WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/CTE/W/189
18 June 2001
(01-3028)
Committee on Trade and Environment Original:  English
UPDATE OF FAO ACTIVITIES RELATED TO FISHERIES
Report of the Expert Consultation on Economic Incentives
and Responsible Fisheries
28 November – 1 December 2000
Communication from the FAO
1. For ease of reference for the Members of the Committee on Trade and Environment, the
Report of the FAO Expert Consultation on Econ omic Incentives and Responsible Fisheries is
reproduced in the Annex to this document.
2. The Report of the Expert Consultation was examined by FAO Members during the
24th Session of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in Rome, 26 February – 2 March 2001.  The
conclusions of this examination were recorded in the COFI Report as agreements andrecommendations for future FAO work on fisheries subsidies.  The relevant paragraphs of the COFI
Report under Item 8 of the Agenda are the following:
1
82. The Secretariat introduced the Agenda item on the basis of document COFI/2001/9.Attention was drawn to the conclusions and recommendations of the Report of the Expert
Consultation on Economic Incentives and Responsible Fisheries (document FIPP/R638) that
was held in Rome (28 November – 1 December 2000) and to the papers presented (document
FIPP/R638 Suppl.).  Guidance was sought from the Committee on how the work of assessingthe impacts of subsidies should be continued and what partnerships might be appropriate in
the process.
83. The Committee appreciated the work undertaken by the Secretariat and noted the
Report of the Expert Consultation as well as the conclusions and recommendations contained
therein.  Some Members felt that the Expert Consultation had raised more questions thananswers.  It noted, however, that further wo rk remained to be done on this subject,
particularly on matters relating to technical in formation regarding the nature of subsidies and
their effects.
84. Some Members expressed concern over the use of subsidies in fisheries and that
further work on the effects of such subsidies is an important issue that should be givenpriority by FAO.
85. The Committee agreed that future work on subsidies should build on past efforts and
work towards determining the quantitative and qualitative effects of subsidies on trade in fish
and fishery products and sustainability of fishery resources where the study of the trade aspect
                                                     
1 CL120/7, Report of the 24th Session of the FAO Committee for Fisheries, Rome, 26 February–
2 March 2001.  Available at: http://www.f ao.org/docrep/meeting/003/y0220e/y0220e00.htm.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 2
should be of a technical nature and be closely coordinated with the World Trade Organization
(WTO) as the competent body for trade discipline.   It was further agreed that work on this
topic be closely coordinated with, and compleme ntary to, the work being carried out by other
relevant  intergovernmental organizations and recommended that FAO, as a global multi-
disciplinary organization, should take a lead role in the promotion of such cooperation and inthe coordination of work on fisheries subsidies and the relationship with responsible fisheries.
86. The Committee agreed that a second Expert Consultation be organized by FAO but
that substantial preparatory work, including an inventory of currently available and ongoing
efforts, should first be carried out by the Secretariat. The Committee urged that the
Consultation be comprised of a wider range of experts, having relevant practical and
multidisciplinary experience in fisheries management and trade issues.  In addition it should
reflect a regional and topical balance of the issues to be considered. It was agreed thatgovernments should be consulted in the selection of the experts.
87. Some Members emphasized the necessity to take into account the needs and
conditions of developing countries and, in particular, the issues relating to differences
between large- and small-scale or artisanal fisheries. Some Members also emphasized that,
with respect to the matter of subsidies an d trade, the Consultation should focus on the
technical aspects of the policy debate.
88. The Secretariat informed the Committee that  the resources required for holding the
second Expert Consultation were not available in the current budget. Resources might be
available in the 2002-2003 budget but the Secretariat would not know until November 2001,
hence the Secretariat suggested that extra-budgetary funds might be needed for the purpose ofa second Expert Consultation.
89. It was agreed that the Expert Consultation be followed by a Government Technical
Consultation on the issue, in part as a means of quickly disseminating information on the
matter both to Members and to other intergovernmental organizations.
90. As a complementary activity to address the fishery subsidy issue, one Member
suggested that it would be useful to initiate meetings to study all factors affecting
sustainability.  While many Members agreed in principle with the proposal and it was also
supported by some Members, it was generally felt that such efforts would duplicate much of
the work already under way.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 3
ANNEX
REPORT OF THE EXPERT CONSULTATION ON ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
AND RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES
Rome, 28 November – 1 December 20002
INTRODUCTION
1. The Expert Consultation on Economic Incentives and Responsible Fisheries met in the FAO
Headquarters, Rome, Italy from 28 November to 1 December 2000.
2. The Expert Consultation was attended by 12 experts.  They are listed in Appendix A.
OPENING OF THE EXPERT CONSULTATION
3. The Expert Consultation was opened by Mr. Ichiro Nomura, the Assistant Director General of
Fisheries.  In welcoming the participants, Mr. Nomura described the origins of the Consultation
emphasizing that the world fishery community at large is concerned about the appropriateness of theeconomic incentives facing world fisheries.  Therefore there is a widespread concern about subsidies.
He then drew the attention of the experts to the fact that while there seems to be no universal
agreement about what is and what is not a subsidy, there is agreement that we have little empirical
knowledge of the effects of subsidies - however understood -  on trade and resource sustainability.  He
asked the experts first to try and reach an agreement on an operational definition of subsidies, andthen to identify activities that would make it pos sible for the world’s fisheries community to learn
more about the effects of subsidies in a practical and affordable manner.  Mr. Nomura's opening
statement is attached as Appendix B.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
4. The Expert Consultation elected Dr. J. Sutinen as its Chairman and Dr. M. Aguero as its vice-
Chairman.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE
5. The Expert Consultation adopted the agenda and timetable as contained in Appendix C.
BACKGROUND  AND PREPARATIONS
6. In the late 1990s, the FAO was called upon by its Members to compile information on fishery
subsidies at the global level. The FAO Sub-Committee on Fish Trade
3 did so in 1998 and the FAO
Council  in 1999 when it adopted the International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing
Capacity4 (IPOA-Capacity).  The stated purpose for the information dissemination about subsidies
was to provide a basis for further analysis aimed at understanding the role of subsidies in relation to
trade in fish and fish products and to fishery resources sustainability.
                                                     
2 The following contains the Report of the Expert Consultation (FIPP/R638), and selected Appendices
to that Report.  The full text can be found in FAO Fisheries Report No. 638, Rome, 2000, at:  www.fao.org/FI.
