US: Fisheries subsidies negotiations alive and kicking… at the TPP

Several articles in the Japanese press report on Japan’s (and Canada’s) alleged positions in on fisheries subsidies rules in the framework of the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations.

Contrary to the WTO, where negotiating positions are made public by way of written submissions, there is little information about the exact content of the proposed rules and of the positions of the participating countries.

From the articles it appears that Japan is opposing proposals by key TPP players (US, New Zealand, Australia) to introduce far reaching prohibitions on fisheries subsidies. The online article of 9 June 2013 by “The Japan Times” mentions that:

"If the interdiction is implemented by the 11 current TPP member states, the government will call for its scope to be limited to subsidies that would unquestionably lead to overfishing, as the Japanese fishing industry heavily depends on this source of funding, according to the sources.

The government’s position also reflects concern the ban may include subsidies for the construction of ports and other infrastructure, hindering recovery efforts in coastal regions where the 2011 earthquake and tsunami ravaged local fishing industries.

But the issue is far from a done deal, as differences remain between countries including the United States, Australia and New Zealand, which are hoping to protect the environment and fishing resources through the measure, and other TPP countries that are still opposed.

Japan will become the 12th member of the TPP negotiations during the next round from July 15 to 25 in Malaysia, but it has yet to obtain official documents detailing the discussions to date. The TPP members aim to agree on a Pacific Rim trade liberalization framework by the end of the year.

The information the government has collected so far on the subsidy ban from participating countries points to the possibility of the measure being comprehensive with only a limited number of exceptions, such as subsidies for installing distress signal equipment, the sources said.

A number of officials in Tokyo fear such a ban among the TPP nations could hand the fishing industries of non-member countries such as China and South Korea the advantage over Japan’s."

It would be interesting to know whether the proposed prohibition apply in the same way to developed and developing TPP countries. At the WTO negotiations developing countries have consistently asked for wide ranging exceptions from subsidy prohibitions.

Also interesting to know is Canada’s position on this subject. The article refers to Canada as opposing the proposals by the US, New Zealand and Australia.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/09/business/japan-to-oppose-fishing-subsidies-ban-in-tpp-trade-negotiations/#.UfTzWo1kMa8

USA: fisheries subsidies underway for commercial fisheries "disaster"?

In previous pots on the US I referred to reports in the media New England ground fishermen problems. Well, now it seems that financial support could be underway, and this for up to 100 million USD.

Here is the link to NOAA's website with the official announcement:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2012/09/13_secretary_of_commerce_declares_disaster_in_northeast_groundfish_fishery.html

Some of the statements by Acting US Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank and by Dr. Jane Lubchenco are interesting:

Here what the acting Secretary said:

“Fishermen in the Northeast are facing financial hardships because of the unexpectedly slow rebuilding of fish stocks that have limited their ability to catch enough to make ends meet,” said Acting Secretary Blank. “The Department of Commerce has determined that the diminished fish stocks have resulted despite fishermen’s adherence to catch limits intended to rebuild the stocks, and I am making a fishery failure declaration so that Congress is able to appropriate funding that will mitigate some of the economic consequences of the reduced stocks and help build a sustainable fishery. The future challenges facing the men and women in this industry and the shore-based businesses that support them are daunting, and we want to do everything we can to help them through these difficult times.”

And here the NOAA Administrator:

“Fishing is the lifeblood of many coastal communities, providing jobs, a continuation of an historic tradition and culture, recreational opportunities for millions of anglers, and contributing to food security for the nation,” said Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator. “Finding solutions will not be easy, but by continuing to work together, we can have healthy fish stocks, profitable fisheries, and vibrant fishing communities.”

I was struck by these statements. Clearly the U.S. Administration is ready to help fishermen, including with subsidies, to help them go through the current difficulties. It is also clear that U.S. fisheries managers recognise the essential role of fishing in the life of coastal communities, and perhaps more importantly, in contribution to U.S. food security.

Among those politicians who have pushed hard to get the U.S. Administration to declare the fisheries “disaster” we find Senator John Kerry. He is part of the so called Massachusetts Congressional delegation. 

According to the press article Senator Kerry will seek 100 million USD funds for New England fishermen.

