit to developed countries those « subsidies arising from the further transfer, by a payer Member government, of access rights that it has acquired from another Member government to fisheries within the jurisdiction of such other Member.» if concluding such agreement with a developing country.

As an example all payments made in the context of the fisheries agreements concluded by the EU with developing countries could come under such prohibition.

Here is the aformentioned language:

III.4 III.3 Subsidies referred to in Article I.1(g) shall not be prohibited where the access rights are acquired by a developing country Member and the fishery in question is within the EEZ of a developing country Member,

The fact that the words "the access rights are acquired by a developing country Member and" have been added imply that, to benefit from the exemption to the prohibition under Article I.1(g), the fisheries agreement must be concluded exclusively between developing countries. At least this is my interpretation.

Strangely enough the introductory part is silent about such substantial change to the Chair’s draft.

The full text of the submission, with WTO reference TN/RL/GEN/163 can be found at the WTO’s website.

WTO: Fish, a "pressing issue" for Pascal Lamy

2010-02-13T18:32:00.001+01:00

Fish is definitely one of the favourite subjects of the WTO Director General, at least when it comes to talking about the WTO’s Doha Development Agenda.

In an article recently published in The Guardian’s section « Comment is free » and titled « Lamy's lament on trade liberalisation » the author, Larry Elliott, enumerates the pressing issues that were discussed at the Davos meeting. Fish is cited as a pressing issue (after Financial markets. Greenhouse gases and Currencies).

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/28/davos-wto

WTO: and now the IISD on fisheries subsidies as environmental issue at the Doha negotiations (and candidate for a separate agreement?)

2010-02-03T12:00:00.026+01:00

The International Institute for Sustainable Development has recently published a document titled “A Sustainable Development Roadmap for the WTO” by Aaron Cosbey.

In this document the author discusses how the WTO can effectively contribute to one of its “constitutional objectives” (as recently put by Pascal Lamy at the 2010 World Economic Forum) namely sustainable development.

Among one of the “areas of need” (of action?), as put by the author, one finds the ongoing negotiations on Fisheries Subsidies (page 16)

Further the author refers to fisheries subsidies as one of the subjects holding the “…greatest potential in the Doha work program for environmental good if an ambitious agreement can be reached”. Here is the full paragraph (page 30) on fisheries subsidies as part of the Doha negotiations:

The Doha talks on fisheries subsidies too are potentially valuable. Subsidies in the fisheries sector lower the cost of fishing and lead to overexploitation of the resource—too many fishermen and too many boats chasing too few fish. Government subsidies have been estimated at some 20 per cent of the value of the worldwide fish catch, and have contributed to declining fish stocks and marine environmental damage, particularly in the developing countries where the surplus capacity is often exported. These talks hold perhaps the greatest potential in the Doha work program for environmental good if an ambitious agreement can be reached. Some have also opined that if these talks succeed they may help pave the way for consideration of the next big item on the perverse subsidies agenda: fossil fuel subsidies.

And finally fisheries subsidies are identified as one area where “it will be easiest to push for” as being a priority and being achievable. Here is the paragraph, in page 47, where fisheries subsidies are mentioned.

Those items that are already on the WTO agenda are arguably easiest to push for: liberalization of environmental goods and services, fisheries subsidies, MEA observership, TRIPS and CBD, trade-related technical assistance, trade facilitation, capacity building, and collaboration in a revitalized EIF. Of course, it is not enough to simply be on the agenda— what is needed is an ambitious outcome in each of these areas.

So, should the “single undertaking” in the Doha Round (“nothing is agreed until everything has been agreed”) fall victim to piece meal agreements on specific subjects? Are fisheries subsidies to be used as a battering ram against the "single undertaking"?

I would very much welcome comments from readers on this latter issue.

Here is the link to download the document:

http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/sd_roadmap_wto.pdf

WTO: fisheries subsidies at the World Economic Forum (WFE) 2010

2010-02-01T19:05:00.000+01:00

One of the sessions of the WFE had the title: "Rethinking the Global Commons: Fisheries". Pascal Lamy, WTO's Director General, was among the panel members.

A summary of the discussions and the list of panelists (all this is copyrighted material) can be found in this webpage at the WFE:

http://www.weforum.org/en/knowledge/Events/2010/AnnualMeeting/KN_SESS_SUMM_29932?url=/en/knowledge/Events/2010/AnnualMeeting/KN_SESS_SUMM_29932

WTO - NZ: a former Chair of the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules on the workings of international negotiations

2010-02-01T12:32:00.002+01:00

Mr Tim Groser, New Zealand's current Minister in charge of Trade was the very first Chair of the Negotiating Group that is dealing with new WTO for Fisheries Subsidies.

Mr Groser does not like to beat about the bush. He is someone who likes to speak things out, in all clarity. At least that is the impression I have got when reading one of the speeches he has recently delivered. I found in this post titled "Tim Groser on Border Tax Adjustments: "anti-dumping or CVD investigation on steroids" of the International Economic Law and Policy" Blog, which appears in "My blog list".

In this speech, given in London on 8/12/2009, i.e. just before the start of the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, Mr Groser shares with the audience his personal views on how the above mentioned meeting could develop and the results it could yield.

