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.
Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 1:28 pm
30 May 2007
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 are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Stentor Posted 3:29 pm
30 May 2007
Permalink
jscorse Posted 11:51 pm
30 May 2007
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:02 am
31 May 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 2:18 am
31 May 2007
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!
Permalink
amc89 Posted 3:37 am
31 May 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:06 am
31 May 2007
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.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:18 pm
31 May 2007
"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
Permalink