As members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) engage in discussions to address subsidies contributing to overfishing and overcapacity, striking a balance between sustainability and development is crucial to ensure the outcomes benefit communities and developing countries.
Following the inability to reach an acceptable agreement at the 13th Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi earlier this year, negotiations continue in Geneva, with General Council meetings being seen as vital for concluding the talks. However, the haste to finalize an agreement has led to a text that appears to grant leniency to the largest subsidizers and those historically responsible for overfishing.
Concerns about the current approach surfaced during a recent WTO Public Forum, where the Norwegian Trade Campaign and the World Forum of Fish Workers and Fish Harvesters presented. In a panel discussion, the need for an impactful outcome that bans subsidies for overfishing and overcapacity while promoting development, livelihoods, and sustainability was emphasized.
Representatives from developing countries voiced their concerns, particularly those with extensive coastlines and significant populations of artisanal fishers. Anisa Farida, First Secretary of the Indonesian Mission, stressed that any obligations from the agreement must not jeopardize Indonesia’s food security or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) the nation is striving to achieve.
The commitments should enhance the existing ‘best-effort’ approach to limiting subsidies for distant-water fishing and should reflect the unique circumstances of countries like Indonesia instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach based solely on aggregate subsidy levels. Such a narrow approach disregards critical factors such as Exclusive Economic Zone size, population, and coastline length.
Additionally, the ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibility’ principle, which assigns greater responsibility to those most accountable for issues, is mentioned in the agreement but is inadequately reflected through varying levels of notification obligations that fail to identify the true culprits of overfishing.
At the grassroots level, the challenges faced by fishers in sustaining their livelihoods may worsen without effective measures to curb overfishing by large fleets, as indicated by Alieu Sowe, National Coordinator for the Gambian Fisher Folks Association, who criticized the limited flexibilities for developing countries and the continuation of established power dynamics in ocean governance.
Small-scale fishers are advocating for more robust measures to tackle industrial fishing subsidies and enhanced support for sustainable practices, which are currently lacking in the proposed text. The ongoing negotiations have yet to adequately address their primary objectives amidst a complex political landscape.
Helene Bank, a special adviser to the Norwegian Trade Campaign, urged the WTO to honor its obligations stemming from United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, emphasizing the need to target those fleets and fishing techniques responsible for overfishing and overcapacity.
Despite widespread calls to address the issue of large fleets exploiting high seas, India has been critiqued for allegedly “blocking” an agreement during the 13th Ministerial Conference. This persistent dynamic reflects the ongoing power struggles within the WTO, with figures like Papua New Guinea’s Trade Minister Richard Maru criticizing foreign fishing nations for resisting the elimination of harmful fisheries subsidies.
For negotiations to yield meaningful results, the outcome must adhere to several existing international principles. SDG 14.6 outlines the framework for these negotiations, while commitments related to food security and development must not disproportionately burden small-scale fishers and developing nations. Upholding the principle of “Common But Differentiated Responsibility” is vital, as neglecting to target the primary contributors to overfishing could result in an agreement that undermines globally recognized sustainability efforts.
Current proposals for special and differential treatment—which acknowledge the limitations of developing countries and call for reduced commitments—risk altering these essential principles. Least Developed Countries (LDCs), such as Bangladesh and Myanmar, may encounter significant difficulties in meeting obligations as they transition out of LDC status.
There is also a risk that small-scale fishers could be caught up in restrictive measures that undermine their access to government support despite their minimal role in overfishing.
While disappointment lingers over the inability to finalize outcomes during recent conferences, this moment of pause might offer a chance for reflection. Many participating countries express the desire for stricter prohibitions on major fleets, presenting an opportunity for negotiators to reach a satisfactory agreement rather than one merely tolerable.
Thus, as discussions at the WTO progress, stakeholders are encouraged to reassess ineffective elements of the negotiations and realign efforts with the previously mentioned principles to achieve a fair deal that targets those undermining sustainability while supporting the development aspirations of communities and developing nations.