WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/CTE/W/242 
7 July 2006 
 (06-3293) 
Committee on Trade and Environment  
  
 
INFORMAL DIALOGUE ON DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY IN THE WTO 
FISHERY SUBSIDIES NEGOTIATIONS: ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES  
 
 GENEVA - 11 MAY 2006  
 
CHAIR’S SUMMARY  
 
Contribution by UNEP
 
   
I.  BACKGROUND  
1. On 11 May 2006, UNEP, ICTSD, and WWF joined  together in Geneva to convene an 
informal dialogue on “Development and Sustainabili ty in the WTO Fishery Subsidies Negotiations”.  
The focus of the workshop was on developing countr y issues in the current WTO fisheries subsidies 
negotiations.  Specifically, this meeting s ought to address the following questions:   
• What are the specific development and sustainability objectives of governments in 
the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations? 
 
• What kind of programmes or policies are currently in place, or are envisioned for 
the future, to meet these objectives? 
 
• What are the key technical questions that most need answering in order to draft new 
WTO disciplines that achieve the desired outcomes?  
 
2. Participants included approximately 78 individuals, including 26 representatives from 
Geneva-based WTO delegations, 27 government officials based outside  of Geneva, and 25 IGOs and 
non-governmental experts.  Nearly two-thirds of the participants were individuals associated with 
governments or organizations in developing countries.   All participants attended in their personal 
capacities, and agreed to abide by the “Chatham Hou se Rule”.  The agenda, participants’ list, and the 
formal workshop presentations are available at the organizers websites.1 
3. This summary report was prepared by Anja von Moltke (UNEP, Economics and Trade 
Branch) under her personal responsibility as the works hop chair.  It is neither a consensus document 
nor fully comprehensive.  Instead it seeks to review  the main issues raised and suggestions made by 
participants.  This summary report, nevertheless, has been circulated for review to all workshop 
participants before its finalization.  
                                                      
 1 http://www.unep.ch/etb/events/2006ICTSDWWFMay11.php  
    http://www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2006-05-11/2006-05-11-desc.htm 
    http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/ policy/trade_and_investmen t/news/index.cfm?uNews 
ID=68300 
 WT/CTE/W/242 
Page 2  
 
  II. KEY POINTS OF THE DISCUSSION  
The importance of developing country issu es to the fisheries subsidies negotiations    
4. Participants broadly shared the view that e ffective consideration of developing country 
concerns remains critical to the success of the fish eries subsidies negotiations, and that discussion of 
“special and differential treatment” for developing countries should continue in parallel with steps 
towards the adoption of effective WTO discip lines to limit harmful fisheries subsidies. 
5. The need for continued parallel treatment of developing country issues does not detract from 
the pressing need to define new disciplines, incl uding a prohibition on fisheries subsidies that 
contribute to overcapacity and over-fishing, as manda ted by the Hong Kong ministerial declaration.  
Indeed, several participants noted the analytic impossibility of drafting S&DT provisions without 
having a good sense of the positive obligations to which they relate.  
The need for balanced new disciplines   
6. Developing countries have strong interests at stake in these talks.  Many participants noted 
that developing countries stand to gain significant be nefits from new rules that discipline the subsidies 
currently received by the industries of some of the world’s most powerful fishing nations.  These 
disciplines, however, will need to take account of the special circumstances of developing countries, 
including the need for policy space to protect livelihoods, promote de velopment, and maintain food 
security. 
7. The discussion also revealed the continuing ch allenge of balancing economic development 
policies with the need for sustainable long-term mana gement of fisheries.  Participants stressed both 
the urgent need for securing the means to suppor t development and the fact that avoiding the 
depletion of fish stocks is a sine qua non  of successful development within the fisheries sector.  
Effective S&DT does not mean “carte blanche” for unsustainable subsidies  
8. Many participants called for S&DT provisions that  are truly effective in protecting the right to 
use certain subsidies to promote development in the fi sheries sector.  Priority must be given to poverty 
reduction policies in developing countries, where pr operly designed subsidies can play an important 
role.  A number of participants further noted that  the financial capacity of many developing countries 
to provide subsidies is often limited.  
9. Still, participants repeatedly voiced—and none  spoke to oppose—the view that S&DT should 
give flexibility to developing countries without cr eating a “blank cheque” that would encourage or 
allow developing countries to cause overcapacity or ove rfishing through their subsidies policies.  This 
might need to include workable conditionalities relate d to the sustainability context in which fishing 
subsidies are implemented.  Participants explored  possibilities including the use of the “patently at 
risk fishery” concept, which has already been  introduced into the negotiations, as well as other 
approaches, such as conditionalities based on the U.N.  Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing.  
Participants also noted the recent introduction in to the negotiations of proposals for institutional 
mechanisms to help consider and implement such criteria.  
10. Reference was also made to proposals that have  been offered at the negotiating table for a 
“simplified” approach to S&DT, such as a de minimis  rule or a provision giving developing countries 
a time-limited exemption from new fishing subsid ies disciplines.  While some participants 
commented that such mechanisms might form part of an eventual S&DT package, others felt that 
these approaches taken alone did not adequately address developing country and sustainability 
concerns.  
  WT/CTE/W/242 
 Page 3 
 
