CHINA: interesting paper on Chinese fisheries subsidies

Here is a link to a "Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) Secretariat paper" titled:

"Fisheries Subsidies and incentives provided by the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) to its Distant Water Fishing (DWF) Industry"

The title is self-explanatory.

 http://www.ffa.int/system/files/FFA%20Secretariat%20Paper%20-%20Fisheries%20Subsidies%20and%20Incentives%20provided%20by%20the%20PRC%20to%20its%20DWF%20Industry.pdf

RUSSIA: negotiations on a fisheries agreement with Mauritania

Here is another Russian fisheries agreement: one with Mauritania.

The negotiations seem to be influenced by the EU-Mauritania fisheries agreement.

Here is a link on the Russia-Mauritania negotiations and the threat, by the Head of Russia's Federal Mr. Krainy, of a WTO complaint against the EU because of unfair competition.

According to "The Voice of Russia" (see link to article) the complaint will first go through an internal Russian process, or as put in the article: 

"Now Russia's complaint will be considered at the country’s Economic Development Ministry to be later discussed between all sides involved. If no solution is made at this stage, the petition will be submitted directly to the WTO."

I wonder what effect could have such a WTO challenge on coastal states that have fisheries agreements with the EU, Russia or other nations with distant water fleets.

 http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_22/Russia-complains-over-unfair-competition-in-fishing-industry-905/

RUSSIA: fisheries agreement with Morocco

The Russian Federation, now a WTO Member, has renewed a fisheries agreement with Morocco.

It seems that this is the 6th agreement signed between Morocco and the Russian Federation, since 1992.

 

Here a few links on the renewal of the Agreement:

http://www.infosamak.org/english/news.cfm?id=415

http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/02/78422/morocco-russia-sign-new-fisheries-agreement/

http://www.maroc.ma/PortailInst/An/Actualites/Morocco+Russia+sign+new+fisheries+agreement.htm

RUSSIA: fisheries agreements in Africa

Russian vessels have been active in Africa for many years, and they still are!

Here is an interesting article titled : "Russia to swap fish for students in West Africa", publised in "Russia beyond the headlines".

Here is the link to the article:

http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/12/06/russia_to_swap_fish_for_students_in_west_africa_20851.html

NZ: interesting presentation by governement official on WTO negotiations

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

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

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".

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.

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

I found this interesting video in YOUTUBE.

I recommend you to watch it.

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: more on "farmland agreements"

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

Here is the link to the aforementioned web page:

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

WTO: after fisheries agreements, "farmland agreements"?

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

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

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

Here is a link to an article on this:

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

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

http://farmlandgrab.org/

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

PHILIPPINES: fisheries agreement with Papua New Guinea

In a my post of 18/01/09 titled “Philippines: seeking to conclude fisheries agreements with Palau and PNG” I was referring to the exploratory talks that the Philippine officials where conducting with the aforementioned two countries, with a view of concluding fisheries agreements.

Late July 2009 a number of press articles have echoed the signature by the Phiippines and Papua New Guinea of a “fisheries cooperation agreement”.

I could not find the exact contents of the agreement on either government’s website though the press mentioned the that the agreements will cover the following areas:

• access to Philippino vessels to PNG’s Exclusive Economic Zone, “subject to certain conditions”.
  
• Philipines’ assistance to PNG in aquaculture development and in providing technical assistance in the development of production enhancement and post-harvest infrastructure facilities such as fish ports and auction-type fish markets.
  
• a mutual arrangement and recognition of the inspection protocols and procedures for the fishing/freezer vessels flying Papua New Guinea and Philippine flags and unloading catch in both countries and/or exporting to the European Union.
  

I deduct that the recently concluded interim Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the EU and PNG has played a major role in the speed whereby the bilateral fisheries arrangements have been negotiated. Thanks to the interim EPA, PNG tuna canners will be allowed to use raw material harvested by non-EU vessels and export the processed product at zero duty to the EU.

I wonder whether one of the components of the agreement, i.e. the Philippines’ compensation package provided as “in kind” assistance to PNG fishing and aquaculture industries, could be branded as “tied development aid”.