3 Report of the Sixth Session of the COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (paragraph 17).  FAO
Fisheries Report No. 589, Rome.  1998. 75pp.
4 See Paragraph 25 of the IPOA-Capacity: FAO.  International Plan of Action for reducing incidental
catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of
sharks.  International Plan of Action for the management of fishing capacity.  Rome, FAO. 1999. 26pp.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 4
7. In preparation for the Expert Consultation, the FAO assembled information on subsidies and
their effects.  Four desk studies were commissioned.  The experts received these desk studies5 for
review prior to arriving in Rome.  FAO also wrote to Members soliciting copies of documents
relevant to the meeting.  The documents6 received in reply to this request were made available to the
participants upon arrival in Rome.  In Rome they also received copies of five recent, major reports onsubsidies and fisheries.
SEARCH FOR AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF SUBSIDIES
Introduction
8. The Secretariat asked the Expert Consultation to define what is and what is not a fisheries
subsidy. The Secretariat further requested the Consultation to find a definition that (i) is applicable to
all interventions by the public sector that are susceptible to being labelled subsidies;  (ii) has a high
likelihood of acceptance by those involved in the political debate on fishery subsidies;  and
(iii) enables the effects of subsidies on trade and fishery resources to be measured.
9. The review paper by Professor W. Schrank, as well as the discussion amongst the group of
experts, revealed a large number of different definitions and understandings of what is meant by a
subsidy. The Consultation spent a major portion of its time debating the merits of alternative
definitions of the term subsidy. Highlights of the group’s discussion are summarised below, followed
by a set of conclusions and recommendations.
10. It should be emphasized that subsidies, howeve r defined, represent some, but not all, of the
instruments that effect the incentive structure of the fishing and aquaculture sector. The economic
behaviour of firms supplying fish will be sensitive to taxes and other charges, to regulations and to the
creation and enforcement of property rights. Responsible fisheries management needs to consider allof these elements.
Discussion
11. Many different definitions of a subsidy have been used in economic analyses of trade and
natural resource use. Our review of these definitions and analyses leads us to conclude that none of
the commonly used definitions is adequate for a comprehensive analysis of subsidies’ effects on tradeand sustainability in fisheries and aquaculture. Unfortunately, there is no one definition that the
Consultation recommends for the measurement, analysis  and political debate of subsidies in fisheries.
12. Experts tend to place different emphasis on th e following four attributes of subsidies in
fisheries and aquaculture:
(i) Government interventions that only involve financial transfers to producers;
7
(ii) government interventions that confer benefits to producers without involving
financial transfers from the government to producers;
                                                     
5 FAO Fisheries Report No. 638, Supplement, papers presented at the Expert Consultation.  Available
at:  www.fao.org/FI.
6 Ibid.
7 The term "producers" is taken to include primary producers (fishing firms), processors of fish,
distributors, wholesalers and retailers of fish and fish products. In other words, "producers" includes all firms
involved in supplying fish to the final users of fish and fish products.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 5
(iii) lack of government interventions to correct for distortions that confer benefits
on producers; and
(iv) the long-term as well as the short-term effects of government interventions on
firms' benefits and costs.
13. In order to advance the measurement, analysis and discussion of subsidies in fisheries and
aquaculture, the experts in the Consultation propose definitions for four sets of subsidies. The
Consultation recommends that any analysis and discussion of this issue state explicitly which of the
four sets of subsidies is being considered.
14. The numbering of "sets" 1, 2, 3 and 4 is not meant to imply any ranking of subsidies. Instead,
the numbering indicates that higher numbered sets include more elements in the definition of
subsidies. In other words, Set 2 includes elements included in Set 1, Set 3 includes elements includedin Set 2, and so on. This is illustrated graphically in Figure 1.
15. Set 1 Subsidies: Government
financial transfers that reduce costs
and/or increase revenues of producers in
the short-term .
16. Set 1 Subsidies include direct
payments by government to or on
behalf of producers, e.g., grants topurchase vessels or to modernize vessels,
income support payments,
and others.
17. All experts in the Consultation
believed definitions of subsidies that
include only government financial
transfers to producers are too narrow
for present purposes. Such definitions
exclude government interventions that
affect trade and the use of fisheries
resources and that involve no financialtransfers. Therefore, the definition of Set 2 Subsidies includes all interventions by government –
regardless of whether they involve financial transfers – that can potentially reduce costs and/or
increase revenues of producers in the short-term.
18. Set 2 Subsidies: Set 2 Subsidies are any government interventions, regardless of whether
they involve financial transfers, that reduce costs and/or increase revenues of producers in the
short-term.
19. Set 2 Subsidies include tax waivers and deferrals, and insurance, loans and loan guarantees
provided by government. Set 2 Subsidies also include government provision of goods and services ata cost below market prices.
8
                                                     
8 Note that this applies only to goods and services for which a market exists. This does not apply to
goods and services provided by the government and for which there is no market.  See the discussion below on
management costs.Set 2Set 3Set 4
Set 1Figure 1. Depiction of Sets of SubsidiesWT/CTE/W/189
Page 6
20. Set 2 Subsidies correspond closely to many of the definitions used in practice, for example,
by the World Trade Organization. Many experts in the Consultation believe that the definition of Set 2
Subsidies satisfy conditions (i), (ii), and (iii) established by the Secretariat (see paragraph 12).
21. Most experts in the Consultation view definitions of subsidies that require active and explicit
government intervention, such as Set 2 Subsidies, as too narrow for present purposes. Lack of
government action to correct distortions (imperfections) in the production of and markets for fish and
fish products confers an implicit benefit to producers that can affect trade and the use of fishery
resources as well. Therefore, the experts in the Consultation define Set 3 Subsidies to include lack of
correcting interventions by government to remove distortions (imperfections) in production and
markets that can potentially affect fisheries resources and trade.
22. Set 3 Subsidies :  Set 3 Subsidies are Set 2 Subsidies plus the short-term benefits to
producers that result from the absence or lack of interventions by government to correct distortions
(imperfections) in production and markets that can potentially affect fisheries resources and trade .
