WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/168/Suppl.2 
1 March 2011 
 (11-1006) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
  
 
FISHERIES SUBSIDIES – ARTICLES I, II AND IV 
 
Communication from the Republic of Korea
 
 
Additional comments and materials to complement  
Korea's proposal subm itted on 22 September 2010 as  
"Fisheries Subsidies Annex – Articles I, II and IV"  
(TN/RL/GEN/168)  
 
Supplement  
 
  The following communication, dated 28 February 2011, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegation of Republic of Korea.  
_______________ 
 
 
Comments from the Delegation of the Republic of Korea Regarding the S&D Treatment
 
for Developing Members in Fisheries Subsidies Annex  
 
 
Disparity in fishing power among developing members 
 
1. S&D treatment for developing Members is one of the fundamental features of the new 
Fisheries Subsidies Annex.  As mandated by the Mi nisterial Declarations, the final consensus on the 
Annex among Members can be achieved only with viab le S&D treatment provisions.  In particular, 
fisheries is one of the key industries and an important development tool for many developing 
Members.  2. At the same time, it should be kept in  mind that the S&D treatment should depend on 
"sustainable fishing activities."  If the S&D treatme nt is devised in a way that somehow undermines 
sustainable fishing activities, such S&D treatment would become moot in the end because the ultimate 
depletion of fish stocks would leave nothing for wh ich developing Members are treated specially or 
differentially.  3. In fact, fisheries statistics present an alarming p ace of depletion.  That is, the percentage of 
under-exploited or moderately exploited fish stocks  fell from 40% in the year of 1974 to 15% in the 
year of 2008 whereas over-exploited, depleted, or  recovering from depletion fish stocks rose from 
10% to 32% during the same period.  These statisti cs underscore the urgent need of "sustainable 
fishing activities."  4. In this respect, the table contained in Attachment 1 of this document merits careful attention 
of the Members.  This table, compiled by the F AO, lists leading fishing countries in the world in 
terms of weight.  As shown in the table, out of  the 57 leading global fishing countries in marine TN/RL/GEN/168/Suppl.2 
Page 2  
 
  fisheries, at least 40 are developing Members. If th e scope is narrowed to the top 30 fishing countries 
which account for 86.5% of the global total catch, at least 20 of them are developing Members.  Overall, developing Members account for roughly 70 % of the global total catch of fish in terms of 
weight.    
5. The attached FAO table also indicates a significant disparity in fishing power among 
developing Members.  Respective annual catches of  some developing Members far exceed those of 
other developing Members.  In fact, respective annual catches of these Members even exceed many 
developed Members.    
6. Apparently, this table reminds us that the objectives of the Annex can be achieved only 
through cooperation from all Members, particular ly from major fishing powers whether they are 
developed or developing Members.  In other word s, attainment of the objectives of the Annex to 
conserve the global fish stocks would require the framework of the Annex to be based on the notion 
of "common responsibility," rather than "differentia ted responsibility," among major fishing powers.   
 
7. Unfortunately, the current Chair's Text, by  adopting a simplistic approach in the S&D 
treatment provision, does not seem to pay enough attention to introduce a system to ensure 
cooperation from all major fishing powers.  So, unfo rtunately it would eventually run the risk of 
leading to depletion of global fish stocks.  Provided that the conservation of sustainable fish stocks is 
one of the fundamental objectives of the Annex, an argument therefore can be made that an 
adjustment may be in order concerning the S&D treatment of the Chair's Text. 
 8. Any prospective adjustment in this regard  should not undermine the S&D treatment as one of 
the fundamental principles of the Annex, nor s hould it deprive the developing Members (including 
those with significant fishing power) of the legitim ate expectation based on the level of current S&D 
treatment of the Chair's Text.  
 
Suggestion for a new approach 
 
9. In light of this, Members might want to c onsider exploring an approach in which major 
fishing powers,
1 whether they are developed or developing Members, recognize "common 
responsibility" and promises to assume adequate oblig ations to achieve the objectives of the Annex.  
It is essential that a critical mass of these majo r fishing powers should promise to introduce and 
subject themselves to an effective FMS implementation obligation.2  At the same time, Members 
should also explore the possibility of an alternativ e approach in which the legitimate concerns and 
development needs of these developing Members can be adequately addressed.   
 
