U.S. representatives at the World Trade Organization (WTO) have shifted their position in ongoing negotiations to end harmful fishery subsidies around the world, marking a change that is likely to further complicate the next batch of talks on the subject that are set to start on 14 July.
Some WTO delegates have proposed two tiers to target harmful fishery subsidies – a first tier targeting larger subsidizing nations and a second tier comprising lower-income nations. The U.S. has shifted its position to oppose the two-tier system.
“They would prefer only one tier, with the same rule applying to all members,” a global policy advisor with an extensive background in sustainable development issues told SeafoodSource.
According to the advisor, U.S. representatives have also moved closer to India’s position in seeking stronger rules on subsidies that target distant-water fisheries specifically.
“They also want to adjust some of the special and differential treatment provisions for developing countries in order to keep the scope more limited,” the advisor said. “Additionally, they want more transparency regarding reflagged vessels and insist on maintaining the transparency provision regarding the use of forced labor. China is very sensitive about this.”
The WTO reached a deal on fishery subsidies in 2022 but, soon after, began pursuing a stricter deal aimed at eliminating subsidies that lead to overcapacity and overfishing in global fishing fleets.
The second deal has had a much tougher time reaching the finish line, so much so that Einar Gunnarsson, Iceland’s ambassador to the WTO and the chair of the negotiations seeking a second deal, has announced that he will retire from his chairing role at the July meeting to take up new duties for the Icelandic government.
India has been one of the more vociferous opponents of the negotiations, arguing that the draft text should calculate a country’s fishery subsidies per capita rather than in absolute terms. These arguments stalled negotiations last December.
Now, it appears the U.S. may also pose as an equally large barrier to getting a deal passed.
“The U.S. came back to the table in May with new instructions from the [U.S. Trade Representative], and its position is now that the text is not good enough, which led them to highlight a series of changes that they would like to see,” the advisor said.
Offering a glimpse of optimism, the advisor said India no longer being the main opponent could lead to new negotiating dynamics that may lead to concessions down the line.
“It obviously means less convergence at the moment, but it may also lead to a change of negotiating dynamics which may end up being positive because the “India vs. the rest” configuration has proven to be sterile,” the advisor said. “A key question is how much of a leading role the U.S. will be taking in this process. At the moment, there is not a lot of momentum. This will need to be generated again.”
The continued interest in the negotiations from the U.S. delegation also suggest that the U.S. is still at still engaged in WTO proceedings. Earlier this year, trade experts warned of the U.S. possibly leaving the organization, considering the U.S.’s launch of a global trade war and U.S. President Donald Trump’s seeming disdain for international collaboration
“We should not preclude a prospect where the U.S. will leave the WTO in the coming 18 months,” said Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, the director of the European Center for International Political Economy (ECIPE) and a former Swedish trade expert in WTO affairs. “On one hand, the U.S. outside of the system is a much better option than China being expelled and unhinged outside the system. On the other hand, the U.S. trade deficit is financing a lot of export-led growth around the world. Without that market access underwriting WTO rules, there would be no incentives for compliance among emerging markets.”
Other encouraging signs of the WTO maintaining include the 2022 fisheries agreement nearing enforcement, with only eight more countries required to sign on, according to Oceana Senior Analyst Daniel Skerritt. The 2022 agreement bars subsidies leading to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities and also bans subsidies for fishing overfished stocks.
“The ratifications are a positive sign that the global community still recognizes the value of multilateral agreements to tackle overfishing,” Skerritt said. “Ultimately, there’s no clear substitute for global rules on subsidies that fuel overfishing. That’s why seeing [the 2022 deal] come into force would be so important; it starts the countdown for [the next deal] and is a foundation to build on.”
Megan Jungwiwattanaporn, an officer within The Pew Charitable Trusts’ International Conservation Unit, agreed with Skerritt that the ratifications represent a positive step forward.
“Through this treaty, WTO members leveraged multilateralism to deliver a meaningful outcome of global importance,” she said. “Now, just three years later, the agreement is on the cusp of entering into force, with ratifications needed from only eight more WTO members before it begins to restore fish stocks and provide benefits to coastal communities worldwide that rely on a healthy ocean.”
Others are less confident in the power of the agreement to deliver change.
The fact that WTO member states self-report to the organization means the agreement “has no teeth whatsoever,” said Daniel Pauly, a professor and the project leader of the Sea Around Us initiative at the Institute for Oceans and Fisheries at the University of British Columbia.
“Countries can decide that no stocks are overfished. India published a whitepaper saying that 90 percent of stocks are in good shape; that’s a lie,” Pauly told SeafoodSource.