23. Set 3 Subsidies include the implicit benefits to producers associated with the lack of
government regulations that would require producers to bear the costs that they impose on other
parties, including costs on the environment and natural resources. By not having to pay for costs
imposed on others the cost of production is lower, which in turn influences the amounts of fish
produced and traded, and the health of resource stocks. Such implicit benefits are present where
government does not require measures to reduce the catch of, for example, sea turtles, sea birds ormarine mammals.  In this case, producers impose costs on others, in the form of damage to the
environment that they do not pay for and do not take into account in their production decisions.
Another example is where government does not do en ough to prevent the overexploitation of a fishery
resource. In this case, producers avoid paying for the costs of harvesting the fishery resource in the
short-term while imposing costs on others, and themselves, in the long-term. In these cases, both thesustainability of the resources and trade in fish are affected.
24. All experts in the Consultation agree that these types of implicit benefits (unpaid costs) can
have significant impacts on fisheries resource sustainability and trade. However, not all agree that
these implicit benefits should be included as subsidies for present purposes. The dissenters believe
that the definition of Set 3 Subsidies may not satisfy all of the conditions (i) – (iii) established by the
Secretariat. In particular, some of the experts believe that this definition encompasses measures notreadily susceptible of classification as subsidies, and that their inclusion moves the discussion of
fisheries subsidies into areas that are distinct from, and should be addressed in different contexts from,
the fisheries subsidies debate.
25. The experts in the Consultation were unable to decide whether the failure to charge for the
costs of fisheries management services constitute a subsidy to producers. There is a lack of research
on this issue, and economic reasoning leads to ambiguous conclusions.
26. Clearly, when government provides a factor input at a price below the market price, that
constitutes a subsidy under all four definitions above. However, there is no market for managementservices in most fisheries.
9 Some experts argue that producers have no demand for management
services and that, instead, management is forced upon them. In addition, in managing fisheries,
government is attempting to ensure the sustainability of the resource for the use of future generations
and the enjoyment of non-producers who value the existence of healthy fishery resources.
                                                     
9 An exception is the case of sole ownership where the owners of the fishery resource would be willing
to pay for a set of services that include research, management administration and enforcement.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 7
27. The professional literature on recovering the costs of fisheries management essentially
concludes that requiring producers to pay user fees improves the overall efficiency of management -
in other words, user fees enhance the value gained from the use of scarce management resources. This
literature, however, does not address the issue of whether not charging user fees (or some other form
of cost-recovery) should be considered a subsidy. Clearly, charging for user fees reduces revenues (orincreases costs), but whether and how such fees affect supply, trade and sustainability is not clear at
this time. More research on this important issue is required.
28. Some of the experts in the Consultation argue that definitions of subsidies that include only
government interventions (or absence of correcting interventions) that confer short-term benefits on
producers are limited because they do not account for the effects over time of such interventions. In
other words, an intervention that confers an immedi ate benefit can ultimately confer harm or losses on
producers, especially in fisheries. Some of the experts recommend extending the definition of a
subsidy to include interventions (and absence of correcting interventions) that affect costs and
revenues in any direction and over time, i.e., in the short-, medium-, and long-term.
29. Set 4 Subsidies :  Set 4 Subsidies are government interventions, or the absence of correcting
interventions, that affect the costs and/or re venues of producing and marketing fish and fish
products in the short-, medium-, or long-term.
30. Set 4 Subsidies include all Set 3 Subsidies plus interventions such as management measures
that may decrease (increase) the short-term benefits to producers but that result in an increase(decrease) in long-term benefits to producers. An example is where a closure of the fishery (or an area
of the fishery) that imposes short-term losses on producers ultimately results in a rebuilt resource
stock and higher long-term benefits to producers. Set 4 Subsidies explicitly account for the effects
over time of government interventions and absence of correcting interventions.  The effects on
benefits to producers in the short term may be the opposite of the effects in the long term.
Conclusions
31. The conclusions are:
• None of the commonly used definitions of subsidies is adequate for a comprehensive analysis
of subsidies’ effects on trade and sustainability in fisheries and aquaculture.
• There is no definition of subsidies that the Consultation recommends as the only definition for
the measurement, analysis and political debate of subsidies in fisheries.
• Definitions for four sets of subsidies are needed in order to advance the measurement,
analysis and discussion of subsidies in fisheries and aquaculture.
Recommendations
32. It is recommended that:
• Any analysis and discussion of subsidies in fisheries and aquaculture make explicit which of
the four sets of subsidies is being considered.
• Further economic research be pursued on the issue of whether and how to include
management costs in any definition of subsidies.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 8
CATEGORIES OF SUBSIDIES
33. Subsidies are defined above for four different sets of governmental assistance. The next two
sections of the report make use of "categories" of subsidies when discussing the impacts of subsidies
on trade and resource sustainability. The purpose of this section is to explain the relationship betweenthe concepts of "sets" and "categories".
34. "Sets" and "categories" of subsidies represent two different ways of dividing the universe of
subsidies.  Why is it useful to define both "sets" and "categories"?
35. "Sets" responds to the need to link the defini tion of subsidies to the manner in which the term
is usually understood, and therefore frequently used in the policy/political debate.  "Sets" build on thetypes, or "modalities" of subsidies.
36. "Categories" responds to the needs of those w ho study the effects/impacts of subsidies. The
criteria for defining categories, as will be seen below, makes use of the primary impact of the subsidy,
that is, the impact on the producer.
37. The categories of subsidies are divided into two broad categories: cost-reducing and revenue-
enhancing subsidies. In other words, various government interventions (or lack of interventions) are
categorized according to whether they primarily tend to either reduce the cost of producing and
marketing fish or increase the revenue of producing and marketing fish. However, the effects on costsand revenues of some interventions are either ambiguous or they depend on the other conditions.
These are grouped into a broad category named Miscellaneous/Unspecified. Each of these broad
categories is then broken down further into subcategories that relate to the form and function in
influencing fish production, trade and resource sustainability.
38. Readers should note that some of the subcategories may appear in all four sets of subsidies,
and other subcategories may appear on only one or few of the sets.  For example, subcategories that
include direct government payments to, or on the behalf of, producers would appear in all four sets of
subsidies as defined above.  Subcategories that include tax exemptions for fuel would appear in
Sets 2, 3 and 4 subsidies.  Subcategories that include lack of government intervention to prevent
environmental damage by producers would appear only in Sets 3 and 4 subsidies.  Subcategories that
include fishery management measures (such as ou tput and input controls on production) would appear
only in Set 4 subsidies.