10. One of such alternatives would be to utilize the small-scale de minimis  provision to be 
introduced in the general exceptions category.  As discussed in previous meet ings, the introduction of 
the small-scale de minimis provision in the context of the general exceptions could address the 
concern and interest of developing Members. If developing Members (including those regarded as 
major fishing powers) are given a bigger number ( i.e., X+Y) than the one for developed Members 
(i.e., X) with respect to the de minimis  carve-out, a significant portion of the concerns and political 
                                                      
1 Members can continue to discuss to come up with a reasonable threshold to determine which 
developing Members should be regarded as major fishing powers.  We note that the Canadian proposal and the 
SVEs proposal have respectively presented 0.5% and 1% of the global catch as thresholds for developing Members' catches in the operation of the Annex.  These numbers may provide a starting point for the 
discussions. 
2 As to the developing Members that are not regarded  as major fishing powers, such as SVEs, some of 
the FMS requirements could be adjusted or lowered in  certain circumstances with  a longer implementation 
period, as indicated in Attachment 2 of this document.  TN/RL/GEN/168/Suppl.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  sensitivities of the developing Members (including th ose regarded as major fishing powers) should be 
addressed by this provision.  At the same time, Me mbers could consider providing a more comfort 
zone ( i.e., X+Y+Z) for the SVEs.  These numbers can be discussed and determined so as to protect 
the legitimate political sensitivities of developing  Members, thereby ensuring cooperation of all 
members that is essential to preserving global sustaina ble fisheries. This formula is set forth in the 
table in Attachment 2 of this document. 
 11. To the extent a significant portion of political sensitivities of developing Members relating to artisanal/small-scale fisheries is covered by general small-scale de minimus  provision in general 
exceptions, the S&D provision could be adjusted  so as to reflect and address other remaining 
development needs of developing Members.   
 12. A general outline of such an adjustment is set  forth in the table in Attachment 2 of this 
document. First of all, subsidies for artisanal/small-scale fisheries permitted under Article III.2(a) and 
III.2(b)(2)of the Chair's Text should be cap tured by the bigger number small-scale de minimis  carve-
out for developing Members.  So, if the de minimis  approach is adopted, these paragraphs in the 
Chair's Text may be deleted.  On the other hand,  subsidy for vessel construction for EEZ fisheries 
provided in Article III.2(b)(3) of the Chair's Te xt will probably not overlap with the small-scale de 
minimis  provision and thus should be maintained as it is now. 
 13. Reflecting discussions in recent negotiati on meetings among Members, infrastructure 
subsidies in Article III.2(b)(1) should be permitte d to developing Members as well as to developed 
Members to the extent they are provided for the establishment of general infrastructure within the 
meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) of the SCM Agr eement.  Permission for income support and price 
support in Article III.2(b)(1) may be deleted or ad justed depending on the le vel of additional number 
Y for the de minimis  general exception.  Considering speci al economic vulnerability of the SVEs, 
Members may consider permitting income support and price support to the SVEs despite an additional 
de minimis  number ( i.e., Y+Z) to be given to the these Members. 
 14. Subsidies arising from further transfer of access rights in Article III.3 and technical assistance/capacity building in Article III.4 of the Ch air's Text serve separate and distinct purposes, 
and should remain as they are,  regardless of the de minimis  provision. 
 
15. Finally and importantly, the de minimis  carve-out should be based on the common pledge 
among Members for an effective FMS.   Thus, the invocation of the de minimis  exemption and S&D 
treatment should be subject to the implementation of the effective FMS obligation.  As explained 
above, in our view it is particularly important for major fishing powers to pledge to have a reliable 
and verifiable FMS.   
 16. In light of this, major fishing powers including developing Members should assume the 
obligation to have an FMS in place where all manda tory elements and additional elements contained 
in Korea's supplemental document of Februa ry 4, 2011 are adequately incorporated.
3  We note that 
technical assistance and capacity building under Article  III.4 would be particularly meaningful in this 
respect.  Developing Members other than major fishing powers would be provided with some 
flexibilities of implementing mandatory elements of th e FMS with a transition period.  SVEs are also 
                                                      
