WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/RL/W/11
2 July 2002
(02-3706)
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:  English
JAPAN’S BASIC POSITION ON THE FISHERIES SUBSIDIES ISSUE
The following communication, dated 1 July 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Japan.
_______________
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In order to explain Japan’s position on the fisheries subsidies issue, Japan submitted several
papers in the past (JOB (99)5367 dated 16 September 1999 and WT/CTE/W/173 dated
23 October 2000).  Japan also responded orally to the paper (TN/RL/W/3) presented by eight
Members in the May meeting of the Negotiating Group on Rules.  Japan hereby presents formally its
basic position on the fisheries subsidies issue in a written form.
II. HOW THE EXISTING AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING
MEASURES (ASCM) ADDRESSES THE FISHERIES SUBSIDIES ISSUE
2. Trade distortion caused by subsidies is not unique to the fisheries sector.  Therefore, we
cannot agree to the claim that special disciplines are required for fisheries subsidies.
3. The eight countries’ paper argues that fisheries subsidies adversely affect not only trade but
also fisheries resources and development.  We cons ider that it is indispensable to first examine
whether effects on trade are different between the fisheries and other sectors.
4. There is also an argument that fisheries subsidies create  trade distortions, which the ASCM
cannot address.  That is, while importing countries may introduce countervailing duties against import
of subsidized products, (i) an exporting country cannot take similar measures against an importingcountry when subsidies provided by the importing country impede export from the exporting country,
(ii) an exporting country cannot take similar measures against another exporting country when
products of the former cannot compete with subsidized products from the latter in a  third country
market.
5. It is clear, however, that Part III of the ASCM provides remedies for  these two cases.  If a
WTO member considers that fisheries subsidies provided by other members cause problems in these
cases, it can resort to the WTO system for rectifying them.  Those who insist that fisheries subsidies
distort trade should first make every effort to correct the alleged trade distortion by applying the
relevant provisions of the existing ASCM.  We have difficulties in supporting the approach ofjumping to amend the ASCM without making such effo rts.  If the problem is a deficiency of the said
provisions of the ASCM, it is not restricted to the fisheries sector.  This issue should be discussed in
terms of clarification and improvement in disciplines as applicable to all the sectors covered by the
ASCM.  As long as no convincing explanation is made as to the special nature of the fisheries sectorTN/RL/W/11
Page 2
with regard to trade distortion, we cannot help bein g cautious about dealing with fisheries subsidies in
a distinct manner based on trade distortion.
III. ACCESS LIMITATION TO FISHERIES RESOURCES
6. The eight countries’ paper states, as the reasoning for requiring  special rules on fisheries
subsidies, that fishing capacity enhanced by fisheries subsidies brings over-exploitation of resources
and limits access to shared fisheries stocks by others.  There is no concrete supporting example, and
no logical explanation is provided for endorsing the said reasoning that it is a problem unique to the
fisheries sector for one country’s subsidies to deplete shared stocks and to impede commercial
activities of other countries.  Also, it is not clear how the loss of certain shared stocks causes trade
distortion, and no good explanation is presented on this point either.  To sum up, we do not see
enough evidence to support special treatment of the fisheries sector in terms of trade distortion thatthe ASCM is supposed to address.
7. Although the eight countries’ paper claims th at fisheries subsidies need special disciplines
due to the nature of the shared stock, it is not clear which fishing area they have in mind (i.e.,
territorial waters, inland waters, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), high seas, etc.).  As much as about95 per cent of the world fisheries production takes place within national jurisdictions, namely, within
EEZs of 200 nautical miles of coastal states.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) stipulates that conservation and manage ment of fisheries resources including management
of access to resources is the duties as well as rights of coastal states within their EEZs.  Conservation
and management of fisheries resources can and should be achieved through the implementation of theduties under the UNCLOS by the coastal states that have the jurisdiction over their EEZs.
8. With regard to the remaining 5 per cent of the world fisheries production, namely, high seas
stocks utilized by multiple countries, their conservation and management is basically a fisheries
management issue to be handled by regional arrangements such as fisheries managementorganizations in accordance with the provisions of the UNCLOS.  In fact, each regional fisheries
management body discusses the factors causing stock depletion respectively.  For example, the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is tackling IUU (illegal,
unreported and unregulated) fishing activities; the Commission for the Conservation of Southern
Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) is dealing with fishing operations of non-members; the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) is discussing over-capacity of purse seine fishing boats and
bycatch of small fish; the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR) is addressing IUU fishing activities.  We  will continue to cooperate with other members
of these regional fisheries bodies to solve relevant issues.
9. Above all, we consider that the assumed limitation of access to shared fisheries stocks caused
by over-exploitation is largely due to lack of proper  fisheries management.  In principle, this should
be dealt with under the framework of the UNCLOS.
IV. DATA ON FISHERIES SUBSIDIES AND UTILIZATION OF EXPERTISE OF
INTERNATIONAL BODIES
10. Attention should be drawn to  the following estimates on the total amount of fisheries
subsidies in the world or of groups of countries.  According to a study conducted by the OECD
Fishery Committee , the total amount of government  financial transfers by the OECD members is
$6.3 billion in 1997.
1  70 per cent of these transfers are used for research, management and
enforcement that are not likely  to affect fisheries resources or trade negatively.
                                                     