39. In addition, the subcategories identified for resource sustainability differ from those identified
for trade issues.  The experts chose to divide the two broad categories into different subcategories and
assigned different names to their categories. The experts attempted to identify subcategories thatwould best facilitate analyses of the impacts of subsidies.  Table 1 lists some (not all) of the
subcategories used by the experts in the examination of the impacts of subsidies on trade and resource
sustainability.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 9
Table 1.  Categories of Subsidies related to Impacts on Trade and Resource Sustainability
Trade Sustainability
Cost Reducing Cost Reducing
Investment cost reductions Capital expansion
Input price reductions Labour cost reduction
Misc. cost reductions
Tax waivers & deferrals
Loans & insurance cost reductions
            Market interventions Market interventions
Fisheries science and management
Revenue Enhancing Revenue Enhancing
Output price increases Output price supports
Compensation programmes
            Sales promotions Sales promotions
Equity infusions
            Trade measures Trade measures
Miscellaneous/Unspecified Miscellaneous/Unspecified
Actions to reduce fishing effort Fishing capacity reduction programmes
Management and regulatory actions Fisheries science & management
40. The experts did not assign their respective subcategories to any of the sets of subsidies.
However, most of the subcategories fall loosely into Sets 1 and 2.
IMPACT OF SUBSIDIES ON SUSTAINABILITY OF RESOURCES
Present knowledge of the nature and magnitude of the impact of subsidies on resources
41. A review of the literature reveals several attempts to categorise the wide diversity of subsidies
currently in existence.  Amongst these, the OECD study of government financial transfers lists
numerous subsidies by country and the expenditure involved.  Similarly, Price Waterhouse Coopersperformed a subsidy study for APEC which also listed subsidies by country together with
expenditures.  However, few studies have attempted to link the value of subsidies quantitatively to the
effect on fish stocks. This shortcoming remains a matter of concern that would need to be addressed
in future research.
42. In its deliberations, the experts agreed that subsidies do not inevitably contribute to resource
depletion. Neither are they inherently good or bad. The effects of subsidies on the sustainability of
resources are created by induced changes in costs or revenues. Costs may include the costs of variable
inputs, the costs of investment in new technology or in additional productive capacity.
43. The effects of subsidies will depend on the extent to which fishing effort is controlled. One
would expect no increase in effort and therefore in catch in the case of a fishery managed in such away that effort or output is perfectly constrained. In the case of output constraint, for example, there
will be implications for the economics of the fishery, but not, by definition, for the resource. If there
were perfect control of effort, then the effect of a subsidy on sustainability through increases in capital
and labour or efficiency would be matched by a compensatory reduction in effort.
44. Various categories of subsidies were analysed.  Each subsidy category was considered only
for situations of fully developed or overexploited fisheries under imperfect controls of effort and not
for underutilized fish stocks or for cases where effort is perfectly constrained.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 10
45. There was a consensus that under many, if not most, real-world fishery management regimes,
fishery subsidies tend to lead to increased fishing effort. Although economic theory, and modelling
studies, predict this quite firmly, direct empirical evidence is hard to find. While we can therefore
anticipate the direction of any impact can be anticipated with some confidence, one cannot, with the
existing state of knowledge, estimate the relative magnitude of the effects in any given situation.
46. Nevertheless, the direction of impact of some subsidies on sustainability is impossible, in the
abstract, to determine. As an example, vessel decommissioning programmes will generally have a
positive effect on sustainability. However, if the buy back programme has no restrictions on the use to
which the buy backs funds can be put, then the money may be reinvested in the fishery. Fishing
capacity may therefore be increased and the purpose of the decommissioning exercise defeated. 
Without detailed description of such programmes, the direction of impact is impossible to determine.
47. The experts suggest that, subject to available data, there are three approaches for estimating
the impact of a subsidy on the sustainability of a fish stock.
• Dynamic mathematical modelling using real fishery data;
• econometric estimation of relationships based on time series, cross section or pooled data; and
• simple qualitative models.
48. The first two approaches have similar data requirements. Estimating corresponding
parameters and functional relationships requires extensive time series, cross section or pooled data.
The third approach aiming at providing basic guidance and preliminary qualitative assessments of
subsidy impacts, in turn, require only information for understanding the functioning and structure of
the determining variables.
49. In terms of required resources for the approaches/methods referred above, they vary
according to both the specific needs and practical use of the resulting analysis. The first two
categories provide  quantitative results and more information than qualitative models which could be
focused on simple but fundamental categories explaining global trends and cause-effect relationshipsof subsidies on sustainability.
50. In addition, although three different economic approaches to the measurement and estimation
of impacts were discussed, the experts felt that further study would be necessary to more closely
reflect real world situations. In particular, this would entail comparison of the differential impactsobtained with the dynamic bioeconomic models, (1) under a combination of different fisheries
management measures, (input, output, and technical measures), and (2) under different institutional
management regimes (at local, national and international levels).
51. The modelling and analysis of subsidy impacts on resources should, of course, incorporate the
uncertainties inherent in the study of marine fisheries.
52. Crucial to the analysis of subsidies is the ability  to trace their effects first, to changes in costs
and revenues and therefore in profits. Second, to trace the effects of changes in profits to changes in
effort, and third, to trace the effects of changes in effort on the state of the stock, as measured by
changes in biomass.
53. Methods for measuring the impact of subsidies on sustainability may differ among regions or
types of fisheries (e.g. artisanal, inshore and offshore fisheries) and may depend on the fisheries
context and the availability of data.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 11
54. To derive a suitable measure or set of measures with which to assess the value of various
subsidies would require some further research. The experts nevertheless considered that a feasible
method might involve estimating the effective percentage reduction in investment or input costs or the
effective increase in output prices that the subsidy achieved. In some cases such a measure might be
relatively easy to estimate, for example in the case of capital grants, while in other cases it might bemore difficult, in the case of government R&D programmes for example. Such a relative measure
would facilitate the comparison of different subsidies and of subsidies in different fisheries and
countries.
55. The experts compiled a list of subsidies with dual categories.  The major breakdowns relate to
the effects of the subsidies on costs and revenues.  These classifications show whether the subsidy is
cost reducing, cost increasing, revenue enhancing or has an undetermined effect. Within theseclassifications are functional sub-categories organize d according to the logical role played by the
subsidy in the fisheries economy.  These sub-classifications are generally homogeneous, in that the
specific subsidies in a subclass usually have similar economic effects, including their effects on fish
populations.