 
  A workable approach to defining “artisanal fishing” remains elusive  
11. Participants discussed at some length the issu es raised by the term “artisanal fishing.”  A 
variety of approaches to defining the term fo r purposes of new WTO disciplines was examined, 
including restricting the term to “subsistence” fish ing or to vessels under a certain size or to certain 
levels of labour-intensitivity.  Attention was also  given to the question whether “artisanal fishing” 
should be distinguished from “small scale fishi ng.”  Approaches to these issues seemed quite 
disparate around the table.  It was pointed out, fo r example, that the si ze limit proposed by one 
participant would have allowed nearly the entire in dustrial fishery of one developed country to be 
classified as “artisanal”.  Differing views were al so expressed regarding whether specific rules or 
exemptions for artisanal and small-scale fisheries should be limited to the context of developing 
countries. 
12. There nevertheless appeared, some basic agreemen t among participants on at least two points:  
first, that fisherfolk and fishing communities at the low end of the economic development scale pose 
particular needs and challenges to policymakers;  and second, that it is generally the goal of 
governments and fisherfolk alike to raise people out of “subsistence” lifestyles, in particular through 
increased commercial and trade activities.  These fact s led some participants to suggest that the 
interests of “artisanal” fisheries might be protected through general S&DT rules, or even through other elements of the new fishing subsidies disci plines (such as rules allowi ng subsidies needed for 
maintaining a “social safety net” for fisherfolk). 
The discussion of subsidies related to fi sheries access arrangements is progressing  
13. Participants also discussed at length the issues raised by subsidies associated with fisheries 
access arrangements.  This discussion helped clarify some important elements of the “subsidies for 
access” question.  In particular, there appeared universal agreement that new WTO rules should not 
treat government-to-government access fee payments  as “subsidies” flowing between distant water 
fleet nations and host EEZ nations. 
14. In addition, those participants inclined to seek some new disciplines on “access subsidies” 
expressed clear sympathy with the concerns that ha ve been raised at the negotiating table by small 
vulnerable economies, including the fear of limited sovereign states' flexibility on how to negotiate 
such agreements and use the access fees.  Particip ants from all perspectives appeared united in the 
view that new WTO rules should not impede or di scourage the access payments on which many small 
vulnerable economies depend.  Participants also gene rally agreed that the lack of transparency of 
current access arrangements poses significant problems. Some suggested that there might be a role for 
the WTO to address these problems.  
15. With participants largely in agreement that access fees themselves should not be considered 
subsidies, the discussion turned to the question whether any other aspect of access arrangements 
should be considered a subsidy under new ASCM fi sheries subsidies disciplines.  While there was no 
attempt to reach a common view on this point, th ere seemed some basis for agreement that any 
“subsidy” that might be found within access arrange ments could only arise between the distant water 
fishing nation (DWFN) and its own domestic fishing fleet, on whose behalf the DWFN secured access 
to foreign fishing grounds.  In this regard, some pa rticipants suggested that a subsidy exists to the 
extent the access fees paid by the DWFN are not repaid to the DWFN government by its industry. 
16. Other participants, however, argued that the am ount (or even the existence) of a government-
to-government access payment is irrelevant to th e measurement of an access-related subsidy.  
According to this view, the proper measure of a subsidy would be the difference between the 
commercial value of the access enjoyed by the privat e fleet and the amount it paid to its government 
in return for the securing of that access. This raised the question whether the same would apply at the 
domestic level. WT/CTE/W/242 
Page 4  
 
  17. The quality of the “access subsidies” discussi on suggested, in the chair’s view, that 
governments have more in common on this issue than has been apparent in th e negotiations so far, 
and that further technical exploration of the defin ition of an access subsidy could be especially useful  
Further discussion—especially of specific programmatic interests—is needed  
18. A number of participants shared lists of sp ecific types of fisheries subsidy programmes 
maintained by their governments.  The discussion  that ensued around these lists was useful as 
participants began to explore the nature of the ru les needed for the protection of developing country 
interests.  In particular, this part of the dial ogue revealed the necessary links between crafting S&DT 
provisions and crafting other elements of the new fi shing subsidies disciplines (such as exceptions to a 
prohibition, or a category of non-actionable fisheries subsidies).  
19. Several participants expressed concern with  the shortness of time remaining in the 
negotiations.  The view was offered that continued discussion at the level of specificity achieved at 
this workshop was urgently needed .  This sentiment seemed widely sh ared by the participants.  The 
shortness of time notwithstanding, however, it appeared to the chair that particip ants in this workshop 
continue to feel optimistic that the technical a nd political challenges associated with the fisheries 
subsidies talks can and will be met.  
 
__________