The opportunity presented by reform is significant and achievable. The alternative, if we do not find a way to come together as an international community to tackle harmful subsidies, is that the already precarious state of global fish stocks will only worsen.
And while we may have succeeded in helping man fish for today, it will not be sufficient to feed him — or future generations — for a lifetime. However, marine and aquatic ecosystems are under stress — from climate change, fishing pressure, and pollution from various human activities, which lead to ocean acidification and declining biodiversity.
Read more Government support remains a significant source of distortions in global markets, which can undermine the benefits of open trade and erode public trust in the international trading system. Here's a solution. Many government subsidies lead to overfishing. How did we get here? Charting a better way forward Over the last 20 years, governments have had numerous discussions on how they might work together to reduce these subsidies and have engaged in negotiations bilaterally, regionally, and are currently engaged in multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organization.
Many of these vessels originate from rich countries but fish in the waters of poorer countries, transferring the risk of overfishing to those that can least afford it. The UN SDGs were set up to address many of these global issues and achieve a more sustainable future.
But fisheries subsidies makes the SDGs on ocean sustainability, poverty and hunger , difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Harmful fisheries subsidies damage fish stocks, undermine the economic viability of small-scale producers and jeopardize the livelihoods and food security of coastal communities.
It is vital that the WTO negotiations succeed. However, no meaningful progress was made — except on defining fisheries subsidies — until efforts were reinvigorated in , when the SDGs specifically targeted the elimination of harmful subsidies, through the conclusion of the WTO negotiations. On May 11, , a draft agreement was made public — the first since However, the text remains negotiable and must be agreed to by all ministers at talks on July The draft essentially proposes three categories of prohibited subsidies, those that support illegal, unreported and unregulated IUU fishing Article 3.
This may sound simple. But the diverse political, economic, cultural and practical complexities pose real challenges. How are harmful practices determined, and who determines them? The article addressing IUU lacks impact.
IUU activities are secretive and obscure. Removing subsidies to known IUU fishers would eliminate only a small portion of the total and will likely have no impact on sustainability. The article dealing with overfished stocks may have a greater impact, but debates continue over who decides if a stock is overfished.
The status of surprisingly few stocks is known — in the central Mediterranean, for example, less than two per cent of landings come from assessed stocks. Stock assessments are technically demanding and costly.
The article covering overcapacity and overfishing could truly end harmful fisheries subsidies. It is, however, the least developed. In its current state it includes a promising list of subsidy types to be prohibited. But it also includes a loophole that allows subsidies if measures are in place to keep stocks sustainable.
It is unclear what measures would qualify or where the burden of proof would lie. In parts of Asia and Africa, the rules around fishing are often considerably laxer, and there's a real worry that fish populations are being harvested unsustainably, leading to dangerous depletion.
Fixing that will be a tough, complex task. Basically, the world should be spending more to ensure that fisheries are managed in a sustainable manner — rather than spending public funds to yank every last fish out of the ocean and leave less for future generations. There's a lot of ongoing debate about the TPP's environmental impacts, but this provision generally gets high marks from conservation groups. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding.
Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all.
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.
By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. How the world subsidizes overfishing, in two charts. Share this story Share this on Facebook Share this on Twitter Share All sharing options Share All sharing options for: How the world subsidizes overfishing, in two charts. Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. You get a boat, and you get a boat, and you get a boat They lumped the funds into three broad categories: 1 Subsidies that boost sustainability.
The United States actually spends the most on sustainability There's a lot of variation between countries on subsidies.
Further reading -- How the US stopped its fisheries from collapsing -- It's also worth noting that the much-maligned Trans-Pacific Partnership would actually phase out some of the more harmful subsidies for illegal fishing among the 12 countries that are part of the deal.
Delivered Fridays. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email required. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Notice and European users agree to the data transfer policy. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page.
0コメント