56. Those subsidies which are expected to have a negative effect on fish stock sustainability were
ranked according to their anticipated potential ne gative effect. Priority 1 indicates that the group
believes that these subsidies have the greatest negative effect on sustainability and should be subject
to further analysis and consideration by decision-makers (see Table 2).
57. Each of the subsidy classifications assigned priority 1 are included in Set 2 subsidies.
58. Future studies should also explore the potential effect of subsidies on:
• Technological development and adoption of size and species selective gear,
• designing and adopting habitat protecting gear,
• fostering recruitment enhancement technologies;  and
• fostering friendly use of critical coastal ecosystems (e.g. wetlands, mangroves, estuaries,
coastal lagoons, wetlands and sea grass beds) which are relevant to fisheries.
59. Such studies should, where possible, compare differential impacts obtained with dynamic
bioeconomic models under combinations of different fisheries management measures and under
different institutional management regimes.
IMPACT OF SUBSIDIES ON TRADE IN FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS
60. The experts considered that, as a threshhold question, it would be useful to consider what was
meant by the reference to "the effects on trade" of subsidies.  In the broad sense, it could be concluded
that subsidies have an effect on trade whenever they have an impact on the volume of fisheries
products moving across international frontiers, on the prices at which those products were traded, orsome combination of the two.  In more practical terms, however, the experts assumed that the FAO
Committee on Fisheries was interested primarily in the state of knowledge regarding the extent to
which producers in a particular country were able to improve their position relative to competing
industries in other countries as a result of subsidies, whether through increased exports or the
displacement of imports.
61. The experts noted that, as expressed in layman’s terms, fisheries subsidies could be expected
to effect trade primarily where they reduce the costs or increase the revenues of producers, therebyWT/CTE/W/189
Page 12
allowing them to increase their market share in the export or domestic market or to offer their product
at a lower price, relative to their situation absent the government intervention.  Thus, the experts
considered that, when seeking to assess the potential effects upon trade of various of the types of
subsidies upon trade, it would be useful to consider the extent to which the subsidies had such revenue
enhancing or cost reducing effects.
62. The experts considered, however, that the extent to which such cost or revenue effects
actually impacted on trade would of course depend upon any conditionalities associated with the
subsidies.  For example, subsidies could be conditional upon the voluntary acceptance of
environmentally appropriate fishing practices and merely offset the costs associated with such
techniques.  In addition, a variety of factors could impact the extent to which decreased costs or
increased revenues impacted fishers’ behaviour.  For example, where producers were subject toeffective and fully utilized catch limitations, subsidies that reduced costs or increased revenues might
simply increase producers’ income without impacting volume of production or prices charged.
Finally, and importantly, the experts recalled that, to the extent that subsidies resulted in unsustainable
fishing practices, they might in the longer term result in stock depletion and consequent declines in
production and export.
63. The experts observed that certain subsidies are designed specifically to impact trade.  For
example, a grant or income tax exemption conditioned upon export performance could reduce costs or
increase revenues exclusively in relation to exported goods, with the likely effect of increasing export
sales and/or decreasing export prices.  On the basis of the limited empirical evidence before theexperts - and in particular the APEC study - it did not appear that these types of subsidies were highly
prevalent in the fisheries sector.  The experts were however highly conscious of the limitations of the
information available.
64. Of course, the extent of the impact of subsidies on trade will depend not only on the nature of
the subsidies but also on their prevalence in terms of how common the subsidies are and their
magnitude.  For example, certain types of subsidy might have a potentially important impact but not
be widely used.  At the same time, a subsidy could be widely used but which have a low value relative
to the overall value of the catch concerned.  When considering the types of subsidies on which further
analysis might be warranted, both the potential impact of difference types of subsidies and their
prevalence/relative value may be useful considerations.
Present knowledge of the nature and magnitude of impact of subsidies on trade
65. For the purposes of this section, subsidies may:
1. Reduce the cost of investment : such as grants to purchase vessels, favourable loans to
invest in new technology.
2. Reduce the relative price of inputs : such as reducing the tax on fuel, the price of
access, payments for employment moving.
3. Increase output prices : such as import quotas, price support systems.
4. Reduce fishing effort : such as vessel decommissioning, retraining fishers.
5. Involve management and regulatory measures : such as catch limits and
environmental regulation.
66. While the above categories do not exactly correspond with the available quantitative
estimates of subsidies, it is, nevertheless, possible to identify the more significant categories. Therecent OECD (2000) study estimates that 77 per cent of transfers (noting that the OECD study did not
include market price support, tax concessions, support to the building industry and regional/local
government expenditures) was spent on general service such as fisheries research, enforcement,
management, enhancement and infrastructure. Subsidies to infrastructure and management are theWT/CTE/W/189
Page 13
most significant categories in the APEC econom ies (APEC, 2000). The proportion of infrastructure
and management subsidies are roughly equal to unbu dgeted subsidies in the Milazzo's (1998) study.
In summary, category 5 would appear to account for the greater share of subsidies.
67. With these categories in mind, it is possible to derive some conclusions as to current ability to
analyse and derive qualitative conclusions about the effects of subsidies on trade. Models of fisheries
management and policy are considered to be sufficiently well-developed to provide a solid foundation
for:
• Understanding the mechanisms by which subsidies work;
• providing a basis for deriving qualitative conclusions about the impacts of subsidies; and
• providing hypotheses for empirical research.
68. Although the appropriate analytical tools exist,  the current knowledge of the magnitude of the
effects of subsidies on fisheries trade is quite limited. Not only have there been limited applications of
the appropriate analytical tools to existing data but there are serious shortcomings in the qualitative
and quantitative data on subsidies.
Conclusions
69. The conclusions follow:
• A good range of international trade models is available to study the above categories of
subsidies and derive, at the very least, qualitative conclusions. The utility of these models hasbeen demonstrated in many studies.
• The methods used to quantify subsidies vary across studies. A consistent transparent method
for measuring subsidies is required.
• The empirical knowledge of the magnitude of effects of subsidies on trade remains limited.
Recommendations
70. It was recommended that:
• More accurate information on the number and value of subsidies, according to the above
categories, is necessary before quantitative work can proceed.