3 Given the importance of a common pledge for "sustainable fishing activities,” major fishing powers 
including developing Members will have to implement, ultimately, all mandatory elements and additional elements as illustrated in Korea's supplemental document of February 4, 2011.  At the same time, it is also true 
that the specific situations of  these major fishing powers ( e.g., time required to implement certain additional 
elements) are all different. In light of this reality,  with respect to some of the additional elements, an immediate 
implementation obligation may be imposed ( e.g., transparency requirement), while with respect to other 
additional elements, a transition period may be given to the Members in this group. TN/RL/GEN/168/Suppl.2 
Page 4  
 
  expected to implement the mandatory elements of  the FMS, but some of the requirement can be 
lessened or lowered in certain circumstances and a longer transition period can be considered.   
 17. In short, if the sensitivities and interest  of developing Members including those with 
significant fishing power can be basically addressed by the general exceptions  provision, proportional 
changes to the current S&D provision should be ma de. Through this interaction between the general 
exceptions provision and the S&D provision, the origin al equilibrium contained in the Chair's Text 
can be maintained.  In our view, this holistic a pproach can ensure preserving the current balance of 
interest among all Members regarding the S&D pr ovision and, at the same time, help Members 
achieve the objectives of the Annex thr ough "sustainable fishing activities."   TN/RL/GEN/168/Suppl.2 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Attachment 1 
 
Capture production by principal producers in 2008 (Fish, crustaceans, molluscs, etc)  
  
Rank Country or Area Capture  
production  Rank Country or Area Marine Fisheries  Rank Country or 
Area Inland 
Water 
Fisheries 
1 China 14,791,163   1 China  12,542,816  1 China 2,248,347 
2 Peru 7,362,907   2 Peru  7,317,495  2 Bangladesh 1,060,181 
3 Indonesia 4,957,098   3 Indonesia  4,633,948  3 India 953,126 
4 USA 4,349,853   4 USA  4,325,272  4 Myanmar 814,740 
5 Japan 4,248,697   5 Japan  4,215,919  5 Uganda 450,000 
6 India 4,104,877   6 Chile  3,554,814  6 Cambodia 365,000 
7 Chile 3,554,814   7 Russian Fed  3,166,883  7 Indonesia 323,150 
8 Russian Fed 3,383,724   8 India  3,151,751  8 Nigeria 304,413 
9 Philippines 2,561,192   9 Norway  2,429,968  9 Tanzania 281,690 
10 Myanmar 2,493,750   10 Philippi nes  2,381,701  10 Brazil 243,000 
11 Thailand 2,457,184   11 Thailand  2,226,084  11 Egypt 237,572 
12 Norway 2,430,842   12 Viet Nam  1,946,600  12 Thailand 231,100 
13 Viet Nam 2,087,500   13 Korea Rep  1,938,668  13 Congo Dem R 230,000 
14 Korea Rep 1,943,870   14 Myanmar  1,679,010  14 Russian Fed 216,841 
15 Mexico 1,588,857   15 Mexico  1,476,531  15 Ph ilippines 179,491 
16 Bangladesh 1,557,754   16 Malaysia  1,391,589  16 Viet Nam 140,900 
17 Malaysia 1,395,942   17 Iceland  1,283,803  17 Mexico 112,326 
18 Iceland 1,284,034   18 China, Taiwan  1,016,192  18 Pakistan 108,000 
19 China, Taiwan 1,016,390   19 Morocco  991,333  19 Ghana 75,000 
20 Morocco 995,773   20 Argentina  983,837  20 Iran 65,862 
21 Argentina 995,083   21 Spain  911,188  21 Senegal 58,852 
22 Canada 937,370   22 Cana da  906,307  22 Peru 45,412 
23 Spain 917,188   23 Denmark  690,172  23 Sri Lanka 44,500 
24 Brazil 775,000   24 South Africa  642,786  24 Turkey 41,011 
25 Denmark 690,202   25 UK  593,475  25 Japan 32,778 
26 South Africa 643,686   26 Brazil  532,000  26 Canada 31,063 
27 UK 596,004   27 Bangladesh  497,573  27 Venezuela 24,882 
28 Nigeria 541,368   28 Faeroe Is  495,348  28 USA 24,581 
29 Faeroe Is 495,348   29 France  454,527  29 Germany 22,062 
30 Turkey 494,124   30 Turkey  453,113  30 Angola 19,000 
31 France 457,127   31 New Zealand  450,300  31 Sierra Leone 14,000 
32 Pakistan 451,414   32 Ecuador  434,040  32 Papua N 
Guinea 13,500 
33 New Zealand 451,052   33 Netherlands  414,748  33 Argentina 11,246 
34 Uganda 450,000   34 Senegal  388,902  34 Spain 6,000 
35 Senegal 447,754   35 Namibia  370,022  35 Korea Rep 5,202 
36 Ecuador 434,239   36 Pakistan  343,414  36 Korea D P 
Rp 5,000 
37 Cambodia 431,000   37 Iran  341,980  37 Morocco 4,440 
38 Netherlands 416,748   38 Angola  298,262  38 Malaysia 4,353 
39 Iran 407,842   39 Sri Lanka  283,075  39 Italy 3,552 
40 Egypt 373,815   40 Ghana  274,831  40 Panama 3,250 
41 Namibia 372,822   41 Venezuela  270,482  41 Namibia 2,800 
42 Ghana 349,831   42 Portugal  240,192  42 France 2,600 
43 Sri Lanka 327,575   43 Nigeria  236,955  43 UK 2,529 
44 Tanzania 325,476   44 Greenland  233,754  44 Netherlands 2,000 
45 Angola 317,262   45 Italy  232,233  45 Sweden 1,614 
46 Venezuela 295,364   46 Sweden  229,722  46 South Africa 900 
47 Portugal 240,192   47 Panama  219,258  47 Norway 874 
48 Congo Dem R 236,000   48 Papua N Guinea  210,131  48 New Zealand 752 TN/RL/GEN/168/Suppl.2 
Page 6  
 
