Pacific happy with fish subsidy talks
AT the recent World Trade Organisation (WTO) 13th Minister’s Conference (MC13) that ended in Abu Dhabi, UAE early this month, Pacific WTO trade ministers were led by their Fijian counterpart, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Cooperatives and SMEs Manoa Kamikamica to negotiate what became a highly contentious position to be included in the incomplete WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. The Pacific party wanted the world’s biggest fishing nations to either put a cap or reduce the billions of dollars in subsidies they shell out every year to help their own fishing industries. Indirectly, these subsidies were leading to overfishing and overcapacity in the world’s stock and although the Pacific Ocean is still considered a sustainable fishery, there are fears it may end up depleted if subsidiesbacked foreign companies continue to fish it unchecked.
Despite best efforts, the Pacific delegation did not succeed in getting their concerns into the text of the Agreement but they didn’t lose out completely either. No consensus was reached but they managed to negotiate for what Mr Kamikamica said was a “watershed clause” to be part of the Agreement.
The Fiji Times spoke to Mr Kamikamica upon his return on how things went in Abu Dhabi.
FT: Could you just talk about what happened – what it was all about?
Mr Kamikamica: Well, basically every two years, the ministers of trade from all WTO countries meet in a location. It’s called the Ministerial Conference, and that’s the highest governing body of the World Trade Organisation. The idea is that they meet to discuss major global trade issues and to make decisions on behalf of the globe. One of the main things about that forum is for any global trade decision to be made, it has to be universally agreed to by all members. So that’s been the challenge and that’s why, over time, there’s always been accusations of the WTO not doing enough, because every time, some countries block.
So at the last ministerial conference, there were really three major issues. One was the need to look at agricultural subsidies, which is the fisheries subsidies, which directly affect the Pacific and then e-commerce. At the moment, there’s on a moratorium on taxation of e-commerce, for example, any transaction that occurs electronically, there’s no taxation regime. So those were the three issues that were on the table and so when we went to Abu Dhabi, the plan was to at least complete negotiations on the fishery subsidies. The first phase was done in MC12 and this was the second phase. The second phase was the more difficult one, which was how do we address the actual subsidies. The fishery subsidies at the moment is about $US22billion ($F49b) annually. FT: That’s attributed to overfishing and overcapacity?
Mr Kamikamica: Yes, correct. So because of that amount of money, and it’s a massive amount of money, that means that foreign fishing nations can easily come into our waters and fish. And because it’s subsidised, they can take as much as they can. So it’s been going on for a long time and initially, our task was to go into there and demanded the capping of subsidies or a standstill. So in the negotiating position, we must put, not reduced but to hold the subsidy and then try to get those subsidises to start reducing the subsidies then genuinely harm the fishing stock. So that was the Pacific position. The agreed position from Geneva which is the HQ of the WTO was to assess all subsidies based on a Sustainability Index or sustainability assessment. So as long as you can show that your subsidy that you’ve provided is sustainable, it doesn’t affect the fish stocks, then that subsidy is okay. FT: How do they determine that? Mr Kamikamica: That’s one of the issues that we were concerned with. The other one was that in the Pacific at the moment, the stocks already sustainable, right, so that means any fishing vessel coming in they don’t even have to have any accountability and that was the main concern. So when we went in, we were facing an uphill battle because the predetermined position was already there. And no one was entertaining the Pacific position. So we had to pound down doors. We went as far as negotiating with the largest subsidises in the world –China, EU and Japan, on the table negotiating with the Pacific to try and come up with a solution. So in the end, but we didn’t quite get the cap or the standstill. But what we did achieve, which has never been done in the WTO before is come up with a very review clause. So like, in other words, when the agreement comes into force, after five years, if we can prove that subsidies have not reduced, we can actually go in and demand and have proof of countries that have used the subsidies to their benefit, we can actually impose stricter impositions. So in terms of the WTO review clauses, it was one of the watershed clauses, in terms of the drafting of review clauses. FT: So, that can do what? Mr Kamikamica: Basically after five years of the agreement coming into force, if we find issues with some of those subsidisers, you can actually go in demand that they do more and reduce their subsidies. So it is quite a powerful review mechanism. FT: The Pacific didn’t really lose then. Mr Kamikamica: In terms of us advocating for the Pacific, I feel like we actually did a really good job, given the challenging task. Unfortunately, because you have to get all countries to agree, some other countries had other issues and reasons why they didn’t agree to actually bring it into force.