• There is a need to collect empirical knowledge about the impacts of subsidies on trade in fish
and fishery products.
Strategy for acquiring a better understanding of impact
71. Table 3 below shows an assessment for further research. Clearly the priority for study are
those types of subsidies that result in a reduction in costs or increase in revenues and therefore have
the potential for impacting the production, volume and price with consequential effects on trade. In
some cases, particular programmes will fall into the categories of subsidies that reduce costs or
increase revenues, such as fuel tax exemptions or the provision of bait services but the studies do notsuggest that these subsidies are quantitatively important. Equally likely to impact costs are a variety of
programmes that lower investment costs, such as grants or loans to purchase vessels and equipment.
72. The studies suggest that a very substantial share of government resources goes towards the
provision of management services and infrastructure. Supply of these services at less than theirWT/CTE/W/189
Page 14
opportunity cost could have significant trade effects and is thus worthy of further study. Large
expenditures are directed at reducing fishing effor t; however little is known of their actual impact on
effort and trade.
Table 3: Assessment of priorities
Category Priority
Reduce the cost of investment Medium
Reduce the relative price of inputs High
Increase output prices Medium
Actions to reduce fishing effort High
Management and regulatory actions High
Methodologies
73. With regard to methodologies:
• Empirical work should begin by establishing a logical pathway that links, in a functional
sense, the subsidy with costs/revenues and trade flows.
• The general theory of international trade should be applied to the special problems of
fisheries trade.
• The magnitude of effects of subsidies on trade should be analysed within the context of
both partial and applied general equilibrium models. The analysis should examine bothregional and global trade effects. These models will provide an indication of the relative
importance of subsidies and their impacts on trade and trade patterns.
• Provided adequate data are available, econometric model building should be used to
establish a causal relationship between a subsidy category and observable trade effects.
Conclusions
74. The conclusion was that:
• The existing state of knowledge about the magnitude of subsidies and their impact on
trade is limited.
Recommendations
75. It was recommended that:
• Research should proceed in a cost-effective and coherent manner.
• The theoretical platform should be provided by conventional fisheries economics models
adapted specifically for examining the issues of fishery trade.
• The research strategy - involving applied dynamic fisheries and trade models and
econometric model building - should be targeted at actions that have potentially a
relatively large "trade effect–to-expenditure effect ratio".
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT
76. The Report was adopted on 1 December 2000.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 15Table 2.  Subsidies and their effect on sustainability of fishery resources
Classification of Subsidies
COST REDUCTION
Capital Expansion
Labour Cost Reduction
Miscellaneous Cost ReductionsTax Waivers and Deferrals
Loans and Insurance
Market Interventions
Science and Fisheries ManagementCategory of Subsidy
Grants to purchase new or old vessels, or to modernise vessels. Grants to establish international
joint ventures. Matching contributions for pr ivate sector investment. Non-fishing specific
infrastructure programmes
Income support, unemployment insurance and income guarantee payments.  Government funded
health programmes specific to fisheries.  Disaster relief payments to fishermen.  Grants to small
fisheries and direct aid to participants in specific fisheries.  Vacation support programmes
Payments to foreign governments to secure access to fishing grounds.  Fishing-specific
infrastructure.  Payment to reduce accounting costs.  Transport subsidies.  Provision of bait
services.  Grants for safety equipment.  Gear development.
Fuel tax exemptions for vessel fuel.  Sales tax exemptions.  Special income tax deductions for
fishermen.  Tax exemptions for deep-sea fisheries.  Deferred tax programmes.  Investment tax
credits
Loans made on favourable terms (interest rate and amortization periods.  Government guarantees
of bank loans.  Fishermen's insurance programmes or subsidised insurance.  Small business
loans.
Reduced charges by government agencies.  Sales of commodities to fishermen at less than
market price
Hatchery and fish habitat programmes.  Free or below market price resource access.
Unrecovered costs of fisheries management.  T echnology transfer.  Government funded research
and development.  Information collection, analysis and dissemination.  Exploratory fishing andgear development.  Fisheries enhancement including support for artificial reefs.  Research on
deep-sea fisheries.  Enhancement of the fisheries community environmentEffect on
Sustainability
Negative
NegativeNegative
Negative
NegativeNegative
PositivePriority
for
Analysis
1
2
21
2
2WT/CTE/W/189
Page 16
REVENUE ENHANCEMENT
Price Support
Compensation Programmes
Equity Infusions by Governments
Sales PromotionForeign Affairs
COST INCREASING
Regulations
UNSPECIFIED
Factor Reductions
Science and Fisheries Management
International Fisheries CooperationAdjustment ProgrammesGeneral Programmes that affect
fisheries
Market InterventionPrice support payments to fishermen
Compensation for closed or reduced season.  Compensation for damage to fish stocks.  Gear
conflict compensation programmes.  General disaster and relief
Market promotion programmes.  Prom otion and development of fisheries
Tariff and tariff quotas.  Import quotas.  Landing bans.  Prohibitions on foreign direct investment
Input and output regulations.  Gear, technol ogy and vessel limitations.  Environmental
regulations.  Protection of marine areas.  Labour legislation
Vessel decommissioning payments.  License, permit and quota buy-outs and retirement grants.
Grants for temporarily withdrawing fishing vessels
Support for community-based management.  Support for regional development bodies.  Support
for producers organizations
Retraining fishermen for other industries.  Regional development programmes
Subsidy programmes for other industries which affect fisheries.  Social programmes (national
health systems, public education)
Exchange rate regimesNegative
Negative
Negative
NegativeNegative
Positive
Positive
Positive1
2
2
33WT/CTE/W/189
Page 17
APPENDIX A
Prospectus
BACKGROUND
1. In a context of growing international debate, FAO members are examining the role of
subsidies or economic incentives in relation to international trade, environment and sustainable
development issues. The role of fishery subsidies is receiving increasing attention both in
governments and by civil society due to likely negative impacts of some subsidies on trade of fish and
fish products and on the sustainability of living aquatic resources. Subsidies in fisheries could be one
of the contributing factors to overinvestment in fisheries as well as a cause for distortion in
international fish trade. There is a strong interest among member countries to better understandwhether and how subsidies affect fisheries sustainability and fish trade.
