WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2 
13 September 2005 
 (05-3984) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
  
WTO FISHERIES SUBSIDIES DISCIPLINES 
 
ARCHITECTURE ON FISHERIES SUBSIDIES DISCIPLINES 
 
Paper from Antigua and Barbuda;  Ba rbados;  Dominican Republic;  Fiji;
 
Grenada;  Guyana;  Jamaica;  Papua New Guinea;  St. Kitts and Nevis;  
St. Lucia;  Solomon Islands;  and Trinidad and Tobago  
 
Revision  
  The following communication, dated 5 July 2005, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegations of Antigua and Barbuda ;  Barbados;  Dominican Republic;  Fiji;  Grenada;  Guyana;  
Jamaica;  Papua New Guinea;  St. Kitts and Nevis;  St. Lucia;  Solomon Islands;  and Trinidad and 
Tobago.   The submitting delegations have requested that this paper, which was submitted to the Rules 
Negotiating Group as an informal document (JOB(05) /143/Rev.2), also be circulated as a formal 
document. 
_______________ 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
1. We recall the paper on Fisheries Subsidies (TN/RL/W/136) addressing the specific concerns 
of Small Vulnerable Coastal States in the Pacific a nd Indian Ocean and in the Caribbean.  As noted in 
TN/RL/W/136, the multilateral trading system should identify and implement responses to issues of concern to small vulnerable coastal states.  
2. TN/RL/W/136 identified three primary categories of  economic activity in the fisheries sector 
of small vulnerable coastal states as being:    (i) Revenue generation from access fees for distant water fleets;  
 (ii) Domestic and foreign fisheries export-re lated operations in the EEZ and territorial sea 
to supply canneries, loining facilities and domestic processing facilities; 
  (iii) Artisanal fishing within the territori al sea and the EEZ for the domestic and export 
market. 
 
3. The fisheries sector is not only of economic importance, but is also a key factor in the drive to 
eradicate poverty in developing countries.  Artisanal, or  small-scale fisheries, as providers of fisheries 
products for domestic consumption are im portant for maintaining food security. 
  
 
 TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2 
Page 2  
 
 II. ADDRESSING THE OVEREXPLOITA TION OF FISHERIES RESOURCES 
 
4. We reaffirm the commitments made in the WSSD in Johannesburg to replenish fish stocks to 
sustainable levels by 2015.  We recognize th e efforts made through the FAO, UNEP and other 
environmental organizations, in regional organizations, and thro ugh donor-assisted programmes to 
increase the capacity of developing countries to implement sustainable fisheries management 
strategies, in accordance with the UN Conve ntion on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 
 
5. We further recognize that inadequate human a nd institutional capacity for effective fisheries 
management is a major constraint facing many devel oping states, particularly small vulnerable coastal 
states, may lead to overexploitation and degradati on of fisheries resources.  Efforts to build and 
strengthen fisheries management capacity at na tional and regional levels , through multilateral 
agencies and donor-assisted programmes should continue as a priority.  
6. As was highlighted in the communication fro m Japan (TN/RL/W/164), illegal, unregulated 
and unreported (IUU) fishing is a major contributor to over-exploitation of fisheries resources.  The 
international community should accelerate efforts to control IUU through strengthening the monitoring and supervision of fi shing activities, including those of distant water fishing vessels 
operating in foreign EEZs.   
7. The Negotiating Group on Rules should continue  to consult with the Committee on Trade and 
Environment (CTE) to avoid duplication of effo rts on matters related to environment and in 
identifying practical methods for enhanced coopera tion between the WTO, multilateral environmental 
agreements (MEAs) and internati onal environmental organizations. 
 
