FISHERIES SUBSIDIES - ECONOMY

FISHERIES SUBSIDIES - ECONOMY

NEWS: India emphasized the need to discipline fisheries subsidies based on per capita subsidies instead of aggregate figures.

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

Aggregate subsidies fail to capture disparities in how financial assistance is distributed among individual fishers.

• Disparity Highlighted:

·         India’s subsidies per fisher are $35 per year.

·         Some historical subsidizers provide subsidies as high as $76,000 per fisher per year.

Limitations of Aggregate Subsidy Metrics

• Broad Overview Only:

·         Aggregate subsidies give a total view of financial support but do not reveal distribution per fisher.

• Obscured Disparities:

·         Aggregate figures can hide stark differences in subsidy intensity across countries.

·         Metrics based on subsidies per fisher offer more granular insights into individual financial assistance.

India's Case for an Intensity-Based Approach

• Rationale for Reform:

·         Using aggregate subsidy values may wrongly assign responsibility to countries with smaller fishing sectors.

·         Countries with a high intensity of subsidization but small absolute subsidy figures could still contribute to unsustainable practices.

• Proposed Metric:

·         A per fisher subsidy metric should be the basis for imposing rigorous disciplines.

·         It ensures that responsibility is proportional to actual impact on over-capacity and over-fishing.

Comparison Between India and Historical Subsidizers

• India’s Fishing Practices:

·         Average subsidy per fisher: $35 per year.

·         Average catch per fisher: 480 kg per year (~40 kg per month).

·         Characterized as subsistence fishing, unlikely to contribute to over-capacity or over-fishing.

• Historical Subsidizers:

·         Subsidies per fisher: Up to $76,000 per year.

·         Average catch per fisher: 237,130 kg per year.

·         Practices such as distant-water fishing are heavily subsidized and have a significant ecological impact.

Global Context and Impact of Subsidies

• Distant-Water Fishing:
• Major WTO members such as the EU, Japan, Norway, the US, and China provide substantial subsidies for distant-water fishing.
• Over-Fishing and Subsidies:
• UNCTAD 2022 Report Findings:
• Over one-third of global marine fish stocks are at biologically unsustainable levels.
• Over-fishing and subsidies result in $88.9 billion in forgone net benefits annually.
• Existing WTO Agreements:
• Members agreed to prohibit subsidies contributing to:
• Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
• Over-fished stocks.
• Many members have yet to ratify this agreement.
• Negotiation Challenges:
• Discussions are ongoing to curb subsidies that contribute to over-fishing and over-capacity.

India’s Key Arguments for Reform

• Ecological Sustainability:

·         Subsidy intensity (per fisher) should be the focus to ensure responsible resource use.

·         Subsistence fishing like India’s is less likely to harm marine ecosystems.

• Equitable Discipline:

·         Current subsidy rules could disproportionately penalize developing nations while exonerating major subsidizers.

·         Metrics that account for subsidy intensity promote fairer responsibility-sharing among WTO members.

Conclusion

• India’s Advocacy:
• A per capita subsidy approach is essential to align WTO rules with ecological and economic sustainability.
• Disciplines should focus on responsibility per fisher, not aggregate figures, to curb over-fishing effectively.
• Call to Action:
• WTO members must prioritize reforms that target unsustainable practices, especially by large subsidizers engaging in distant-water fishing.
• The global fisheries sector requires a balanced approach to achieve sustainable marine resource use.

Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/wto-fish-talks-india-says-per-capita-subsidy-should-be-basis-for-cuts/article68969778.ece#:~:text=India%20has%20made%20a%20strong,%2476%2C000%20per%20fisher%20per%20year.