NGO: vast majority of capacity enhancing fisheries subsidies provided by Asian countries

The ICTSD has just published an "Information note" titled "Tackling Perverse Subsidies in Agriculture, Fisheries and Energy". 

At the end of the note it is stated that: "This publication is a contribution to the series of activities “From Harmful to Safe Subsidies” jointly organized by the Varda Group, the Global Campaign for Climate Action and ICTSD with the participation of Oxfam, Greenpeace, Friends of Fossil Fuels Subsidy Reform, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, IISD, UNEP and other organizations in the run-up and during the Rio +20 meetings in 2012."

Readers will remember that I wrote a post on this issue of "Safe subsidies" (see the entry 13 May 2012 on Rio+20).

I was struck by two graphs built on the basis of a 2010 study by Prof. Sumaila and others.

In the first graph (Figure 1 on page 3) Asia ranks number one region in providing fisheries subsidies. It also provides the vast majority of capacity enhancing subsidies.

In another graph (Figure 2 on page 3) one can see that in Africa, fisheries subsidies count for almost 60% of the landed value (2003). This makes Africa top the league when using this ratio to measure fisheries subsidies "intensity".

Here is the reference to the information note:

ICTSD; (2012); Tackling Perverse Subsidies in Agriculture, Fisheries and Energy; ICTSD Programme on Global Economic Policy and Institutions; Information Note; International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland, www.ictsd.org

I downloaded it from the following web page:

http://ictsd.org/i/publications/135518/

WTO: more of Hollywood in fisheries subsidies negotiations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/

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

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: 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

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

For those interested.

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

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

USA: "charitable" fisheries subsidies and the WTO

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

In the article there was a reference to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WTO: fisheries subsidies and Hollywood under the same roof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WTO: Director General Pascal Lamy on Fisheries Subsidies (4)

Here is an extract of Director-General Pascal Lamy, keynote address “How can the WTO help harness globalization?” to the WTO Public Forum on 4 October 2007:

"But things are changing in the WTO once again as we speak, thanks to the efforts of civil society. I am referring to the Doha Round negotiations on fisheries subsidies. For the longest time, many viewed the WTO architecture on subsidies as static, as not capable of change. But civil society soon came to knock on our doors, drawing our attention to the perilous state of much of the world's fish stock. Its message was clear, the WTO has a vital role to play in protecting the world's fish stock, in saving it from depletion.

The numbers that think tanks and NGOs put on the table left no room for ambiguity. They required no further explanation. An annual $14-20 billion of fisheries subsidies worldwide has been one of the causes of fish stock depletion, encouraging “too many fishermen to chase after too few fish” as saying now goes. Worldwide, the global fishing fleet, which includes 25,000 large decked-ships and well over 2 million smaller commercial craft, pulls 80 million tons of fish or more from the oceans, or four times the 1950 total! The story was alarming and the WTO Membership once again rose to the challenge.

Today, negotiations on fisheries subsidies in the WTO are in full swing and they are being taken extremely seriously. The Membership realizes the magnitude of what is stake were these negotiations to fail. And just in case it would forget, you have placed banners all over Geneva to remind us all of the need to reach an agreement! But civil society, in this particular case, did not stop at awareness raising, it came forward with technical suggestions on how the WTO could craft new disciplines; and in so doing has certainly made a real contribution. In fact, to a number of civil society actors this particular experience served to demonstrate how close collaboration with WTO Members can sometimes be vital to achieving their goals. "

In the above extract Mr Lamy says : “But civil society, in this particular case, did not stop at awareness raising, it came forward with technical suggestions on how the WTO could craft new disciplines; and in so doing has certainly made a real contribution.”

This reminds me that the WWF issued in 2004 a document titled “Healthy Fisheries, Sustainable Trade: Crafting New Rules On Fishing Subsidies in the World Trade Organization” setting out an outline of future fisheries subsidies rules. Some of the elements of this outline can be found in Brazil’s early submissions (see WTO docs TN/RL/W/176 of 31 March 2005, TN/RL/GEN/56 4 July 2005 and TN/RL/GEN/79 of 16 November 2005).

WWF and Oceana have also been in close touch with the U.S. government to provide advice on how to deal with this negotiating subject.

WTO - UNEP - WWF: "artisanal" versus "industrial" fisheries?

The debate on whether different rules should apply to the artisanal and to the so called « industrial » fisheries respectively is one of the major topics at the ongoing WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

Here is the link to an article (titled "Who’s Harming Fish Stocks? Trawlers or Artisanal Fishers?" by Isolda Agazzi) with the views of some of the actors involved, directly or indirectly, in these negotiations.

http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=47500

My conclusion is that views still differ very much.

WTO: fisheries subsidies negotiations at the 2009 Forum of the North American Association of Fisheries Economists

You have noticed that one of the economist's associations with a link in my blog is NAAFE, the North American Association of Fisheries Economists.

This association will be holding its fifth biennal forum from 17 to May 2009 in Newport, Rhode Island.

One of the special sessions will be devoted to the ongoing negotiations on fisheries subsidies at the WTO. Courtney Sakai, from Oceana, will chair the session. Here is the detail:

Tuesday, May 19, 3:30 pm – 5:00 pm:
Special Session: Key Questions on the Road to a WTO agreement
Chair: Courtney Sakai
Introduction describing the current state of talks on fisheries subsidies at the WTO, including the issues and questions raised by the WTO Chair. Panelists will discuss their recent work and respond to these issues and questions.
Courtney Sakai, Senior Campaign Director, Oceana
Leslie Delagran, Economist, Oceana
Anthony Cox, Senior Economist, Fisheries Policy Division, OECD
Rashid Sumaila, Director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia
Anthony Charles, St. Mary’s University, Halifax


Here is the link to the conference:

http://www.uri.edu/meeturi/naafe/index.html

USA: NGO reactions to the report on US subsidies to fisheries

In some of the post in this blog I have discussed reactions from NGO’s to important events and/or documents related to fisheries subsidies.