Hereunder are a few links to press articles on the disaster declaration and on the comments by fishermen and politicians.

http://www.mvtimes.com/2012/09/13/disaster-declaration-issued-ne-groundfish-industry-12495/

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/09/17/opinion/disaster-funds-must-be-used-to-improve-groundfishing-in-the-long-term/

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/topstories/x550071314/Patrick-other-governors-seek-fishing-aid/print

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/massachusetts/2012/09/13/feds-issue-disaster-declaration-for-northeast-groundfishing-industry/e8w0INF4dhjbta7H33SW1L/story.html

As final consideration: I wonder how such disaster relief will be treated in the ongoing Trans Pacific Partnerships negotiations, under the issues raised by some participants (including the U.S.) to address fisheries subsidies.

WTO: U.S. accuses China of not notifying (4 billion USD?) fisheries subsidies

Many stakeholders in the fisheries subsidies debate have complained about the lack of transparency, especially by countries that are Members to the WTO. In actual fact the WTO has rules that oblige its Members to notify all the subsidies they provide and the fisheries (and aquaculture) industry are no exception to this rule.

The U.S. seems to have embarked in a "transparency" crusade, fighting those WTO countries (and there are many!) that do not fulfil their notifications obligations.

So, at the rencently concluded "Trade Policy Review" of China, Michael Punke, U.S. Ambassador to the WTO, said the following when delivering his statement on the review:

In addition, China has failed to notify large fisheries subsidies, even though China is the world’s greatest fishing power and the Secretariat’s Report cites a study indicating that the Chinese Government’s support of this industry has exceeded $4 billion per year.  The United States expects China, commensurate with its fishing status, to notify all of its fisheries subsidies promptly and to make a significant contribution in the WTO’s ongoing work toward ambitious and effective disciplines on fisheries subsidies.

Readers will find the full text of Ambassador's Punke here:

http://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/06/12/u-s-statement-on-the-trade-policy-review-of-china/

UN: fisheries subsidies at Rio +20

Fisheries subsidies negotiations might seem "dead" or, if you are more optimistic, in deep coma at the WTO (I will come back on this) but they seem to be "alive" in the framework of the UN's Rio +20 conference.

In a BBC website I found the following text:

"Japan and the US have tried to delete language on ending agricultural and fisheries subsidies. Canada wants fossil fuel subsidies to end only when they are inefficient and cause "wasteful" consumption." 

Here is the link to the BBC's Science and Environment news page with the text.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17898323

USA: fisheries subsidies and bilateral - plurilateral trade agreements

Apparently, the US is clearly making the case for including fisheries subsidies disciplines in trade agreements with other countries. Ambassador Demetrios J Marantis, Deputy US Trade Representative, was quoted to say, at at a press conference in Brunei Darussalamon on 27 February 2012:

"One of the problems that we face in the world of environmental conservation is subsidies that have a result of depleting fishery resources and so as part of the TPP, we're working on ways to discipline fisheries subsidies to ensure that they are compatible with environmental conservation"

Here is a link to an online article with the above quote:

http://www.brudirect.com/index.php/Local-News/tpp-membership-turns-brunei-into-attractive-destination-for-investors.html

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

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

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

Recently I came a across a couple of articles in the online edition of East-coast newspapers. The first article, posted at Southcoasttofday.com, dated 13 October 2011, is titled “Senators say bill seeks to protect fishermen, taxpayers”. It is about a bill co-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 catch shares programme in the ground fish industry. The newspaper quotes the following 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, which could push small fishermen out of business completely." 

In the article it is stated that the cost runs from 6 to 12 million USD per year. The full statement 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 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA) Administrator Ms. Jane Lubchenco answered questions from Senators on the implementation of the catch shares programme in the East Coast.  The article mentions Ms Lubchenco pledge to continue to subsidise the at-sea monitoring cost through April 2013.

There is also a reference to reference to a letter by Ms Lubchenco, in response 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 to the impacts of the catch share regimen on the groundfishery. This “disaster declaration” can trigger the payment of subsidies to fishermen.

Here is a link to Senators Kerry’s webpage where readers can find the requests addressed 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 where readers can find the written statements related to the field hearing in Boston on 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:

USA: subsidies for the shrimp processing industry in Louisiana

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"

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".

USA: fisheries subsidies and budget crisis

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.