  Rank Country or Area Capture  
production  Rank Country or Area Marine Fisheries  Rank Country or 
Area Inland 
Water 
Fisheries 
49 Italy 235,785   49 Germany  207,437  49 Iceland 231 
50 Greenland 233,754   50 Ireland  205,128  50 Ireland 214 
51 Sweden 231,336   51 Korea D P Rp  200,000  51 Ecuador 199 
52 Germany 229,499   52 Sierra Leone  189,582  52 China, 
Taiwan 198 
53 Papua N Guinea 223,631   53 Egypt  136,243  53 Denmark 30 
54 Panama 222,508   54 Cambodia  66,000  54 Chile 0 
55 Ireland 205,342   55 Tanzania  43,786  55 Faeroe Is 0 
56 Korea D P Rp 205,000   56 Congo Dem R  6,000  56 Portugal 0 
57 Sierra Leone 203,582   57 Uganda -  57 Greenland 0 
           
57 countries 84,427,544   57 countries  75,357,180  57 countries 9,070,364 
          
Other countries 5,313,375   Other countries  4,163,280  Other countries 1,150,095 
          
World total 89,740,919   World total  79,520,460  World total 10,220,459 
*Source :  FAO Fishstat Plus  
 
   
 
     
 
    
 
    
 
    TN/RL/GEN/168/Suppl.2 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Attachment 2 
 
The interaction between De Minimis  provision and the S&D provision  
  
 Categories Developed 
Members Developing Members SVEs LDCs 
ARTICLE Ⅱ 
(General 
Exception) De Minimis*  
(scope of subsidy 
permissible) X 
(all subsidies)X+Y 
(all subsidies) X+Y+Z 
(all subsidies) N/A 
 
Subsidy for Vessel 
Construction for 
Fisheries in 
Members' Own 
EEZ N/A Vessel construction subsidy permitted 
with the same condition in Article 
III.2(b)(3) of Chair's Text Vessel 
construction 
subsidy permitted 
with the same 
condition in 
Article III.2(b)(3) 
of Chair's Text N/A 
Subsidy for 
General 
Infrastructure Permitted Permitted Permitted N/A 
Income Support N/A To be deleted to the extent this is 
covered by Y Permitted N/A 
Price Support N/A To be deleted to the extent this is 
covered by Y Permitted N/A 
Subsidy Arising 
from Further 
Transfer of Access 
Rights Article III.3 of the Chair's Text Applies ARTICLE Ⅲ 
(S&DT) 
TA/CB Article III.4 of the Chair's Text Applies 
(A special consideration clause fo r the SVEs may be contemplated) 
(A clause to support the implementation of  the FMS obligation may be contemplated)
 
 FMS 
Conditionality for 
De Minimis /S&DT M+A M+A** 
(with a transition period) M- 
(with a longer 
transition period)N/A 
 
 *The De Minimis  exemption aims to address both ar tisanal and small-scale fisheries. 
 ** A critical mass of major fishing powers should assume the obligation to have both mandatory and 
additional elements in place, while  developing members other than major fi shing powers can be provided with 
flexibilities with regard to the additional elements.  
 
 X: [X]% of the annual total catch of the Member.  
 Y: [Y]% of the annual total catch of the Member.  
 Z: [Z]% of the annual to tal catch of the Member.  
 M: Mandatory elements of FMS in Korea's supplement to its proposal (TEN/RL/GEN/168/Suppl.1). 
 A: Additional elements of FMS in Korea's supplement to its proposal (TEN/RL/GEN/168/Suppl.1).  
 
 
__________