As discussions among World Trade Organization (WTO) members continue regarding subsidies that lead to overfishing and overcapacity, the emphasis on balancing sustainability and development is critical to ensuring that any agreements benefit communities and developing nations.
Following a lack of consensus at the 13th Ministerial Conference in February in Abu Dhabi, negotiations have resumed in Geneva, with General Council meetings now seen as the likely venue for finalizing talks.
However, the urgency to reach an agreement has resulted in proposals that favor the largest subsidizers, effectively releasing them from any real commitments regarding overfishing.
Concerns about the current negotiation approach were raised during a session at the recent WTO Public Forum hosted by the Norwegian Trade Campaign and the World Forum of Fish Workers and Fish Harvesters. Panelists emphasized the necessity for a substantive outcome that not only prohibits subsidies for overfishing and overcapacity but also promotes development, livelihoods, and environmental sustainability.
Developing nations, particularly those with lengthy coastlines and significant artisanal fishing populations, have voiced their worries about the inequitable burdens placed upon them by the proposed agreements. Anisa Farida, Indonesia’s First Secretary at the WTO, noted that the resulting obligations should not compromise Indonesia’s food security or its aims for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
She argued that the commitments need to enhance the existing ‘best-endeavor’ strategy aimed at eliminating subsidies for distant-water fishing while accurately representing the circumstances of countries like Indonesia, rather than adopting a generic approach based solely on aggregate subsidy levels. Such a strategy overlooks important factors like the size of Exclusive Economic Zones, population dynamics, and coastline lengths.
The idea of ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibility,’ which mandates that those most accountable for overfishing should shoulder the greatest responsibilities in solving the problem, has been discussed, but critics claim it is inadequately represented in the current proposals, which prioritize notification obligations over addressing core issues.
At the grassroots level, the challenges for small-scale fishers are intensifying as the inability to regulate large fleets continues under these proposed frameworks. Alieu Sowe, Coordinator for the Gambian Fisher Folks Association, pointed out the limited flexibility for developing nations within the text and the continuation of existing power dynamics over marine resources.
Small-scale fishers are urging for more effective measures to diminish harmful industrial fishing subsidies and for greater support towards sustainable small-scale fishing practices which are lacking in the current proposals. As these fishers confront numerous complex challenges, the politics surrounding the negotiations have not adequately addressed their primary concerns.
Helene Bank, a special advisor to the Norwegian Trade Campaign, urged the WTO to adhere to the obligations laid out in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, and to effectively tackle the fleets and fishing methods contributing to overfishing and overcapacity.
Despite a unified call from many nations, particularly in the Pacific and African regions, to focus on large fishing fleets in high seas, India has once again been accused of obstructing consensus during the 13th Ministerial Conference.
This ongoing struggle reflects the power dynamics interwoven in WTO negotiations, with Papua New Guinea’s Trade Minister Richard Maru highlighting the need for major foreign fishing nations to take responsibility and eliminate harmful subsidies to pave the way for a consensus.
To achieve meaningful progress in negotiations, the outcomes must adhere to established international principles. While Sustainable Development Goal 14.6 provides vital guidance for discussions, the risks to food security and sustainable development by disproportionately burdening small-scale fishers are significant.
Furthermore, maintaining the principle of “Common But Differentiated Responsibility” in international sustainability agreements is essential; failing to target those most responsible for overfishing could result in the WTO endorsing an agreement that contradicts established sustainability protocols.
Proposals related to special and differential treatment acknowledge the constraints faced by developing nations, yet some of the least developed countries might encounter the most significant hurdles in adhering to these obligations, particularly those soon to graduate from LDC status, such as Bangladesh and Myanmar.
The draft also threatens to inadvertently classify small-scale fishers under prohibitive regulations, limiting their access to governmental support, despite their minimal impact on overfishing.
As the WTO talks progress, feelings of disappointment linger following the failure to reach agreement in February’s conference and again at the General Council in July. Nevertheless, this ongoing dialogue creates an opportunity for improvement.
Rather than settling for measures that are merely acceptable, negotiators now have the chance to create an agreement that meets the expectations of all stakeholders. This moment allows for a reassessment of ineffective approaches and a realignment of negotiations towards collaborative outcomes that promote sustainability while enhancing the development prospects of communities in developing nations.