As mentioned in my previous post, a few days ago a substantive report was released by the Lenfest Foundation at the Pew Charitable Trust on the subsidies provided by public authorities to the fisheries industry, in the United Sates.

I find most surprising that two prominent US NGO’s, WWF and OCEANA, have not said a word on this report.

WTO: position of INDIA at the ongoing negotiations on fisheries subsidies. Comments by Oceana

When reading the piece of news on India's subsidy programme for tuna fisheries I remembered that India, supported by China and Indonesia has pressed very hard for far reaching exceptions to subsidy disciplines at the ongoing WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

I quote here an article by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) published on 25 July 2008, while the (failed) WTO Mini-Ministerial meeeting was in progress.

Proposal by China, India and Indonesia

The latest proposal on fisheries subsidies was tabled on 21 July by China, India and Indonesia during the ongoing ministerial meeting in Geneva (TN/C/W/51). Trade ministers are currently convened in an attempt to reach a compromise in WTO negotiations on agriculture and non-agricultural market goods (see related story, this issue). While fisheries subsidies are not on the ministerial agenda, they are considered to be an important facet of the Doha development round.

The proposal emphasises the importance of special and differential treatment for developing countries given the particular importance of fisheries for livelihoods, poverty reduction and food security. More specifically, China, India and Indonesia call for exemptions from subsidies disciplines for developing country small and artisanal fishermen, as well as fisheries infrastructure and capital and operating costs.

The sponsors of this recent submission tabled the last proposal discussed in the fisheries negotiations. Much of the substance of the new proposal was covered in discussion on their previous proposal. For this reason, sources have commented that it is unclear when the opportunity to talk about the recent paper will arise or what value it will add to negotiations.While Courtney Sakai, campaigner for environmental group Oceana, called the tabling at the ministerial “misplaced,” others assume that the intent of the sponsors was to raise the profile of the capacity constraints and particular vulnerabilities of developing countries in the fisheries subsidies negotiations.

The aforementioned article by ICTSD can be found here:

http://ictsd.net/i/environment/14326/

PAKISTAN: Actionaid report "Taking the fish"

During this holiday period I have done a little bit of desk research on NGO positions' on the WTO Doha negotiations relating to fishing issues.

Yesterday I came accross a report prepared by the charity "Actionaid" in the framework of its "Trade justice" campaign. According to Actionaid:

"The report - Taking the Fish – claims poor fishing communities in developing countries worldwide could be devastated by moves to open up fishing markets as part of the latest World Trade Organisation talks.

Pakistani fisher groups say trawlers from China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan already encroach on their local waters and use giant fishing nets to scoop up and deplete fish stocks under Pakistan’s policy of opening up its waters to international fleets."

On page 6 the reader will find a section titled "WTO threat". I copy here under its contents:

"WTO threat

Serious new threats to further liberalise fishing trade in developingcountries and open up fisheries services sectors to foreigncompetition are emerging in the currentWTO global trade talks.WTO negotiations underway on subsidies and non-agriculturalmarket access (or NAMA) could:

(i) completely eliminate all tariffs in the fish and fish productssector (as has been proposed by Canada, Iceland, New Zealand,Norway, Singapore and Thailand)

(ii) significantly reduce tariffs in all sectors, including fish and fishproducts, if an agressive tariff-cutting 'Swiss formula' is applied toall industrial and natural resource sectors (the extent of such cutsis currently the focus of negotiations within the WTO)

(iii) discipline fishing subsidies in poor countries through on-goingtalks in the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules.

While the NAMA and subsidies negotiations have beenhighlighted, new moves to effectively ‘lock in’ essentially irreversible commitments to liberalise ‘services incidental to fishing’are now also being made in the currentWTO GATSnegotiations."

Here is the link to the page of the website of Actionaid where the report is presented:

http://www.actionaid.org/main.aspx?PageID=573

USA: NGO's reactions to the December 2008 WTO text on fisheries subsidies

Going through the websites from NGOs reacting to the "roadmap" for further negotiations issued by the Chair of the WTO Negotiating Group on "Rules" on 19 December 2008 I found that only Oceana had issued a press release.

The author of the release, Courtney Sakay, stressed the importance of the WTO as fisheries subsidies’ negotiations as:

"one of the most important international efforts to stop global overfishing".

In a previous press release by Oceana (issued at the occasion of the 5th World Fisheries Congress in Yokohama in October 2008) the WTO Ms Sakai stated that:

"A key solution for addressing global overfishing is not found through traditional fisheries management, but through trade." and that "The science community has identified reducing subsidies as one of the most significant actions to combat global overfishing. The WTO negotiations provide the best opportunity to stop overfishing subsidies."

Here are the links to the aforementioned press releases by Oceana:

"WTO Members Urged to Fulfill their Commitment to Stop Overfishing Subsidies"

http://oceana.org/north-america/media-center/press-releases/press_release/0/923

"Oceana Reveals Unlikely Source for Addressing Global Overfishing to World’s Leading Scientists and Academia"

http://www.oceana.org/north-america/media-center/press-releases/all-press-releases/press_release/1/890/