2. FAO has been called upon both by the FAO Sub-Committee on Fish Trade
10 and by the
International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity (IPOA)11 to compile and
disseminate information on fishery subsidies at the global level, as a basis for further analysis aimed
at understanding their role in relation to trade of fish and fish products and fishery resourcesustainability.
3. In order that the debate on subsidies in fisheries progresses it is important to assess with some
accuracy the real impacts of fishery subsidies. However, before that can be done it would be useful if
a consensus could be developed about the concept of fishery subsidies and about which economic
tools, methods, policies should be classified as such. Therefore, prior to assessing the economical andsocial implications of fishery subsidies, there is  a need to conduct a technical review of subsidy
concepts and modalities in fisheries.
4. In order to fulfil the mandate given by FAO member countries the Fisheries Department
developed a workplan that takes full advantage of the available inter-disciplinary technical resources
                                                     
10 "In the discussion of agenda item 5 on the basis of document COFI:FT/VI/98/4, the Sub-Committee
noted that the issue of subsidies is discussed in various fora, and that FAO has a role to play in compiling and
disseminating information on subsidies at a global level. Many delegations stressed that the use of subsidies
could aggravate over-exploitation of resources and distort trade, while other delegations underlined that in somecases subsidies may be necessary, for example, to secure employment and food security. One delegationstressed that there was no direct link between the question of overcapacity and distortion of trade in the fisheries
sector."(para. 17, Report of the Sixth Session of the COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade).
"Some delegations stated that FAO should carry out further work on collecting information on
subsidies. Other delegations suggested that FAO should undertake further work on this issue beyond thecompilation of information. The Committee was informed that the OECD Committee on Fisheries is alsoundertaking work on financial transfers to fisheries" (para.49, Report of the 23
rd Session of COFI.)
"When developing their national plans for the management of fishing capacity, States should assess the
possible impact of all factors, including subsidies, co ntributing to overcapacity on  the sustainable management
of their fisheries, distinguishing between factors, in cluding subsidies, which contribute to overcapacity and
unsustainability and those which produce a positive effect or are neutral". (para. 25, International Plan of Actionfor the Management of Fishing Capacity).
"States should reduce and progressively eliminate all factors, including subsidies and economic
incentives and other factors which contribute, directly or  indirectly, to the build-up of excessive fishing capacity
thereby undermining the sustainability of marine living resources, giving due regard to the needs of artisanal
fisheries". (para. 26, International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity).
"FAO will, as and to the extent directed by its Conference, collect all relevant information and data
which might serve as a basis for further analysis aimed at identifying factors contributing to overcapacity suchas, inter alia , lack of input and output control, unsustainable fishery management methods and subsidies which
contribute to overcapacity". (para. 45, International Pl an of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity).WT/CTE/W/189
Page 18
inside the Fisheries Department and includes cooperation with other relevant International
Governmental Organizations (IGOs).
5. A review of fishery subsidies is being undertaken.  It includes:
i. A thorough and exhaustive review of the concepts that have been used to define fishery
subsidies. The review will provide a conceptual platform for a global discussion among
public policy makers aimed at achieving a shared understanding of the various publiceconomic tools/methods/policies known as fishery subsidies.
ii. A review of the published assessments of public sector subsidies to the fishery sector and
of their impact on sustainability of fishery resources.
iii. A review of the published assessments of public sector subsidies to the fishery sector and
of their impact on trade of fish and fish products.
6. An FAO Expert Consultation on Economic Incentives and Responsible Fisheries will be held
in Rome (at FAO Headquarters) from 28 November to 1 December 2000. The experts will examine
the reviews identified above and all other relevant information.
OBJECTIVE
7. The principal objective of the expert consultation is to assess the state of knowledge of fishery
subsidies and their likely impact on trade and resource sustainability.
SCOPE
8. The Expert Consultation will aim to enable the participants:
• To arrive at a common understanding of which economic tools, methods and policies to
include in the concept of fishery subsidies;
• to assess the need and modalities for further investigations into the effects on trade of subsidies
to fisheries;  and
• to assess the need and modalities for further investigations into the effects on fishery resources
sustainability of subsidies to fisheries.
DOCUMENTATION
9. A series of papers reflecting the scope of the consultations has been commissioned by the
FAO and will be provided to participants of the Experts Consultation. They will be available to any
interested reader on the Internet.
OUTPUT
10. The principal output expected from the expert consultation is a report containing findings,
conclusions and recommendations for consideration by to the 24
th Session of the FAO Committee on
Fisheries (COFI) to be held in Rome on 26 February to 1 March 2000.
PARTICIPANTS AND VENUE
11. Participants in the Expert Consultation (approx. 12) will attend in their personal capacities.
The invitations will be extended to individuals reco gnized as competent in the related disciplines. The
organiser will strive to ensure an appropriate inter-disciplinary balance. Representation will be soughtWT/CTE/W/189
Page 19
from the different regions of the world in order to make available different trends of thought,
approaches and practical experience, of subsidies to the fishery sector.
12. The venue will be the FAO Headquarters, Rome Italy.
TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT
13. The Technical Secretary of the expert consultation is Mr. Ulf Wijkstrom, Chief, Fishery
Development Planning Service.  He may be contacted in Rome, as follows:
Room F414, FAO Fisheries Department
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome, Italy
e-mail: Ulf. Wijkstrom@fao.org
Tel.: +39 06 57052156Fax.: +39 06 57056500WT/CTE/W/189
Page 20
APPENDIX B
Opening Statement by Mr. Ichiro Nomura,
Assistant Director-General
Fisheries Department
Welcome to Rome, it is a pleasure to see you here.  Thank you for accepting our invitation to
join the FAO Expert Consultation on Economic Incentives and Responsible Fisheries.
I should like, first of all, to explain why FAO is concerned about Economic Incentives and
Responsible Fisheries.  The concept and implementation of responsible fishing is a challenge which
the international community unanimously and unequivocally urges all concerned with fishing,including FAO, to tackle.  Responsible fishing has been addressed, as you know, from several
perspectives.  Most of the discussions have, however, been done from an institutionalizational point of
view, such as the need for strengthened nationa l and international management and enforcement of
fishing activities.
But, since fishing is inherently an economic activity, we all know that without addressing an
economic feature of fisheries, the goal of responsible fisheries could not be attained in a real world.
