• UGI USER
  • Sep 11, 2023
  • 24 Likes
  • 0 Comments

Q. While the WTO seeks elimination of subsidies that contribute to IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing, there are multiple concerns around it. Discuss while highlighting India’s stand on the issue.

Approach:

  • Introduce the answer with the recent context of the WTO meet.
  • Substantiate with challenges of how the recent call can affect developing nations, including India with an adequate line of arguments.
  • Conclude accordingly.

Answer:

  • As per FAO, IUU fishing activities are responsible for the loss of 11–26 million tonnes of fish each year, which is estimated to have an economic value of $10–23 billion.
  • It also reports that the Global fisheries subsidies are of the range $14 to 54 billion per year, and has contributed greatly to the overcapacity and overfishing.
  • It argued that these subsidies are being used to spend taxpayers’ money on industrial boats, which degrade the environment and destroy the food security and livelihoods of vulnerable coastal communities.
  • Hence, such IUU Fishing subsidies are not sustainable, and need to be changed.

The WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies were launched in 2001 at the Doha Ministerial Conference.

  • Its mandate was elaborated in 2005 at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. In 2015, the declared 14th goal of SDG 30 focussed upon trade-related targets such as target 14.4 (regulating illegal unregulated or unreported – IUU – fishing activities) and 14.6 (prohibiting certain forms of fisheries subsidies).
  • To speed up the process, it was decided in the 2017 Buenos Aires Conference to reach an agreement over fishing subsidy in the next (12th) meet. However, the meet has been indefinitely postponed due to COVID-19.

India supports elimination of irrational subsidies, but believes that the WTO draft agreements in its present form is not balanced.

Its demand include-

  • Food Security concerns: Unlike rich nations, India’s subsidy amounts are minimal and are given only to small and marginal fishermen.
  • Common but Differentiated Responsibility: The negotiations should be based on the Polluter Pays principle. Therefore, whoever has exploited higher, should pay the higher cost, take upfront responsibility and give time and space to those who have still not exploited these resources.
  • Special and Differential Treatment: India wants that fishing activities in territorial waters (12nm from the seashore) should be completely out of the ambit of the agreement, while adequate time should be given to implement commitments of the agreement in EEZs (200 nm).

For this, a special and differential treatment (S&DT) be given to the developing countries depending upon their development needs, developing capacities, and time to implement these disciplines.

  • For instance: India needs a 7 years S&D transition period for the U&U part of the IUU in the EEZ. Countries whose share in global fishing is less than 1%, should be exempted from the proposed restrictions.
  • Distant water fishing: Countries engaged in distant water fishing should stop giving subsidies for 25 years in fishing areas beyond their exclusive economic zones (200 nautical miles). Also, the developing countries not engaged in distant water fishing should be exempt from overfishing subsidy prohibitions for 25 years.

The current draft text of WTO considers following aspects:

  • It does not specify the transition period of 25 years for exempting some developing countries from subsidy cuts as proposed by India.
  • It has included a ‘de minimis’ (ceiling) criteria of 0.7% for a country’s share of global fishing.
  • Developing countries whose share of global fishing falls below this minimum level will be exempted from subsidy cuts.
  • The exemption time limit of 5-year imposed in earlier drafts has also been taken away.

India accounts for higher than the suggested threshold at about 4% of global fishing annually. To ensure that it has enough policy space to resolve food security concerns, India needs to take a diplomatic stand with similarly placed countries and press for a 25-years transition exemption from the subsidy cuts.