The new Fisheries Subsidies Agreement at the WTO was concluded after considerable last minute drama, with members seeking their own language to be added or some elements being dropped from the text.
The UN SDG target 14.6 had given a mandate to prohibit by 2020 subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing and to eliminate subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, recognising that special and differential treatment (S&DT) to developing countries including LDC members has to be an integral part of the negotiations at the WTO.
India had high stakes in this Agreement as the country ranks sixth in the global marine capture/production and has over four million fishermen and a coastline of 8,118 km. The livelihood and food security concerns of our fishermen and the need for policy space to develop our own fisheries have been at the core of India’s demand for S&DT in these negotiations.
Three pillars
The Agreement lays down rules for prohibition of subsidies under two pillars — for IUU fishing and when fish stocks are overfished. The third pillar being negotiated was for prohibition of subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing (OCOF). Though an architecture for prohibition of subsidies under this pillar had also been developed by the members, which was reflected in a text released by the Chair of the Negotiating group on June 10, due to divergence of views on several aspects, the final text of the new Agreement mentions the third pillar as ‘Other Subsidies’.
Under this third pillar, subsidies for fishing in areas beyond national jurisdiction (beyond EEZ — exclusive economic zone) and beyond the area of competence of an RFMO (regional fisheries management organisations) are prohibited. RFMOs are inter-government organisations to oversee and regulate fishing in high seas. Thus for fishing within a member’s own jurisdiction there is no prohibition of subsidies as long as the stocks are not overfished. During the negotiations, India had sought S&DT of 25 years in the pillar of OCOF.
As the issue of overcapacity and overfishing does not arise within the EEZ, S&DT becomes irrelevant here. Therefore, a view being circulated that India has not secured the S&DT is not correct.
When further negotiations will be held for the disciplines in the pillar of OCOF, India will seek appropriate S&DT. The agreement also stipulates that if comprehensive disciplines are not adopted within four years of coming into force of the agreement, then the agreement can be terminated. However, in case the General Council decides to extend this period, then the agreement will continue to be in force.
India has secured S&DT in IUU and overfished pillar as a two-year transition period for fishing within the EEZ. The new agreement will come into force when two-thirds of WTO members ratify the new agreement. This process is going to take about two years. Thus, in effect, India has a four-year transition period to comply with all the catch reporting requirements and fisheries conservation and management measures of the IUU code of FAO. This should give comfort to Indian authorities for meeting the obligations of the new Agreement.
Another contentious issue in the negotiations was the discipline of non-specific fuel subsidies, which was pushed by India. In the final outcome, many members including the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Saudi Arabia opposed the inclusion of horizontal fuel subsidies in the disciplines as it could lead to complexities, and thus was dropped to arrive at consensus.
Overall, India has been able to secure its interests in the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement.
The writer is Professor at Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi