No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Embedding Conditionality in the Special and Differential Treatment in WTO Disciplines on Fisheries Subsidies to Achieve Fishery Sustainability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 March 2025
Abstract
The Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies is designed to promote fisheries sustainability by curbing harmful subsidies that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity. However, the current approach to applying unconditional and non-negotiable special and differential treatment provisions in the Agreement is based on a North–South binary division and essentially fails to achieve the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 14.6. This article explores the linkage between sustainable development and a conditional right to special and differential treatment, and further presents a conditionality approach to applying appropriate and effective special and differential treatment that necessarily takes into account the diverse needs of different developing countries and better reconciles with economic, environmental, and societal sustainability. A conditionality approach shifts the basis of special and differential treatment from self-claimed ‘developing country’ status to multi-dimensions conditions embedded in the Agreement that can be objectively identified and assessed to achieve fisheries sustainability.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Secretariat of the World Trade Organization
References
1 Although there is no specific agreement dealing with sustainable development, the objective of sustainable development and the need to protect and preserve the environment have been enshrined in the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement. A number of agreements, including the Agreement on Agriculture, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and the Agreement on Trade-related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, have rules on sustainable development.
2 UN ‘Goal 14: Conserve and Sustainably Use the Oceans, Seas and Marine Resources’, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/oceans/ (accessed 12 October 2023). SDG 14.6 refers to the role of international trade regulations in prohibiting certain forms of fisheries subsidies, underscoring that the WTO can be an engine for inclusive economic growth and sustainability.
3 S. Bahety and J. Mukiibi (2017) ‘WTO Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations: Main Issues and Interests of Least Developed Countries’, CUTS International Research Study, Geneva, 13.
4 AFS, arts. 3.8 & 4.4.
5 Ibid, art. 6.
6 Ibid, art. 8.1(b).
7 Ibid, art. 7.
8 Lennan, M. and Switzer, S. (2023) ‘Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies’, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 38(1), 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 As stipulated in art. 12, the AFS shall stand immediately terminated if comprehensive disciplines are not adopted within four years after the entry into force of the AFS, unless otherwise decided by the General Council.
10 Conconi, P. and Perroni, C. (2015) ‘Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in the WTO’, World Trade Review 14(1), 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Note by the Secretariat, ‘Special and Differential Treatment Provisions in WTO Agreements and Decisions’, WT/COMTD/W/258, 2 March 2021, para. 1.2.
12 T. Fritz (2005) ‘Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries’, Global Issue Paper No. 18. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation, 11–12.
13 E. Ornelas (2016) ‘Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries’, in K. Bagwell and R.W. Staiger (eds.), Handbook of Commercial Policy, vol. 1B. Amsterdam: North Holland, 390.
14 Sauvé, P. (2022) ‘Special and Differential Treatment as If It Could Be Reformed’, Journal of World Trade 56(6), 881CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 A.S. Novel and J.M. Paugam (2006) ‘Why and How Differentiate Developing Countries in the WTO? Theoretical Options and Negotiating Solutions’, in A.S. Novel and J.M. Paugam (eds.), Reviving the Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in International Trade. Paris: Ifri, 153.
16 Wu, Y. (2017) ‘Negotiation on Fisheries Subsidies within the Framework of the WTO-Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Members’, China Oceans Law Review 2017(2), 42Google Scholar; Hoekman, B.M. et al. (2023) ‘Managing Externalities in the WTO: The Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies’, Journal of International Economic Law 26(2), 267CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 K. Hopewell, (2022) ‘Emerging Powers, Leadership, and South–South Solidarity: The Battle Over Special and Differential Treatment at the WTO’, Global Policy 13(4), 479.
18 Tokyo Round, ‘Differential and More Favourable Treatment Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries’, L/4903, 28 November 1979.
19 Note by the Secretariat, ‘Special and Differential Treatment Provisions in WTO Agreements and Decisions’, WT/COMTD/W/258, 2 March 2021, 5.
20 M. Martin and M. Shadman-Pajouh (2015) ‘Are the Special and Differential Treatment Provisions in the WTO Agreements Fit for Purpose?’, International Journal of Social Science & Human Behavior Study 4.
21 M. Antoine and B. Mercurio (2017) ‘Doha Dead and Buried in Nairobi: Lessons for the WTO’, Journal of International Trade Law and Policy 16(1), 50.
22 General Council, ‘Statement on Special and Differential Treatment to Promote Development Co-Sponsored by the African Group, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, China, Cuba, India and Oman’, WT/GC/202, 9 October 2019, para. 1.5.
23 V. Hegde and J. Wouters (2021) ‘Special and Differential Treatment Under the World Trade Organization: A Legal Typology’, Journal of International Economic Law 24, 553–554; A. Kwa and P. Lunenborg (2019) ‘Why the US Proposals on Development will Affect all Developing Countries and Undermine WTO’, South Centre Policy Brief, no.58.
24 P. Low (2021) ‘Special and Differential Treatment and Developing Country Status: Can the Two Be Separated?’, Rebooting Multilateral Trade Cooperation: Perspectives from China and Europe, 77.
