US: could a USD 100 million anti-dumping settlement become a fisheries subsidy?

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

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

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?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the links to the reports by FFA:

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

And ICTSD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.ffa.int/trade_industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) Fishing and Aquaculture

PREGUNTA DE ARGENTINA

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

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

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

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

PREGUNTAS DEL ECUADOR

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

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

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

 QUESTIONS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to a news release dated 14 July 2009

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

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

Here is the link to the official new release:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUSTRALIA: subsidies for Blue fin tuna fishermen in South Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the link to the official press release:

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

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

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

CANADA: provincial aid for another seafood processor

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

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

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

Here is a link to the press release:

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

and to an article on the Net:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the links to the articles:

WTO urged to spin off fishing pact to protect seas

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

Calls grow to smash WTO deal into digestible pieces

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

WTO: UNEP video on fisheries subsidies

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

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

Pascal LAMY, Director General of the WTO:

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

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

Achim STEINER Executive Director UNEP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the link to the video:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the link to the Wolrdbank announcement:

http://go.worldbank.org/DMB9K1PKC0

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

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

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

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

I copy here the relevant passages of his statement:

In the introduction Mr Pula said:

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

And here is what he stated in the conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

Subsidies have become “practices” !

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are examples of such redemption of the landing obligation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here one from Finmark Dagblad (in Norwegian):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will come back on this remarkable bill.

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

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