III. ISSUES 
 
Conservation of Fisheries Stock 
 
 
8. The proponents of this paper, being environmen tally fragile and vulnerable, strongly support 
initiatives to protect the environment.  We are c oncerned that measures developed in this Group may 
not adequately address the environmental concerns that motivate their development.  The so called 
“traffic-light” approach may not serve to promote conservation of fish stocks; for example, in the 
event of a dispute brought to the Dispute Settlement  Body, fisheries resources could continue to be 
depleted during litigation.  We concur with the observation that it may be difficult to explicitly 
address overcapacity and overfishing in WTO rules1, even if a general prohibition or “top-down” 
approach is adopted.  In this regard we view mech anisms to strengthen regional and national fisheries 
management bodies, and identify and rehabilitate e ndangered species, such as those employed by the 
FAO and MEAs more responsive to the probl em of threatened fisheries species.  
 
Capacity of Developing Countries to Develop Fisheries Resources  
 9. Some developing Member States have sm all domestic fleets and have ongoing initiatives to 
localise the distant water fisheries, develop the in -shore fishery sector, and forge linkages with other 
sectors of their economies including tourism.  The prohibition of measures that may increase fishing 
capacity in a responsible manner, without negativ ely affecting the productivity of the resource and 
sustainability of the ecosystem, would unduly limit th e ability of certain states to develop and utilize 
their fisheries resources for sustainable developmen t, food security and poverty reduction.  We are 
concerned that the information used in examini ng the relationship between subsidies and fisheries 
                                                     
 
1 Communication from New Zealand ‘Fisheries Subsidies: Overcapacity and Overexploitation’ 
TN/RL/W/154, 26 April 2004; Communication from the United States ‘Additional Views on the Structure of the 
Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations’ TN/RL/W/169, 13 December 2004.  TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
 depletion has been based mainly on data for mo re advanced countries with large scale industrial 
fleets.2 
 
Product heterogeneity  
 
10. The need for clarification and improvement of  fisheries subsidies disciplines stems from the 
legitimate concern expressed by so me members that the ASCM does not provide clear disciplines for 
heterogeneous goods such as marine products because it is extremely difficult to demonstrate price 
effects or to apply countervailing measures where necessary.3  As a means of addressing this issue, 
and in order to generally improve the ASCM’s treatment of the fisheries sector and others where 
product heterogeneity arises, members should consid er the best approach to defining such a 
heterogeneous product.  We note with interest s uggestions from the United States to clarify “serious 
prejudice”4, while underscoring the importance of appropr iate consideration of small vulnerable 
coastal states if such an approach is adopted.  
 
11. We are therefore of the view that  it is incumbent upon members who are demandeur  in these 
negotiations return to this issue, especially if disciplines based on a cost/revenue approach are to 
develop.   
 
IV. PROPOSED APPROACHES TO FI SHERIES SUBSIDIES DISCIPLINES 
 
12. The “traffic light” architecture previously proposed in several submissions represented an 
ambitious drive to curb the negative trend of fi sheries stock depletion by categorizing fisheries 
subsidies based on their relative production distor tion effects.  By extending the application of 
subsidies beyond trade effects and to include overcap acity and over-fishing, such an approach goes 
beyond the technical and administrative competence of the WTO.  It is foreseeable that, using the 
“traffic light” approach, a dispute could be initiated against a WTO Member based on the use of 
fisheries subsidies that: “directly promote overcapacity and overfishing”5 without direct reference to 
any trade effects.  That the dispute settlement mechanism could be used to resolve a fisheries 
management issue constitutes a systemic institutional risk for the WTO that is not supported by the 
proponents of this paper. 
 
13. While the cost-based approach to fisheries subsidies disciplines is consistent with the 
competence of the WTO, a top down approach to fi sheries subsidies, as outlined by New Zealand in 
TN/RL/W/154 would only address the goal of sustaina ble development of the fisheries sector in 
developing coastal states if the appropriate excepti ons are made to allow for the realization of 
development objectives.  
                                                      