So that was the reason the talks collapsed. But from the Pacific, because I was leading the Pacific, I was pretty confident that we’d gotten something that we could take back to the Forum (Pacific Island Forum) leaders. But we as Pacific managed to raise our profile in terms of sustainability issues, environmental issues, and fishing. The Pacific, because of the vulnerability in terms of the oceans, we need to be speaking out stronger on these issues. We only have one ocean, we only have one fish stock so just imagine if you woke up in the morning and there was no more fish top left because of overfishing. There will be lack of protein supply to the world. So what we achieved after this conference is in terms of issues around sustainability, environment, oceans, the Pacific is a big voice and is a big player. And I was actually telling the WTO, you should treat the Pacific the same way you treat the large countries. We are treated like small people, yet 50 per cent of tuna stock is from the region. I think a lot of the bigger countries were hoping that we’d go away, but we really lobbied hard so we got all our partners in Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA all trying to support us. Some of the big subsidisers were there supporting us.
FT: You were saying something about Pacific trade ministers wanting PICs to have their own fleet?
Mr Kamikamica: Yes. That’s a very serious option on the table. As a group of Pacific Island countries, we should really start thinking of having a major fleet of tuna vessels. And there’s enough interest there both within the countries and what we need to do is find some major investors to help us. I’ve met some while I was in Abu Dhabi but it’s premature at this stage. But if we have our own boats, we can create our own jobs and supply our own canneries. So that’s the way we’re going.
FT: There was the absence of the Pacific’s big tuna countries like Kiribati, Tuvalu, Nauru.
Mr Kamikamica: They are not members of the WTO but what we’re trying to do is fight on behalf of them as well. Basically our voice there is the voice of the North and Central Pacific FT: Then there’s complex tuna politics… Mr Kamikamica: Well, yes, like everything, every country will have its own way of looking at things but as a group of countries that control 50 per cent of the world’s tuna stock, we should really use our strategic strength and try and leverage and make
sure we get opportunities for ourselves. Rather than just saying to fishing companies, come, fiush in our waters, they pay us a token amount and our countries don’t get any benefit from the resource, in terms of the manufacturing, value addition, etc. FT: So in what ways do these nations subsidise their fishing industries?
Mr Kamikamica: There are all sorts of subsidies. There’s a list in the Fisheries Agreement, there’s a list of about 10 to 12. Some countries pay for repairs or they subsidise the cost of the boats, all those kind of big ticket items. So it reduces the cost of them coming into our waters.
FT: And finally, what would you say has been achieved at the WTO and where to from here?
Mr Kamikamica: Well, with agriculture, they’ve now come up with a work programme. So that means that there’ll be ongoing work in terms of the agricultural subsidies. Mind you the agricultural subsidies is about $US800 billion ($F1.7trillion). In some ways that also affects us, because if we want to produce, say, rice for example, we will be coming up against the countries that subsidise their own rice production, so that’s a big challenge. Then on fisheries, like you saw from the video how everybody stood up after the end of the Fiji speech on behalf of the Pacific, everybody wants to conclude something. So there’s a big willingness and what l certainly will be doing going forward is to really try and ensure the fisheries subsidies remain on the table and that we actually address it. Because ultimately the question for the Pacific is always: what happens if there’s no fish in our waters? Right now, the way we’re going, if we’re not careful, we may not have any more fish in our waters. We’re right now the only healthy fishery but we shouldn’t be lulled into a false sense of security because that can change in an instant because at the moment, there’s no curb on the subsidies. So hopefully it will come up again in the next MC 14 which is in Cameroon, so certainly as a country in the Pacific we’ll be more determined to go in and make sure we achieve something.