A feeling of progress on how to tackle the negative effects of fisheries subsidies was apparent at both the 28 April meeting of the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules and the UNEP Workshop on Fisheries Subsidies and Sustainable Management, held from 26-27 April. New Zealand, who presented a new submission to the Group, noted a decrease in the "polarisation" of positions in this area, while many delegates at the UNEP meeting believe that the debate had moved to a point where the question was no longer whether but how fisheries subsidies should be dealt with.

New Zealand proposes broad subsidy prohibitions

In its new submission (TN/RL/W/154), New Zealand -- a member of the "Friends of the Fish" group at the WTO -- calls for a broad prohibition of subsidies that are "liable to contribute to overcapacity or overfishing or other trade distortions". Such an impact could possibly be measured by taking "reduction of fixed or variable costs or enhancement of revenues or incomes as basic tests" within new rules to be developed as part of the Doha mandate. New Zealand acknowledges the need for certain exceptions, which could be part of a negotiated "negative list" to exempt environmentally friendly and other subsidies. Noting a decrease in "polarisation" of Members' positions, New Zealand called on the proponents of controlling fisheries subsidies to work on a unified proposal.

The proposal was supported by the other members of the "Friends of Fish", including Argentina, Chile, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the US and the Philippines, as well as Australia, Thailand and Pakistan. The EC, while supporting the aim of reducing overcapacity and overfishing, regarded New Zealand's approach as "brutal", stressing that programmes of developing countries and poorer communities in the EU would need to be exempt. Japan -- who along with Korea has generally opposed dealing with fisheries subsidies at the WTO -- rejected the approach as "extreme" and going beyond the Doha mandate.

UNEP meeting highlights need to move towards practical approaches

Several delegates at the UNEP event pointed to a change in the fisheries subsidies debate towards a less-polarised, more constructive exchange. They noted a growing acknowledgement that subsidies can be one of various factors contributing to the worldwide decline in fish stocks, which needed to be dealt with within a broader fisheries management plan that could also include environmentally beneficial support measures. They stressed the urgency of moving from analytical debates towards the practical identification of rules. Participants also highlighted the interdisciplinary nature of the problem, which required enhanced cooperation and coherence at all levels of policy-making.

Moreover, several speakers noted the need for greater transparency and access to information on subsidies programmes, raising the possibility of better using or expanding current notification requirements at the WTO. Some expressed concerns over how to take into account broader fisheries management issues in multilateral trade negotiations without going beyond the scope and mandate of the WTO. One possibility could be to focus primarily on those subsidies that are found to be harmful irrespective of the fisheries management context while relying on objective, non-controversial evidence of fisheries conditions for subsidies whose impacts depends on the context in which they are applied. The need to take into account the special interests and needs of developing countries was repeatedly stressed, including resource and capacity constraints.

ICTSD reporting; "U.S. signals support for New Zealand proposal for ban on fisheries subsidies," WTO REPORTER, 29 April 2004.