Putting this theme into a policy-related discussion will make it necessary for us to analyse, in a
coherent and systematic way, economic incentives for fishing and their impacts on environment, in
this case, the sustainability of fishery resources, and on other economic activities including trade.While the analysis of this subject has been done in the past by individual specialists and other
international bodies, it has not been done systematically and collectively by FAO, which is best suited
to addressing global fisheries issues.  This is exactly why FAO is concerned about the issue and why
FAO was requested to address it.
Why have you been called to Rome?
The political debate about economic incentives – or subsidies – is close to stalling.  Many of
those observing fisheries think that the economic incentive structure is not correct or optimal and is
sometimes modified by the direct intervention of the State.  They believe that these interventionscontribute to excess fishing capacity, thereby threaten ing fishery resources; it is also felt that such
interventions have the effect of distorting trade.
Others argue that Government intervention, in this case fishery subsidies, constitutes only a
part of the many factors which would contribute to unsustainability of the fishery and trade distortion.
While some subsidies should be reduced or eliminated, there are many subsidies which are
indispensable for the economic and social integrity of fishing communities.  What is more important,
they argue, is responsible management for fishery operations.
Also, there is no consensus on what is a subsidy and what is not a subsidy.  And there is little
empirical knowledge about the exact effects of the different kinds of subsidies provided to the sector.
But there seems to be consensus that more needs to be known for the political debate to moveforward.
To progress, the political debate needs to draw on the knowledge and skills of the academic
community.
Fishery policymakers want to know from you:
- What is a useful and workable definition of subsidies?WT/CTE/W/189
Page 21
- What do we, in effect, know about the trade distorting impact, if any, of
various categories of subsidies and how to learn more in a manner that is
practical and affordable?
- What do we know, in effect, about the impact, if any, of subsidies on living
aquatic resources and how to learn more in a manner that is practical and
affordable?
These questions need answers of practical significance and use.  It is our hope that you will
provide them.
To arrive at pragmatic answers you have to adopt a spirit of compromise.  Feasible,
acceptable and realistic answers of practical use will not permit us to employ the best scientific
procedure in all instances.  But your compensation for not sticking only to scientific rigour will be
your contribution to the solution of an issue that is of great importance to many people all over theworld.
It is my firm hope that you will succeed, and that on Friday afternoon you will be united in
your approval of the report of the Expert Consul tation.  A pragmatic report, unanimously endorsed by
all 12 of you will be a very strong signal to the world fisheries community.
Your recommendations will be submitted to the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) which
will meet in February next year.  COFI will be asked to suggest what will be the role of the FAO
Fisheries Department in future work related to subsidies in fisheries.
Again thank you for taking time to share your expertise with us.
I wish you every success.WT/CTE/W/189
Page 22
APPENDIX C
List of Participants
1.  Chairman
SUTINEN, Jon G. Mr.
Professor
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881,USA
Tel.:  1 401 874 4586
Fax:  1 401 782 4766
E-mail:  Jsutinen@uri.eduMESKI, Driss Mr.EconomistDirectorate of Cooperation and Legal Affairs
Ministry of Fisheries
B. P 476, Agdal, Rabat,
MOROCCO
Tel.:  212-7 688198
Fax.  212-7 688194
E-mail:  meski@mp3m.gov.ma
2.  Experts
AGÜERO NEGRETE, Max F. Mr.
EconomistCentro Inter-Americano para el Desarrollo de
Ecosistemas
Casilla 27016, Santiago, CHILE
Tel.:  562-2024504
Fax: 562-2021142E-mail:  centro@icsed.orgSCHRANK, William E.  Mr.
Professor
Department of EconomicsMemorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland,
CANADA A1C 5S7
Tel.:  709-576-1957
Fax:  709-738-1305
E-mail:  wschrank@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
HATCHER, Aaron Charles Mr.
Professor
19 North Road, PetersfieldHampshire GU32 2AX, UK
Tel.:  44 1730 233 568
Fax:  44 23 9284 4037
E-mail:  aaron.hatcher@port.ac.ukSEIJO, Juan Carlos Mr.Professor
Universidad Marista de MéridaCalle 57 No. 336 entre 44 y 46
Villas la Hacienda
Mérida, 97119, Yucatán, MEXICO
Tel.:  52-99 441 956
E-mail:  jseijo@cemaes.marista.edu.mx
KREIER, Jesse Mr.Counsellor and Chief Legal Officer
Rules Division, WTO Secretariat
154 Rue de Lausanne, 1211 Geneva 21
SWITZERLAND
Tel:  (41-22) 739-5482Fax:  (41-22) 739-5620
E-mail:  jesse.kreier@wto.orgSHARP, Basil Milson H. Mr.
Professor
Dept. of Economics
University of Auckland
PB 92019 Auckland
NEW ZEALANDTel.:  64-9 373 75 99
Fax: 64-9 373 74 27
E-mail:  b.sharp@auckland.ac.nz
KURONUMA, Yoshihiro Mr.Associate Professor
School of Social Information Studies
Otsuma Women’s University
2-7-1 Karakida, Tama-shi,
Tokyo, 206-8540, JAPANE-mail:  sbt@otsuma.ac.jpTAPSCOTT, Christopher P. G. Mr.Professor
Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences,
University of Western Cape
6 Ross Rd, Rondendbosch 7700
Cape TownSOUTH AFRICA
E-mail:  gmelck@iafrica.comWT/CTE/W/189
Page 23
VASSDAL, Terje Mr.
Professor
University of Tromsø
N-9037 Tromsø
NORWAYTel.:  47-77 64 55 58
Fax:  47-77 64 60 20
E-mail:  terje.vassdal@nhf.uit.no
ZHANG, Xiang-Guo Mr.
Professor
College of Economics and TradeShanghai Fisheries University
334 Jun Gong Road
Shanghai, 200090, CHINA
Tel.:  86-21 65 71 03 07
Fax:  86-21 65684287E-mail:  xgzhang@shfu.edu.cn
FAO Secretariat
WIJKSTROM, Ulf N.
Technical Secretary
Chief, Development Planning Service
Fishery Policy and Planning Division
GUMY, Angel
Senior Fishery Planning Officer
Development Planning Service
Fishery Policy and Planning Division
BRENNAN, Patricia
Secretary
Development Planning Service
Fishery Policy and Planning Division
MERCADO, Elizabeth
Secretary
Development Planning ServiceFishery Policy and Planning Division
__________