Furthermore I am very curious to see how the EU sanitary and health authorities react to the third component, i.e. mutual recognition of inspection protocols and procedures as agreed between the Philippines and PNG.

Here the link to a press article about the fisheries agreement:

http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/economy/13625-rp-papua-new-guinea-sign-agreements-to-implement-fisheries-cooperation.html

Here is an official press release:

http://www.cagayandeoro.da.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=309:rp-png-signs-implementing-arrangements-on-fisheries-cooperation&catid=41:article&Itemid=18

And here an EU press release about the conclusion of the interim EPA with PNG

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1210&type=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

GREENLAND: USD 93 million bailout for "Royal Greenland"

Royal Greenland, a company employing more than two thousand people and fully owned by Greenlands Home Rule Governement has received a bailout package of DKK (Danish Kroner) 500 million (USD 93 million).

The new government in Greenland has injected DKK 250 million (USD 46.5 million) in equity and granted a soft loan for a similar amount to the ailing, 100% publicly owned company. Royal Greenland is a large producer of shrimps.

It seems that the Home Rule Parliament agreed with the package on Sunday 28 June 2009.

An interesting feature of Greenland is that Denmark represents this territory in many international fora. With regard to the WTO, it appears that a Greenlandic Delegation joins the Danish Delegation at Ministerial meetings.

It is also worth noting that Greenland has a fisheries agreement with the EU. I copy here an extract from the information available at the EU website on this agreement:

"The Fisheries Partnership Agreement concluded between the Community and Greenland covers the period 1.1.2007 – 31.12.2012 with a financial contribution [annually] of 15 847 244 € including a financial reserve of 1 540 000 € for additional capelin and/or cod quotas and 3 261 449 € for defining and implementing a sectoral fisheries policy in Greenland.

This fisheries agreement allows Community vessels mainly from Germany, Denmark, UK, Spain, Portugal to fish in Greenland waters and is the only FPA concluded with a non-ACP States."

Here is a link to an article on the Royal Greenland bailout:

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/46021-on-the-path-to-self-rule.html

And here a link to the EU's website with details about the EU-Greenland fisheries agreement:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/external_relations/bilateral_agreements/greenland_en.htm

Philippines: seeking to conclude fisheries agreements with Palau and PNG

The termination of the country’s bilateral fishing access with Indonesia that lapsed two years ago has had negative consequences for Philippino companies.

Indeed, the five-year bilateral fishing agreement between the Philippines and Indonesia ended in December 2005, but was extended until the end of 2006. Under that bilateral fishing agreement, Philippine tuna fleets were allowed to "catch tuna and tuna-like species within the Indonesian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). It provided licenses to the Philippines for 75 catcher vessels, 150 fish carriers, 20 long liners, 300 light boats, and 10 single purse seiners, as well as allowed access to the Pacific and Indian Ocean areas of the Indonesian EEZ. The same pact also provided offloading and re-supply access to 10 Indonesian ports.

Government officials and businessmen from the Philippines are now approaching Palau and Papua New Guinea to explore the possibility of concluding fisheries agreements to relocate the fleet that can not longer benefit from the Indonesia agreement.

It is interesting to see that government officials ae involved in the search for a replacement for the Indonesia arrangement. Does this mean that the agreements with Palau and PNG, if any, will be more than granting private licenses to Philippino fishermen?

Here is a link to an official press release (Philippine Information Agency) dated 6 January 2009 on this matter:

http://www.pia.gov.ph/default.asp?m=12&fi=p090106.htm&no=44

Fisheries agreement between SENEGAL and MAURITANIA

Fisheries agreements have been (and continue to be) one of the "hot issues" at the WTO DDA negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

Those WTO Members that view these agreements as containing a "subsidy element" have made proposals to discipline those agreements concluded between a developed and a developing Member of the WTO, while granting an exception for those agreements concluded between developing Member countries.

An example of the latter sort of agreement is the one between SENEGAL and MAURITANIA. The link hereunder corresponds to an article (in French) published in March of 2008 by the Agence de Presse Africaine.

http://www.apanews.net/apa.php?article58792