WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/Q2/USA/26
20 November 2002
(02-6459)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
SUBSIDIES
Questions from the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Regarding the
Updating and New and Full Notification of the UNITED STATES1
The following communication, dated 14 November 2002, has been received from the
Permanent Delegation of the European Commission.
_______________
Please find enclosed a set of follow-up questions, consequent to the US notified Subsidies
discussed in the meeting of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Committee of 31 October –
1 November 2002.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE EC ON FISHERIES
Doc G/SCM/N/48/USA G/SCM/N/60/US A G/SCM/N/71/USA of 2 July 2002
Fisheries Finance programme (Purpose)
In its notification the US states that:
“Since 1991, the programme has been barred by NOAA policy and Congressional
directives from financing any project that could be construed to lead to
overcapitalization of any fishery.  In 1994, the programme’s regulations were
amended to reflect this change in policy”.
Questions:
1. Could the US explain what it is meant by “overcapitalisation”?2. Has the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) developed a method to identify
“overcapitalisation” in a particular fishery?
3. If yes, do other US bodies (federal and sub-federal) with responsibility in fisheries
management use the same method as the NMFS?
Various fishing vessel and permit buyback programmes
In its notification the US states, as regards the trade effects of the buy-back programmes:
                                                     
1G/SCM/N/48/USA, G/SCM/N/60/USA, G/SCM/N/71/USAG/SCM/Q2/USA/26
Page 2
“The United States is generally of the opinion that well-managed vessel and permit
buyback programmes can reduce capacity and the pressure on the resource.
Moreover, to the extent that any government financial contributions under these
programmes have not resulted in a benefit to firms which remain in the industry, it is
questionable as to whether a subsidy has been provided that can be attributable tothe fishing industry.  In light of these considerations, it is unlikely that these
programmes have resulted in negative trade effects.”
Question on the Pollock Fishery:
1. Has the Total Available Catch been reduced by the US authorities in proportion with the
reduction of fishing vessels?
2. If not, are the remaining vessels allowed to fish the quotas that were allocated to the vessels
that left the fishery and did the US authorities quantify the additional revenues that the buy-back
programme has generated for those remaining in the fishery ? Did the US authorities quantify whether
the possible additional revenues exceeded the contributions by the relevant industry sector?
“Fisheries Disaster Relief”
According to publicly available information the National Marine Fisheries Service is the
responsible Agency for the programmes funded under this mechanism.
Could the US give an overview of the funded programmes during the period 1999-2001,
detailing the objectives and main characteristics of the programmes as well of amounts spent in each
individual programme?
Bering Sea and Aleutian crab fleet buyback programme (Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2001 - BSAI Crab Vessel Buy-Back Programme)
According to publicly available information th e above statute authorised $100 million for the
buyback programme, $50 million of which would come from an industry-financed loan and another
$50 million of which was authorised to be appropriated by Congress.
Could the US provide information on the status of the federal funds that are to be
appropriated for this programme?
Recovery of Salmon Stocks in Southeast Alaska
According to publicly available information, in September 2000, “the state [Alaska]  received
final approval from the National Ocean and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) to use $14 million in
congressional funds designated to recover and assist salmon stocks shared by the Pacific Salmon
Treaty participants.” (see Press Release of the Alaska Dept. for Fish and Game of
13 September 2000 available at:
http://www.state.ak.us/adfg/geninfo/press/2000/9-13-00.htm
Question:
1. Could the US confirm this information?
2. If yes, could the US provide details on this programme?G/SCM/Q2/USA/26
Page 3
Directed Economic Assistance Programme; Establishment (Swordfish and Tuna in Hawaii)
According to publicly available information “T he Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001
makes $3,000,000 available to the Secretary of Commerce to provide economic assistance to
fishermen and fishing communities affected by Federal closures and fishing restrictions in the Hawaiilong line fishery”. [see Federal Register:  21 November 2001 (Volume 66, Number 225)][Notices]
[Page 58440-58442] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21no01-45]
Also available in:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2001/November/Day-21/i29159.htm
Question:
1. Could the US confirm this information?2. If yes, could the US provide details on this programme?
__________