2 This was recognized in ‘Fisheries Subsidies – Su bmission from New Zealand on paragraph 32 (i) of 
the Doha Declaration’ WT/CTE/ W/204, 19 March 2002 Committee on Trade and Environment. 
3 Submission from Australia, Chile, Ecuador, Iceland, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines and the 
United States ‘The Doha Mandate to Address Fisheries Subsidies: Issues” TN/RL/W/3, 24 April 2002; and,  
Submission from New Zealand ‘Fisheries Subsidies: Limitations of Existing Subsidy Disciplines’ TN/RL/W12, 
4 July 2002 
4 TN/RL/W/169, 13 December 2004. 
5 Communication from the United States to the Negotiating Group on Rules ‘Possible Approaches to 
Improved Disciplines on Fisheries Subsidies - Co mmunication from the United States’ TN/RL/W/77, 
19 March 2003; Communication to Negotiating Group on Rules from Japan ‘Proposal on Fisheries Subsidies’ TN/RL/W/164, 27 September 2004; ‘Communication from the European Communities to the Negotiating 
Group on Rules – Fisheries Subsidies’, TN/RL/W/82, 23 April 2003; Communication  from Chile to the 
Negotiating Group on Rules ‘Possible Approaches to Improved Disciplines on Fisheries Subsidies’  TN/RL/W/115, 10 June 2003; Communication to Negotiating Group on Rules from Japan ‘Proposal on 
Fisheries Subsidies’ TN/RL/W/164, 27 September 2004. TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2 
Page 4  
 
  
14. Regardless of the approach employed, it shoul d be explicitly stated that development 
assistance granted to small vulnerable coastal states does not constitute a subsidy and, therefore, does 
not fall under the remit of subsidies disciplines. 
 
V. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR DEVELOPING  COUNTRIES  
 
15. We are heartened by the recognition of several Members, in their respective submissions, that 
any new measures on fisheries subsidies should take  into account the importance of the fisheries 
sector to developing countries.
6  We also recognize the ongoing wo rk in the Committee on Trade and 
Development (COMTD) to address the particular n eeds of small vulnerable coastal states.  The 
sponsors of this proposal will pr ovide further contributions in th is area as negotiations proceed.  
 
16. Small vulnerable coastal states seek appropriate special and differential treatment in any 
disciplines on fisheries subsidies.  In this regard  the following should not be subject to subsidies 
disciplines:  
(i) Any development assistance to developing coastal states; 
 
(ii) Assistance to artisanal or small-scale fisheries .  This requires a consensus on the 
definition of artisanal or small-scale.  Some existing definitions of artisanal are based 
on vessel size in metres, capacity in gross registered tonnage (GRT), or area of 
operation in terms of proximity to the shore line.  We invite discussions on prevailing 
definitions used by Member States and possible approaches for arriving at a definition for use in the WTO; to facilitate the discussions, the sponsors of this paper 
will share information with Members on defi nitions currently being used in their 
respective jurisdictions; 
 
(iii) Access fees in fish eries access agreements;  
 
(iv) Fiscal Incentives - to facilitate the development of capabilities of small vulnerable 
coastal states. 
 
17. We propose that the special and differential treatment provisions of the ASCM for Least 
Developed Countries be maintained in future disciplines.  
 
18. This proposal is without prejudice to indivi dual country positions and rights to submit 
additional proposals in this or other WTO Bodies on any issues contained in this statement and/or on any other issues not included here. 
 
 
__________ 
 
 
                                                     
 
6 ‘Communication from the European Communities to the Negotiating Group on Rules – Fisheries 
Subsidies’, TN/RL/W/82, 23 April 2003; Communicat ion from China to the Negotiating Group on Rules 
‘Proposal from the People’s Republic of China on Fisheries Subsidies’ TN/RL/W/9, 20 June 2002; 
Communication from New Zealand to the Negotiating Group on Rules “Fisheries Subsidies: Overcapacity and 
Overexploitation”, TN/RL/W/154, 26 April 2004; Communication from Korea ‘Questions and Comments From Korea On New Zealand’s Communication On Fisher ies Subsidies (TN/RL/W/154)’ TN/RL/W/160, 
8 June 2004.