25 WTO ‘Understanding the WTO: Developing Countries’, www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/dev1_e.htm (accessed 18 March 2024).
26 General Council, ‘Draft General Council Decision: Procedures to Strengthen the Negotiating Function of the WTO’, WT/GC/W/764, 15 February 2019, at 1–2.
27 Appellate Body report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted 20 April 2004, para. 163.
28 Ibid, para. 169.
29 M.R. Islam (2021) ‘Overhaul of the SDT Provisions in the WTO: Separating the Eligible from the Ineligible’, Pace International Law Review 34(1), 5.
30 B. Hoekman et al. (2004) ‘Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in the WTO: Moving Forward after Cancún’, The World Economy 27(4), 497.
31 Hopewell, supra n. 17, at 473.
32 Hoekman et al. supra n. 30.
33 Y. Akiko (2013) ‘Rethinking special and differential treatment in the WTO’, IDE Discussion Paper 435, 6–7.
34 Among the TOP 25 countries, 16 countries are developing countries. FAO (2022) ‘The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022: Towards Blue Transformation’, FAO, Rome, 14.
35 U.R. Sumaila et al. (2019) ‘Updated Estimates and Analysis of Global Fisheries Subsidies’, Marine Policy 109, 5.
36 The data of marine capture production are from the FAO, supra n. 34, at 14. The data of estimated harmful subsidies are from D.J. Skerritt and U.R. Sumaila (2021) ‘Broadening the Global Debate on Harmful Fisheries Subsidies Through the Use of Subsidy Intensity Metrics’, Marine Policy 128, Appendix A.
37 FAO, supra n. 34.
38 Committee on Trade and Environment, ‘Report (1996) of the Committee on Trade and Environment’, WT/CTE/1, 12 November 1996, para. 109.
39 Committee on Trade and Environment, ‘Environmental Benefits of Removing Trade Restrictions and Distortions: The Fisheries Sector’, WT/CTE/W/167, 16 October 2000, paras. 88-89.
40 The Fourth Ministerial Conference, ‘Ministerial Declaration’, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001, para. 28.
41 The Sixth Ministerial Conference, ‘Doha Work Program: Ministerial Declaration’, WT/MIN(05)/DEC, 22 December 2005, para. 9 (Annex D).
42 Negotiating Group on Rules, ‘Draft Consolidated Chair Texts of the AD and SCM Agreements’, TN/RL/W/213, 30 November 2007, 89–90.
43 Negotiating Group on Rules, ‘New Draft Consolidated Chair Texts of the AD and SCM Agreements’, TN/RL/W/236, 19 December 2008, 88.
44 Ibid, at 88–89.
45 The Tenth Ministerial Conference, ‘Fisheries Subsidies’, WT/MIN(15)/37/Rev.1, 1.
46 The White House, ‘Memorandum on Reforming Developing-Country Status in the World Trade Organization’, 26 July 2019, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-reforming-developing-country-status-world-trade-organization/ (accessed 12 October 2023).
47 General Council, ‘Statement on Special and Differential Treatment to Promote Development: Co-sponsored by the African Group, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, China, Cuba, India and Oman’, WT/GC/202/Rev.1, 14 October 2019, para. 1.5.
48 General Council, ‘Strengthening the WTO to Promote Development and Inclusivity: Communication from the African Group, Cuba and India’, WT/GC/W/778/Rev.4, 11 February 2022, para. 3.1.
49 Negotiating Group on Rules, ‘Fisheries Subsidies: Draft Consolidated Chair Text’, TN/RL/W/276, 30 June 2021, 5–6.
50 Negotiating Group on Rules, ‘Fisheries Subsidies Revised Draft Text’, TN/RL/W/276/Rev.2, 8 November 2021, 5.
51 The Twelfth Ministerial Conference, ‘Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies: Draft Text’, WT/MIN(22)/W/20, 10 June 2022, 4–5.
52 AFS, arts. 3.1, 3.8, 4.1, 4.4.
53 AFS, art. 7.
54 The Thirteenth Ministerial Conference, ‘Abu Dhabi Ministerial Declaration’, WT/MIN(24)/DEC, 4 March 2024, para. 8.
55 General Council, ‘Pursuing the Development Dimension in WTO Rule-making Efforts’, WT/GC/W/770, 26 April 2019, para. 2.4.
56 G.H. Brundtland (1987) ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future’, UN, New York, para. 27.
57 C. Voigt (ed.), (2009) Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law: Resolving Conflicts between Climate Measures and WTO Law. Leiden: Brill, 19–20.
58 CPTPP, chapter 20.
59 V. Barral (2012) ‘Sustainable Development in International Law: Nature and Operation of an Evolutive Legal Norm’, European Journal of International Law 23(2), 388.
60 Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project, Hungary v Slovakia, Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, 1. C. J. Reports 1997, 101.
61 A. Kiss and D. Shelton (2007) ‘Common (Customary?) Legal Principles’, in A. Kiss and D. Shelton (eds.), Guide to International Environmental Law. Leiden: Brill, 97.
62 J.E. Vinuales (2018) ‘Sustainable Development’, in L. Rajamani and J. Peel (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 289.
