WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/127 
24 April 2006 
 (06-1877) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
  
 
 
FISHERIES SUBSIDIES 
 
Communication from the United States
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 20 April 2006,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States. 
 
 The submitting delegation has requested that th is paper, which was submitted to the Rules 
Negotiating Group as an informal document (JOB(06)/ 110), also be circulated as a formal document. 
 
_______________ 
 
  The United States submits this paper as a c ontribution to Members’ consideration of 
proposals on new fisheries disciplines in the form of le gal text.  In the attachment, we propose text in 
three areas:  (1) appropriate conditions to attach  to vessel capacity reduction (buyback) programmes, 
which have been proposed as a potential exception to a broad prohibition;  (2) provisions for the Committee’s periodic review of the effectiveness of new disciplines on fisheries subsidies, including a 
role for intergovernmental organizations with fisher ies expertise;  and (3) provisions for appropriate 
involvement of fisheries experts in addressing techni cal and scientific questions that may arise in 
dispute settlement proceedings under new fisheries s ubsidies disciplines.  These texts are a work in 
progress, and the United States may put fo rward additional views on these issues.  
 
 Exception to a broad prohibition for vessel  capacity reduction (buyback) programmes, 
with appropriate conditions.   There appears to be broad agreement among WTO Members that 
certain programmes aimed at removing overcapacity in targeted fisheries (often referred to as 
“buyback” programmes) can be an effective tool in addressing the problems of the sector.  However, 
there is also general consensus that these programm es need to be carefully structured so that the 
removed capacity does not return.  Recent text-based  proposals premised on a broad prohibition have 
advocated an exception to the prohibition for such pr ogrammes if appropriate conditions are defined.  
Fisheries Subsidies -- Framework for Di sciplines – Paper from New Zealand, TN/RL/GEN/100 
(Annex VIII, paragraph 1(b));  Possible Disciplines on Fisheries Subsidies – Paper from Brazil , 
TN/RL/GEN/79/Rev.1 (Article 2.1(b)).  Submi ssions from other Members supporting alternative 
approaches to new disciplines have also acknowledged the need to develop appropriate conditions for 
such programmes.
1 
 
 
                                                      
1 See Contribution to the Discussion of the Framework for the Disciplines on the Fisheries Subsidies – 
Communication from Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu . TN/RL/W/172 (paragraph 14(i));  Fisheries Subsidies – Submission of the European 
Communities to the Negotiating Group on Rules , TN/RL/W/82 (p. 3). TN/RL/GEN/127 
Page 2  
 
   The United States submits the attached text as a basis for discussion of this issue.  The 
proposal builds on the United States’ previous submission in May 2005.  Fisheries Subsidies:  
Programmes for Decommissioning of Vessels and License Retirement – Communication from the 
United States , TN/RL/GEN/41.  Members would be required to explain in their notifications how the 
programmes meet each of the specified conditions for the exception.  Further, as we have stated in 
previous submissions, exceptions to a prohibition should remain actionable under the other relevant 
WTO rules.  
 Provision of fisheries expertise in the im plementation and enforcement of a fisheries 
subsidies agreement.   Members will also need to consider th e appropriate mechanisms for giving the 
WTO an ability to draw upon fisheries expertise fro m other organizations in the implementation and 
enforcement of stronger rules on fisheries subsidi es.  Proposals to date have not expressly addressed 
this element.  The United States proposes the attached  text, which seeks to address two aspects of this 
issue:    
(1)  periodic review by the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the 
effectiveness of new disciplines, including an appropriate role for the intergovernmental 
bodies with fisheries expertise (such as the UN F ood and Agriculture Organization) in such a 
review;   
 (2)  potential use of fisheries expertise in addressing scientific or technical questions involved in 
disputes under a fisheries subsidies agreement.  The proposal on the latter question is adapted 
from Article 11 of the Agreement on the Applica tion of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. 
 We believe that the attached proposals could be adapted equally well to an annex approach (as 
suggested by Brazil) or as an amendment to the ASCM agreement (as suggested by New Zealand).  TN/RL/GEN/127 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Exception for Vessel capacity reduction programmes : 
  Provided that they are notified in accordan ce with [revised fisheries notification 
requirements,] nothing in [provision on prohibited fi sheries subsidies] shall prevent a Member from 
adopting the following measures: 
 
(__) subsidies for vessel capacity reduction programmes, provided that: 
 
(1) the vessels subject to such programmes are scrapped or otherwise permanently and 
effectively prevented from being  used for fishing anywhere in the world; 
(2) the fish harvesting rights associated with such  vessels, whether they are permits, licenses, 
fish quotas or any other form of harvesting rights, are permanently revoked and may not 
be reassigned; 
(3) the owners of such vessels, and the holders of  such fish harvesting rights, are required to 
relinquish any claim associated with such v essels and harvesting rights that could qualify 
such owners and holders for any present or fu ture harvesting rights in any fishery; and 
(4) there are in place fisheries management cont rol measures designed to prevent over-fishing 
in the targeted fishery, such  as limited entry systems, catch quotas, limits on fishing effort 
or allocation of exclusive quotas to vessels, individuals and/or groups. TN/RL/GEN/127 
Page 4  
 
  Review
 
 
__.1 The Committee on Subsidies and Countervaili ng Measures shall review the implementation 
and operation of this [agreement on fisheries s ubsidies] every __ years, taking into account the 
objectives thereof. In this rega rd, the Committee shall, as appropriate, request information from 
persons and organizations with expertise in fish eries management, conservation and stock assessment, 
such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and regional fisheries management 
organizations.  __.2. In particular, the Committee shall c onsider the following, among other issues:  [identify 
particular areas for attention –e.g., if aquaculture is  ultimately excluded from a prohibition, Members 
could agree specifically to reexamine the continued adequacy of the existing ASCM rules for this 
sector. This list would not be an exhaustive list.]  Consultations and Dispute Settlement
 
 
[Note:  it is assumed that the provisions of Ar ticles XXII and XXIII of G ATT 1994 as elaborated and 
applied by the Dispute Settlement Understanding, shall apply to consultations and settlement of 
related to new rules on fisheries subsidies, with the following additional provisions.  When the form of 
the ultimate agreement (annex or amendment) is determined, Members can consider whether or not 
an explicit reference to the applicability  of the DSU is necessary.]  
 
__.1.  In a dispute under this [agreement on fisher ies subsidies] involving scientific or technical 
questions related to fisheries, a panel should seek advice from fisheries experts chosen by the panel in 
consultation with the parties to the dispute.  To th is end, the panel may, when it deems it appropriate, 
establish an advisory technical fisheries expert s group, or consult the United Nations Food and 
Agriculture Organization or other relevant internationa l organization, at the request of either party to 
the dispute or on its own initiative.  __.2.  Nothing in this [agreement on fisheries s ubsidies] shall impair the rights of Members under 
other international agreements, incl uding the right to resort to th e good offices or dispute settlement 
mechanisms of other international organizations or established under any international agreement.   
 
__________