According to Piyush Goyal, India will be submitting proposals soon to address the concerns related to the sector
Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal recently took part at the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on the crucial fisheries subsidy negotiations.
Goyal mentioned that India is very keen to finalise the agreement because irrational subsidies and overfishing by many countries is hurting Indian fishermen and their livelihood. However, he expressed his disappointment and said, “We are still short of finding the right balance and fairness in the agreement.”
He pointed out that big subsidisers must take greater responsibility to reduce their subsidies and fishing capacities, by the principles of ‘ Polluter Pays’ and ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities.’
According to Goyal, any agreement must recognise that different countries are at different stages of development and current fishing arrangements reflect their current economic capacities. Needs will change with time as countries develop. Any agreement will have to provide for balancing current and future needs. This imbalance between members is visible in current capacities to exploit fisheries in domestic waters and the high seas. The per capita fisheries subsidy is given by most developing countries is minuscule compared to advanced fishing nations. Countries like India are yet to develop fishing capabilities, cannot be expected to sacrifice their future ambitions, while protecting those members providing huge subsidies and overexploiting fisheries resources and continue to engage in unsustainable fishing. Therefore, it is imperative to preserve space for growth in fishing capacities of the developing world for the future without locking them into disadvantageous arrangements in perpetuity.
Secondly, he opined that the sustainability-based approach in the overcapacity and overfishing pillar in the current form will create significant inequity for developing countries. It will lead to capacity constraints for developing countries, while advanced nations will continue to grant subsidies.
Thirdly, if non-specific fuel subsidies are not brought under disciplines, another major disparity will be introduced by large harmful subsidies outside of all disciplines.
Fourth, giving special treatment to non-recovery of subsidies under Government-to-Government fisheries ‘access agreements’ is akin to cherry-picking.
Fifth, any new agreement has to be seen in the context of existing international instruments and the laws of the sea. The sovereign rights of coastal states to explore, exploit and manage living resources within their maritime jurisdiction, enshrined in international instruments must be preserved. The determination by coastal states should be given primacy and not be subject to WTO dispute settlement mechanism.
Sixth, an important element of what India wants is appropriate and effective special and differential treatment (S&DT), in the true spirit as enshrined in the guiding principles of the Marrakesh Agreement. Limiting S&DT to poor and artisanal fishermen only is neither appropriate nor affordable and not acceptable at all. S&DT has to be for a country as a whole. We need S&DT to not only protect the livelihoods of poor fishermen but also to address food security concerns of a nation, have the necessary policy space for developing the fisheries sector and for the time required to put in place systems to implement the disciplines.
Finally, he mentioned, “We still need to cover significant ground to make the text balanced, to meet the just concerns of developing and LDC Members. India will be submitting proposals very soon to address our concerns including incorporating ‘common but differentiated responsibilities in sharing this common endowment.”