In this post I will go through Mr Groser's talk by way of quoting some of the passages which I think could be related, in some way, to the ongoing WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies. After all the title of the speech is "Trade and Climate Change: A Negotiator's Perspective", so Mr Groser is discussing how he, as a negotiator for New Zealand, approaches the issue of Climate Change and the negotiations at the Copenhagen meeting.

Copenhagen: the Outlook

There will be literally thousands of international civil servants; hundreds of harassed security guards; a phalanx of the world's media interviewing delegates initially and finally interviewing each other. There will be businesses, lobbyists, a diverse range of NGOs with a vast universe of demands and agendas, some of which will be only loosely related to climate change.

There will be film stars, vegans, people running around in polar bear suits. This is, ladies and gentlemen, international diplomacy in action. Is it likely to lead to anything useful?

Comment: fisheries subsidies negotiations have not attracted as much attention as Climate Change talks, nevertheless there are a number of NGOs gravitating around the negotiations (e.g. WWF, OCEANA) and film stars (remember my post on the presence of Ted Danson in Geneva) have been "running around" to lobby negotiators. In this regard I always wonder why civil society organisations representing are not lobbying, at least in a visible manner, WTO negotiators in Geneva. Until now I have only seen reports of fishermen from the Philippines protesting against "fisheries liberalisation" (see my post of 20/12/2009).

I have spent thirty years negotiating international economic agreements. Most of them, contrary to popular opinion, and after massive political frustration and delays, do end up getting done - never perfectly of course, but usually in the right direction.

Comment: Mr Groser appears to be right in the sense that delays are part and parcel of international trade negotiations. Needless to say that the Doha Round is a good illustration of how delays do plague such undertakings. On the outcome of negotiations I can agree with Mr Groser with the fact that there can be "massive political frustration". This was the case for the EU in Copenhagen. Will it be the case (for the EU) on fisheries subsidies? I ask this question because the assertion on agreements (usually) ending up "in the right direction" is made by a negotiator representing New Zealand. I assume thus that for Mr Groser, should the Doha Round be concluded and an agreement reached on new rules for fisheries subsidies, it will end up in the right direction, at least for New Zealand.

But this is never achieved in one step and seldom in conformity with agreed 'road maps', or time-lines to which solemn Brownie oaths have been earlier pledged. A successful negotiation is always done incrementally by building up convergence and consensus first at the general, then increasingly specific, levels of detail.

Comment: Mr Groser appears to have participated in negotiations where results were reached by using a different approach than the one put forward by his successor in the Chair of the Negotating Group, Ambassador Valle, who did draw a Roadmap for the to move forward the negotiations on fisheries subsidies. Here what Tim Groser tells us about such “different approach”

Highly experienced and astute Secretariat officials, working closely with experienced negotiators from a number of countries, will be developing a text covering the key issues contained in the unmanageable draft legal text and on which firm political decisions are required - mitigation targets, financing in both the short and long term, capacity building and other key elements of the earlier Bali Action Plan.

He also gives us hints on the dangers that the “different approach” can entail and of the opportunities it can bring with it.

Extremism, or gross tactical misjudgements by certain Delegations, can still torpedo what could be a highly constructive step towards a full and ratifiable agreement at a subsequent point. This is not a time for people to start throwing their toys out of the cot. And if finally wisdom prevails, and we do get a solid set of politically binding decisions on key issues, our professional negotiators will then be able to re-engage in 2010 to complete the second, and one hopes, final step towards a far more solid agreement than Kyoto ever was.

This was Tim Groser, the first Chair of the WTO Rules Negotiating Group on Rules of the Doha Development Agenda, on how international negotiations are (or can be?) conducted.

The full speech can be found in these web pages:

http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/speech-groser-trade-and-climate-change-negotiator039s-perspective/5/32614

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/trade+and+climate+change+negotiator039s

Core/Mandatory Elements	Tools (i.e. indicative, not compulsory)
1) Institutions and legislative (someone to ‘manage’ the FMS – a FM authority)
2) Stock assessment Key: data collection to allow with a degree of certainty what one’s resource-base is and what is the level of outtake (i.e. an ‘output’ element)	Trend series to assess resource base Level of sophistication depends on context
3) Fishing capacity Count boats and measure composition of fleet (e.g. size), maybe also gear (i.e. an ‘input’ element)	Vessel registry (not necessarily for smallest boats though) Licences/permits (depending upon fishery)
4) Fishing effort/capacity management Utilisation of data on stocks and fishing capacity based on: a) input controls; b) output controls	Depending on fishery: a) input controls (e.g. closed seasons, limits of gear or vessel size/numbers, etc) b) output controls (e.g. total allowable catch, vessel-specific quotas, etc)
5) MCS – based on different levels of national/ supra-national authority Key: some form of catch control is necessary to identify some form(s) of violation	Sampling, controls at port, fishing cooperative level, customary level, VMS and/or GPS onboard especially when operations in different zones, etc.
6) Enforcement	Administrative penalties Criminalisation Indigenous methods (e.g. moral pressure)