1 OECD, 2000.  Government Financial Transfers and Resource SustainabilityTN/RL/W/11
Page 3
11. A study conducted by the APEC estimates that the total amount of fisheries subsidies of the
APEC member economies is $12.6 billion.2  Since the total amount of financial transfers by those that
are both APEC and OECD members (Australia, Ca nada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico,
New Zealand and the United States) is $4.6 billion according to the OECD study, the total amount of
fisheries subsidies by non-OECD APEC members (B runei;  Chile;  China;  Hong Kong, China;
Indonesia;  Malaysia;  Papua New Guinea;  Peru;  the Philippines;  the Russian Federation;
Singapore;  Chinese Taipei;  Thailand and Vietnam) is calculated to be $8 billion.
12. The APEC study concludes that only 10 out of the 162 fisheries subsidy programmes
provided by the APEC members would pose a medium  to high risk of being actionable subsidies
under the ASCM and likely to be challenged.  These 10 programmes amount to $370 million, which is
equal to only 3 per cent of the total, $12.6 billion.  This means that only 3 per cent  of the APECmembers’ fisheries subsidies are highly likely to distort trade.
13. These estimates from international bodies clearly show that most fisheries subsidies and
government financial transfers, provided by developed or developing countries, neither pose adverse
impacts on resources nor distort trade.  The World Bank paper (which clearly states that the findings,interpretations and conclusions expressed in the paper are entirely those of the author, and should not
be attributed in any manner to the World Bank), to which the eight countries’ paper refers, estimates
that the total amount of the problematic subsidies is between $14 and $20.5 billion.  As we have
repeatedly pointed out, however, this figure is not reliable as it is an overestimate using very
ambiguous basis.
14. We consider that the WTO should improve subsidy notifications in order to ascertain the facts
and promote better understanding of subsidies.  This should be discussed in a comprehensive and non-
sector specific manner, as it is a matter of operation of the ASCM applicable to all the sectors covered
thereby.
15. Research and policy analyses have been carried out on fisheries subsidies by various bodies
such as the FAO, UNEP, APEC and OECD.  For example, the above OECD study explicitly
concludes that possible negative effects of fisheries subsidies can be minimized with proper fisheries
management in place.  We recognize that such scie ntific and factual analyses by such specialized
international bodies should be the basis for further policy discussions.
16. The FAO will hold the second expert consultation on fisheries subsidies later this year to be
followed by a government-to-government consultation.  The OECD is to tackle the fisheries subsidies
issue in a comprehensive manner for two years from the year 2003, including effects of subsidies on
fisheries trade.  It will analyze the fisheries subsidies issue more thoroughly, taking into account the
results of the work in 1992 and 2000.  The results of such work are expected to clarify policyimplications of fisheries subsidies and should be duly utilized in conducting discussions at the WTO.
V. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF FISHERIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
17. We are of the view that due consideration should be given to subsidies for fisheries
development of developing countries as long as these subsidies do not harm sustainable use offisheries resources.  For instance, consideration should be given from the viewpoint of subsistence
and food security in local communities to fisheries s ubsidies provided to coastal small-scale fisheries.
However, such special and differential treatment of developing countries is not confined within the
fisheries sector, and thus should be discussed as a generic matter of the  ASCM.
                                                     
2 APEC, 2000.  Study into the Nature and Extent of Subsidies in the Fisheries Sector of APEC
Members EconomiesTN/RL/W/11
Page 4
18. It should be noted that over-exploitation  occurs in not only developed countries but also
developing countries, especially their small-scale coastal fisheries.3  In order to realize sustainable
development of fisheries in developing countries, the FAO and other relevant international bodies
with expertise in fisheries should examine this issue, taking into consideration the aspects of
sustainable development of fisheries resources as well as of environment and development indeveloping countries.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
19. Paragraph 28 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration reads, “we agree to negotiations aimed at
clarifying and improving disciplines under the Agr eements on Implementation of Article VI of the
GATT 1994 and on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, while preserving the basic concepts,
principles and effectiveness of these Agreements and their instruments and objectives.”  It also statesclearly that fisheries subsidies shall be dealt within this context.  Therefore, Japan believes that the
fisheries subsidies will be discussed from the viewpoint of trade distortion as part of the overall
clarification and improvement of the ASCM.
20. While there must be clear reasons to treat fisheries subsidies in a special fashion, we do not
believe that valid reasons have been provided to conclude that the ASCM cannot address trade
distortion of fisheries subsidies.  Those who insist on special and separate treatment of fisheries
subsidies have a burden of proof to fulfill.  There is an argument that special disciplines are required
for fisheries subsidies that restrict access to shared fisheries stocks.  It is not evident how the loss of
certain shared stocks causes trade distortion, and no adequate explanation is given on this point.About 95 per cent of the world fisheries production takes place within EEZs.  Conservation and
management of fisheries resources within EEZs can and should be achieved through the
implementation of the duties under the UNCLOS by the coastal states that have the jurisdiction over
their EEZs.
21. WTO members should give careful consideration to whether special disciplines are required
for fisheries subsidies.  If the existing ASCM has certain deficiencies, they should be fully studied and
duly rectified.   Pursuit of sectoral approaches without exhausting such efforts would invite
fragmentation of the ASCM and unnecessarily complicate rules. It will result in going against the
GATT/WTO history of integrating different sectors to be disciplined by common rules.
22. We consider in principle that the ASCM should  be reviewed, if necessary, from the viewpoint
of trade distortion.  On the other hand, international bodies report that many of fisheries subsidies are
spent on resource management and do not distort trade.  In order for the WTO to appropriately deal
with the complex nature of the fisheries subsidies issue, it should fully consider the results of studies
conducted by international bodies with fisheries ex pertise such as the FAO and OECD, taking into
account sustainable use of fisheries resources.
__________
                                                     
3 Porter, G, 2001.  Fisheries Subsidies and Over fishing: Towards a Structured Discussion