'We expect even more flexibility'
An interview with Julius Sen, a research associate at the London School of Economics' International Trade Policy Unit

An interview with Matthew A. Wilson, first secretary in the permanent mission of Barbados at the U.N.

Approximately 75 percent of the world's commercial fisheries are fully exploited, over-exploited or significantly depleted, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Subsidies that promote overfishing have been identified as an important part of the problem.
One of the venues where subsidies to the fisheries sector are being addressed is the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The Doha Declaration - the basis for the WTO’s current round of multilateral trade negotiations - calls on Members to “clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countries.” In the negotiations, coastal developing nations, for whom the fisheries sector is a vital source of food and revenue, have stressed the need for flexibility in how they deploy subsidies to their fishing sector.
One developing country with a great stake in the issue is Barbados. To learn more about Barbados’ positions within the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations, the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) has interviewed first secretary Matthew A. Wilson, at the U.N.

GSI: Do you think that subsidies for small-scale fishing should be allowed for all WTO Members or for developing countries only?

MATTHEW A. WILSON: I recognise that some developed countries have said that they have small-scale fisheries and I do not doubt that within their economic context there is a gradient that recognises large, medium and small-scale fishing.
However, that is incomparable to the small-scale fishing that many developing countries, especially the developing countries of CARICOM, the Pacific, Africa and Central America have.
If flexibility is accorded to the small-scale fishers in developed countries we would expect even more flexibility - a complete exemption from the disciplines for example -for our fleets. I also recognise that within the developing-country group there may also be variable definitions of small scale and also differentiated impacts on trade and the environment. While I cannot speak for other countries, I can assure you that Barbados’ small-scale fishers, especially coupled with the management regime we have, cause little to no negative impact on the global fisheries trade through the use of subsidies.

GSI: How can WTO Members ensure that subsidies that are permitted do not end up undermining the aim of the discipline to prevent overfishing? Put another way, should any conditions be attached to permitted subsidies? If yes, which?

MAW: The key is not to overload the agreement with everything but the ‘kitchen sink’. We cannot seek to deal with every eventuality so we have to place some faith in the notification and monitoring function of the WTO and the FAO after a WTO agreement enters into force.
The key would be to enhance that process so that it can respond in the event that permitted subsidies are causing over-fishing. It is not viable to seek to have an array of restrictive conditions which would make permitted subsidies unusable for small developing countries.
The sad truth is that often these overtly restrictive rules tend to affect those who will cause the least damage: the smallest and most vulnerable amongst the members of the WTO, while other countries, who may have the greatest potential to cause over-fishing will find ways to achieve their economic aims in the fishing industry.
There has been a great degree of discussion around the fisheries management plans. While it is an idea that has merit, when one looks around the table at the greatest subsidisers, one can see that they already have established fisheries-management plans.
Those countries that will need the greatest technical assistance in developing their fisheries-management systems would be the small developing countries - the prime countries who do not deserve to have onerous restrictions placed on their potential to develop their industry.

GSI: What are the odds that the fisheries subsidies negotiations move to another venue if the WTO talks remain stalled for too long? In a related question, if the round as a whole does not progress in the near future, would you endorse having the fisheries negotiations ‘carved out’ so that they could proceed separately?

MAW: I am confident that the Doha Round will be completed. The talks are not stalled. We are still having meetings and negotiations and there is still much to discuss and agree to in the area of fisheries, so it is too early to begin looking at shifting the venue or carving out any negotiations for early harvest.
The DDA is clear on the issue of the single undertaking, so all issues will have to be adopted by ministers simultaneously. I do believe that, even in the unlikely event that we were not to finalise the negotiations on fisheries, the issue of sustainability, fisheries management and the developmental aspects of fisheries have been sufficiently ventilated over the past few years, especially by important NGOs such as the WWF, the ICTSD and OCEANA, that engagement on this issue would be continue.
The key is for the FAO and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations to follow through on some of the issues being discussed at the WTO, even in the event that there is no formal agreement.