./.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/84
30 April 2003
(03-2300)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  English
QUESTIONS FROM JAPAN  CONCERNING PAPERS ON THE
FISHERIES SUBSIDIES ISSUE
Introduction
1. Japan would like to appreciate the United States for its paper titled "Possible Approaches to
Improved Disciplines on Fisheries Subsidies(TN/RL/W/77)submitted at the Rules Negotiating Groupmeeting in March.  Japan also would like to appreciate the six members(Argentina, Chile, Iceland,
New Zealand, Norway, and Peru) for their paper titled “Subsidies in the Fisheries Sector: Possible
Categorizations (TN/RL/W/58)” submitted to this Group in February.
2. Japan posed a number of questions on these papers and this submission aims at clarifying
these questions.  It should be also noted that, alt hough, in the previous sessions of this Negotiating
Group, Japan tabled several fundamental questions in the same line with the following points,  there
have been no convincing responses with concrete examples.  These questions must be clearly
answered if the Rules negotiation is to go into the next stage, i.e., to discuss concrete proposals for
improvement of the existing Agreement on Subs idies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) in
relation to fisheries.
3. Japan would appreciate responses to the following questions from the US and the six
members. Japan reserves its right to submit additional questions in the future if necessary.  It should
be further noted that this paper does not prejudge Japan’s future position on the fisheries subsidies
issue in any way.
US paper
Question 1:
The third paragraph of the US paper says that the goal is to provide better disciplines on
subsidies that promote over-capacity and overfishing, or have other trade-distorting effects.  This
statement seems to imply that this goal is supported by all member countries, which ,in our view, is
not the case.  When does the US think  members of the Rules Negotiating Group reached a consensus
on this goal?
Question 2:
The paper also states in its footnote 1 that subsidies provided to artisanal fisheries in
developing countries are out of the scope.  Does the word “artisanal” mean small-scale coastal?  Are
then subsidies to medium and large-scale fisheries in developing countries subject to discussion?
Question 3:
The fourth paragraph emphasizes the distinctive feature of fisheries subsidies by referring to
the shared stock nature of fishery resources.  Is the production distortion of shared stocks caused byTN/RL/W/84
Page 2
fisheries subsidies the only reason why the United States believes that fisheries subsidies are different
from others and therefore should be treated in a special fashion?
Question 4:
While the fourth paragraph is referring to the shared stocks which occupy only 5 per cent of
the resources, the fifth paragraph applies to all the subsidies possibly relating to fishing.  Should the
scope of the Group's discussion on fisheries subsidies  be limited to those provided to shared stock
fisheries?  If the answer to this question is “negative” in what part of the paper does the US explain
why discussion on  fisheries subsidies should cover  non-shared stock fisheries?
Question 5:
The fifth paragraph raises the possibility that certain fisheries subsidies should be included in
the list of prohibited subsidies.  We understand that subsidies to be included in the list have the largest
trade distorting effects.  Does the United States have reasonable grounds to conclude that certain
kinds of fisheries subsidies distort trade in the same degree as export subsidies?
Question 6:
Article 6.1 of the ASCM, which has expired, reverses the burden of proof when the value of
subsidies exceeds 5 per cent of the total production value.  The sixth paragraph seems to say that the
United States tries to re-introduce the underlying concept of this article only for fisheries subsidies.
Does the United States have good reasons for imposing tighter disciplines on fisheries subsidies than
others?
Question 7:
The seventh paragraph proposes improvement of subsidies notification.  Please explain why
the United States considers that this objective cannot be achieved within the framework of the
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures?
Six members’ paper
Question 1:
The paper admits that there are different and divergent views on merits of various types of
government programmes in the  fisheries sector, as well as on whether and how particular
programmes should be disciplined under WTO rules.  What is the ground to proceed to the
categorization even though there is no consensus on the above-mentioned points?  What direction
does the six members envisage for future discussion on fisheries subsidies issue with a mere
“reference” to lists developed by various organizations with different objectives?
Question 2:
Article 7.1 of the ASCM stipulates that when a member has reason to believe that any subsidy
of another member results in injury to its domestic industry, nullification or impairment or serious
prejudice, such member may request consultations with such other member.  Has any member ever
requested such consultations regarding fisheries subsidies?  What consultations were carried out?
Why wasn’t the said injury rectified in the consultations?
__________