India’s Fisheries Proposal

India has upended the ongoing Doha fisheries subsidies negotiations at the World Trade Organization, by circulating a comprehensive proposal that seeks some fundamental changes in addressing the overcapacity and overfishing subsidies of big subsidizers who cause the depletion of global fish stocks.

The seven-page restricted unofficial room document issued by India calls for enhanced special and differential treatment provisions in line with the Paris Climate Change central provision of common but differentiated responsibilities.

The Indian proposal, seen by our correspondent, comes in the midst of the latest crucial fish week negotiations on OCOF disciplines.

Big subsidizers like the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China may oppose the Indian proposal because it aims to shift the burden of obligations onto those who depleted global fish stocks, said an African trade envoy who asked not to be quoted.

India says its proposal is in line with the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, which seeks to “achieve a comprehensive agreement on fisheries subsidies, including through further disciplines on certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment (S&DT) for developing country Members and least developed country Members.”

The proposal is structured in five elements. They include 1) horizontal issues-provisions under scope; 2) OCOF pillar-disciplines; 3) OCOF pillar-CBDR-RC and exploiter (polluter) pay principles; 4) OCOF pillar and S&DT elements and 5) notification and transparency.

Under the scope of the proposal, India calls for the inclusion of “fuel subsidies, whether specific or non-specific” since they have the same harmful impact on the marine environment and ocean
sustainability.

India says when “dealing with the sustainability of fish stocks based on an environmental perspective, the market distortion principle will not apply, and the scope of prohibition cannot be
limited to only specific fuel subsidies and leave out non-specific fuel subsidies.” Therefore, India said the “inclusion of Non-specific fuel subsidies under the scope for the comprehensive agreement is proposed.”

The Indian proposal argues that “Government-to-Government payments under fisheries access agreements must be treated as subsidies.

The previous fisheries chair as well as the current chair have not treated government to government payments as subsidies, in what appears to be a specific carveout handed out to one of the big subsidizers – the European Union, said negotiators familiar with the discussions.

While recognizing “the fact that such access agreements/arrangements can help some Members generate revenues, especially in some developing countries including LDCs,” India maintains that “further transfer, by a payer Member Government, of access rights that it has acquired from another Member Government to fish within the jurisdiction of such other Member should be treated as subsidies within the meaning of this Agreement.”

“Excluding subsidies arising from the further transfer of access rights is like a blank cheque to
distant water fishing nations that fish in other Member’s EEZ /high seas,” India said.

According to India, “Such exclusion can easily circumvent the subsidy disciplines by entering into bilateral or circuitous agreements and avoid recovery of subsidy paid to commercial
players.”

India says “There can be practical challenges in the implementation of disciplines and prohibitions of subsidies in the scenario of non-target fishing practices undertaken by the fishers in tropical waters operating with non-selective gears.”

In the face of practical challenges, India proposes that “the disciplines on overfished stocks (Article 4) under this Agreement shall not apply to multi-species fishing and fishing-related activities within the EEZ of coastal states by fishers using such non-selective fishing gears.”

Radical Departure
Coming to the critical OCOF pillar disciplines, India radically departs from the list-based approach followed by the previous and the current chair, underscoring the need to follow “the
effects-based approach.”

Consequently, India wants disciplines to be decided on the basis of affirmative determination “by the coastal member, or a Regional Fisheries Management Organization/ Agreement (RFMO/A)
concerned i.e., there should be a determination concerning the existence of subsidies contributing to overfishing and overcapacity, subject to the outcome of such determination, the subsidies should be disciplined.”

An affirmative determination approach, according to India, must take into consideration the effects before the disciplines are imposed.

However, India says, “notwithstanding the affirmative determination discipline, a Member may grant or maintain subsidies if it implements measures to maintain the stock or stocks in the
relevant fishery or fisheries at a biologically sustainable level (as defined below in the section on Proposal).”

India says that since the “Agreement pertains to sustainability of fish stocks which is an environmental concept that relates to the management and conservation of fish populations and ecosystems, there is an urgent need “to incorporate the principles of ‘Exploiter (Polluter) Pays’ and ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities- Respective Capabilities’ and aims to bring balance to the text by placing higher responsibilities on distant water fishing nations (DWFN) who have heavily contributed to the current situation of overexploitation of fisheries resources, by imposing a moratorium on subsidies provided by them for 25 years.”

Moratorium
Essentially, India is calling for a moratorium on subsidies by big subsidizers in order to bring down their OCOF subsidies.   According to India, “the definition of DWFN (distant water fishing nations) is based on the concept of FAO major fishing areas. A cut-off date of 17 June 2022 is proposed for identifying the list of such nations engaged in DWF, this date being the date of the landmark Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies.”

Further, “to address the issue of overcapacity and overfishing,” India says, “it is but natural to address the root cause of the problem through the reduction of capacities.”

Accordingly, India proposed that DWFN reduce their capacities in a calibrated manner.

According to India, “In pursuance of the CBDR-RC and Polluter Pays principles, DWFN as of 17 June 2022 needs to take a proportionate burden since such nations have historically allo
fishers to exploit not only their jurisdictional waters but also beyond it.” India wants “DWFN as on 17 June 2022, (a) based on an affirmative determination made by the relevant RFMO/A, reduce its distant water fishing capacity by [X] percent every year till
overcapacity and/or overfishing persists; and (b) reduce its fishing capacity in the High Seas, in areas not governed by an RFMO/A, by [X] percent every year.”

India says, “that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment (S&DT) are needed inter-alia to protect the livelihoods of poor fishermen and address food security concerns.”

To address the food security concerns and to protect the livelihoods of poor fishers, India has called for “a permanent carve-out for the category of low-income or resource-poor or livelihood fishing and fishing related activities is proposed.”

More importantly, India says “Such a carve-out will be irrespective of any geographical limitation or the type of activity engaged by such fishers.”

S&DT
The determination of “what would constitute low-income or resource-poor or livelihood fishing and fishing related activities should be decided by the national authorities,” India says. India argues that “Appropriate and effective SDT is required to ensure policy space to those Members who do not have the fiscal space or administrative or technical capacity to have their own fleet at present, even though they have a good catchment area.”

According to India, “Such countries face competing demands on their limited financial, technical and administrative resources and in the process, never get to develop their fishing sector.”

Therefore, India maintained that “the prohibition under Article 5.1 shall not apply to subsidies granted to maintained by developing country Members that are not engaged in distant water
fishing as of 17th June 2022 for fishing or fishing-related activities in the area and for species under the competence of a relevant RFMO/A for a maximum period of twenty-five years after the entry into force of this Agreement.”

India says “Fishing activities, which predominantly exploit domestic fish stocks in developing country Members' EEZ (22 to 370 Kms) should be exempted from future disciplines. The sovereign Member should exercise its rights up to its EEZ. The sovereign rights of the coastal states up to their EEZs have been emphasized in some of the recent proposals.”

Lastly, “for enhancing transparency, it is proposed that Members engaged in DWFN shall declare details of (I) fishing vessels engaged in fishing or fishing related activities in the distant
waters (ii) the RFMO/A where it is a member/ contracting party and has engaged in distant water fishing and the names and details of the High Seas where it has engaged in distant water fishing.”