Fisheries Subsidies

TN/RL/W/243
Page 1

FISHERIES SUBSIDIES

Communication from Argentina, Australia, Chile, Colombia, the United States,

New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Peru and Pakistan

The following communication, dated 6 October 2009, is being circulated at the request of the Delegations of Argentina, Australia, Chile, Colombia, the United States, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Peru and Pakistan.

______

1.We make this statement on behalf of the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Chile, Colombia, United States, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Peru and Pakistan.

2.It will be evident from this list that the Friends of Fish is a diverse grouping of developed and developing countries.

3.Despite our differences, we share common objectives: promoting sustainable fishing practices and eliminating harmful subsidies and providing effective and appropriate S&DT for developing countries.

4.In that context, we recall our previous statement on the prohibition and its data on the state of the world's fish stocks, only 20 per cent of which are moderately exploited or under-exploited, with perhaps a possibility of producing more.

Context

5.Mr. Chairman, we support your efforts to meet the mandate that has been given to us – to develop appropriate and effective S&DT for developing and least-developed members as an integral part of the negotiations, taking into account the importance of the sector to development priorities, poverty reduction, and livelihood and food security concerns.

6.To fulfill that mandate, we believe the question of appropriate and effective S&DT in the fisheries subsidies context should be treated holistically, recognizing the link between livelihoods, development and the health of global fish stocks.

7.We know that fisheries make a critical contribution to food security and an essential contribution to livelihoods and development.

8.We must also recognize the role that developing countries play in global fisheries – as outlined in the FAO 2008 State of the World Fisheries report – to ensure we do not undermine our mandate of addressing subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity.

9.The S&DT provisions negotiated for fisheries subsidies have the potential to have a significant impact on the world's remaining fish stocks, and on the ability of developing countries to promote sustainable development and reduce poverty. They should be crafted in light of the common responsibility we all share in respect of this global resource.

10.Mr. Chairman, we support the overall approach and structure of your text, while acknowledging that some elements require further work.

11.Given the context of your Roadmap process, this statement will articulate the factors that the Friends believe need to be weighed to achieve a balanced S&DT outcome.

Special and Differential Treatment: Objectives

12.Firstly, Mr Chairman, the S&DT provided in these negotiations should be effective; it should provide flexibility for developing countries to develop their fisheries where they can do so without threatening the health of fish stocks.

13.The flexibility provided should be responsible; it should be conditioned upon effectivefisheries management systems that are appropriate to the category of fishery in question and, where appropriate, follow international standards and practices with proven effectiveness.

14.The balance struck must be realistic; the conditionality should not be so stringent as to prevent developing countries from being able to access the flexibility provided. For example, fisheries management could involve simplified systems in certain circumstances such as those identified in Article III.2(a) of your draft.

15.Above all, the S&DT provided should be appropriate; it should not undermine our overall objective of addressing overcapacity and overfishing and improving the sustainability of the world's fisheries.

Special and Differential Treatment: Content

16.Mr Chairman, Friends agree that developing countries should have the necessary flexibility to support fishing activities through certain kinds of subsidies, within adequate parameters and subject to meaningful and effective conditionalities.

17.Your text on Article III is a very useful starting point. There are useful elements of potential categories of fisheries, and potential flexibilities, provided in your text. Other elements, including the use of certain static parameters, require more discussion.

18.We broadly support the flexibility provided in your text to least developed members although we acknowledge this requires further discussion. We note that the prohibition on subsidies to fishing vessels or fishing activity affecting unequivocally overfished stocks, and the prohibition on subsidies to vessels or enterprises engaged in illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing should also apply to all subsidies from all Members which would otherwise be available under S&DT.

19.Appropriate treatment of artisanal fisheries is a crucial issue for the livelihood of some of the poorest people in the world. For this reason, we are committed to finding a balance that addresses the legitimate development needs of artisanal fisheries in developing countries.

20.Flexibilities provided to LDCs and to artisanal fisheries in other developing countries should not open a door to circumvention of the general prohibition of subsidies we all are striving for.

21.The flexibility provided for all other developing Members should balance:

• the scope of each category of fishery (whether defined by type, scale, or geographic area of operation);
• the subsidies that may be provided to that category of fishery; and
• the fisheries management conditions that need to be satisfied.

22.In other words, the narrower each category of fishery, and the smaller the impact of the subsidies allowed for that fishery, the more relaxed the conditions should be.

23.This flexibility should in all cases be limited by the health of the fish stocks. In the case of some types of subsidies, it could be time-bound through the phasing-in of certain conditionalities or the phasing-out of flexibilities. The Friends also support S&DT taking the form of additional transitional periods in the implementation of obligations and appropriate technical assistance guidelines and criteria where a specific need is articulated.

24.Those subsidies that are exempted from the prohibition under S&DT should remain actionable under the existing SCM Agreement complemented by the disciplines set out in Article IV of the Chair's text.

Trade impacts

25.Lastly, Mr Chairman, we should also not lose sight of the trade impact of fisheries subsidies. Nothing in this annex should result in an SCM-minus outcome.

26.The Friends believe all subsidies provided under this annex should be subject to a notification obligation.

27.Mr Chairman, this statement is not an exhaustive statement of each Member's position in respect to S&DT. These will be articulated in our individual interventions.

______