Fishing subsidies stink

WTO talks could end fishing subsidies

Posted by Andrew Sharpless (Guest Contributor) at 4:31 PM on 30 May 2007

Read more about: fishing | oceans | international politics

Most ocean conservationists are on pins and needles in anticipation of the results of this week's International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting. But I'm also thinking about another three-letter acronym and how much good may be coming out of it. W-T-O. That's right, the World Trade Organization.

In Geneva (and at the current Doha round) there's serious talk of cutting government subsidies for commercial fishing -- the fundamental driver for the unsustainable exploitation of the oceans. I just returned from there, where I met with Pascal Lamy -- head of the WTO -- and, together with Professor Rashid Sumaila of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, briefed a large number of the delegates.

Government subsidies of $30-34 billion (to an industry whose dockside revenues are $80 billion) swell the global fishing fleet to something like 200 percent of sustainable capacity. It's no wonder that scientists predict the collapse of our fisheries by midcentury. These subsidies can only be eliminated through multilateral action, since all countries will refuse to unilaterally disarm in the race to capture the last wild fish. That makes the WTO the best place where real change can happen.

I made a pit stop in London to help fuel some media attention on the issue. Check out the terrific piece in Canada's The Globe and Mail, liberally quoting economist Sumaila, author of the most recent global study on subsidies.

For story: Fishing subsidies stink
8 Comments | Post a Comment

WTO negotiations

Thanks for your work and travel weariness, Andrew.

One gets the impression that subsidies to fishers are just a negotiating chip. They will be removed, only if something else of a positive nature can be promised in recompense. There is not yet any absolute sense that the way the fisheries work today is evil. Or even fairly evil; or minorly evil.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 8:28 PM on 30 May 2007

I hadn't known that ...

I'm always hearing free marketers singing the praises of ITQ schemes as a way to get the magic of the market to halt overfishing. But I'd never heard any of them mention the problem of government subsidies. You'd think they'd want to start there, since it's much simpler to shrink the government and get it to stop interfering in the market, than to expand the government into an overseer and enforcer of an ITQ system.

by Stentor at 10:29 PM on 30 May 2007

Excellent!!!

I've been a constant voice of ending natural resource subsidies on this site and this is great stuff- another reason that the WTO's mandate should be strengthened, not weakened, as many environmentalists misguidedly believe.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

by jscorse at 6:51 AM on 31 May 2007

Government

What is a long term solution to Governments wrecking the environment with subsidies? How do you stop politicians from buying votes with them?

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 7:02 AM on 31 May 2007

Q & A

Hey, all:

Hey, BioD:

It frustrates me when I ask a question and the cyber room apparently instantly empties (the questions aren't that tough), so I'll try and answer yours. Ahem, "Be the change...."

The Big Answer is political reform. Governments more and more are extensions of business, and this has to stop. Greed and graft, corporate and government corruption have largely blended together and taken over. Lobbyists and CEOs and representatives are one and the same. Just in Washington D.C., the ratio of lobbyists to elected representatives should tell us volumes. And the overlap should tell us more. But the system has built-in self-preservation: campaign finance, lobbying, and elections all need significant reforms. (By the way, since BushCo. has come to power the term 'reform' has lost all its meaning and importance, but I still use it in the classic real sense.) So until we have elected officials at at least a threshold level who care about people more than corporate cronies.

Subsidies by themselves though are often needed. As you mention, though, it is the destination, impact, or result that puts things at risk. We do need subsidies to decentralize electricity generation, for R&D to find real transportation solutions, for mass transit infrastructure, etc., to lead us to sustainability. If there were real subsidies for residential PV, residential solar water heat, wind and other sustainable energy sources and applications, subsidies that are startups and not eternal, that would go a long way. Similar subsidies for transportation are also needed, then sustainable agriculture.

Like I have said we need an informed responsible populist revolt. We need to elect representatives who will listen and act on behalf of the people.

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable enegrgy, with Wind and Sun!

by SustainableGreen at 9:18 AM on 31 May 2007

With less subsidies, more vegetarians!

The sooner the subdidies stop the better. Let consumers pay the full price for their sushi. If they had to do that, most would probably end up choosing the vegetarian sushi.

by amc89 at 10:37 AM on 31 May 2007

Then you've had your ear in the wrong places

Stentor: did you think that WTO negotiations have emerged out of nowhere? The process started 10 years ago, when New Zealand, the United States, Norway, Iceland and several other countries started approaching various intergovernmental organizations to do work on the issue. And who staffs those organizations? People who tend to give market forces the benefit of the doubt.

Before the negotiations could take place, we needed data. The FAO had produced a very broad-brush single estimate of subsidies to fishing (of around $50 billion) in the early 1990s. The next step was to get more specific.

I was involved in that next stage of effort, which produced the first estimates of subsidies to OECD fishing fleets, for 1997 and 1998. (That series continues to be updated.) By 1998, in fact, numerous organizations had taken an interest in fish subsidies. (See "International work on fishing subsidies -- an update".)

I would consider myself among those who generally look upon market-based solutions (including ITQs) with favor. Indeed, almost all of the people working on fish subsidies that I have met share a similar view. So your surprise at not having "heard any of them mention the problem of government subsidies" to fisheries just doesn't ring true. Give us "free marketers" some credit for a change. Please.

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 11:06 AM on 31 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Very informative, Ron

You also took the words out of my mouth again:

"So your surprise at not having "heard any of them mention the problem of government subsidies" to fisheries just doesn't ring true. Give us "free marketers" some credit for a change."

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 10:18 PM on 31 May 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.