63 B. Williams et al. (2014) ‘Some Selected Aspects of the Relationship between World Trade Organization Law and General Public International Law’, in G.Z. Capaldo (ed.), Global Community: Yearbook of International Law & Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 203–224.
64 R E. Kim (2016) ‘The Nexus Between International Law and the Sustainable Development Goals’, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 25(1), 15.
65 Appellate Body report, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China, WT/DS379/AB/R, adopted 25 March 2011, para. 479.
66 E.g., art. 27.2 of the SCM Agreement provides that the prohibitions of prohibitive subsidies do not apply to LDC, and grant eight years of transitional time for other developing countries.
67 E.g., art. 27.10(a) of the SCM Agreement provides that investigation shall be terminated if the overall level of subsidies granted upon the product in question does not exceed 2% of its value calculated on a per unit basis.
68 S.Z. Bigdeli (2011) ‘Resurrecting the Dead: The Expired Non-Actionable Subsidies and the Lingering Question of Green Space’, Manchester Journal of International Economic Law 8(2), 2.
69 Ibid, at 3.
70 R. Damania et al. (2023) ‘The Economic, Social, and Environmental Effects of Harmful Fishery Subsidies’, in R. Damania et al. (eds.), Detox Development: Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 209.
71 Negotiating Group on Rules, supra n. 49, at 1.
72 R. Hilborn et al. (2015) ‘When is a Fishery Sustainable?’, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72(9), 1434.
73 International Law Association, ‘ILA New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development’, 9 August 2002.
74 M-C.C. Segger et al. (2003) ‘Prospects for Principles of International Sustainable Development Law after the WSSD: Common but Differentiated Responsibilities, Precaution and Participation’, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 12(1), 56.
75 L. Rajamani (2000) ‘The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility and the Balance of Commitments under the Climate Regime’, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 9(2), 124.
76 C. Voigt and F. Ferreira (2016) ‘Differentiation in the Paris Agreement’, Climate Law 6, 65.
77 TFA, art. 13, which also specifies that this principle is applicable through the whole section of SDT.
78 A. Ukpe and S. Khorana (2021) ‘Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO: Framing Differential Treatment to Achieve (Real) Development’, Journal of International Trade Law and Policy 20(2), 87.
79 TFA, art. 14.
80 International Law Association, supra n. 73.
81 H. Kelsen (1944) ‘The Principle of Sovereign Equality of States as a Basis for International Organization’, Yale Law Journal 53(2), 209.
82 R. Warlenius et al. (2015) ‘Ecological Debt: History, Meaning and Relevance for Environmental Justice’, EJOLT Report No. 18, 14.
83 UN General Assembly, ‘The Future We Want’, A/RES/66/288, 27 July 2012, 5.
84 E.g., the Paris Agreement emphasizes the importance of economic and social factors, as well as sustainable development per se, in assessing and accomplishing the needs of the global environment (see A.R. Harrington (2021) International Law and Global Governance: Treaty Regimes and Sustainable Development Goals Implementation. New York: Routledge, 26). The UN Fish Stocks Agreement requires signatories to apply the precautionary approach and maintain or restore populations to above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened. For stocks that are not overfished, fishery management strategies need to ensure that future fishing mortality does not exceed the maximum sustainable yield level and that the biomass does not fall below a predefined threshold (P.A. Shelton and A.F. Sinclair (2008) ‘It's Time to Sharpen Our Definition of Sustainable Fisheries Management’, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65(10), 2306). In additions, both chapter 22 of the Canada–EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and chapter 16 of the EU–Japan Economic Partnership Agreement contain provisions concerning trade and sustainable development.
85 E.g., Indonesia has adopted the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) to achieve both ecosystem and economic wealth. See U. Muawanah et al. (2018) ‘Review of National Laws and Regulation in Indonesia in Relation to an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management’, Marine Policy 91, 157.
86 E.g., the European Parliament and the European Council reached in 2013 an agreement on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, which was an important step towards a more sustainable fisheries policy in Europe by introducing the maximum sustainable yield -concept for fixing fishing opportunities. See M.T. Salomon et al. ‘Masterstroke or Paper Tiger – The Reform of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy’, Marine Policy 47, 82–83.
87 F. Asche et al. (2018) ‘Three Pillars of Sustainability in Fisheries’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(44), 11222.
88 R. Arthur et al. (2019) ‘The Cost of Harmful Fishing Subsidies’, Fisheries Working Paper, IIED, London, 10.
89 SubsidyExplorer (http://www.subsidyexplorer.org/) is an interactive toolkit that allows users to explore potential biological and economic impacts of fisheries subsidy reform scenarios. The tool supports the negotiations underway at the WTO.
90 FAO (2000) ‘Report of the Technical Consultation on the Measurement of Fishing Capacity’, FAO Fisheries Report No. 615 (FIPP/R615(En)), FAO, Rome, 6.
91 E. Sala et al. (2018) ‘The Economics of Fishing the High Seas’, Science Advances 4(6), 7.
92 Arthur, supra n. 88, at 11.
93 Ibid.
94 Y. Sakai et al. (2019) ‘Fishery Subsidies: The Interaction between Science and Policy’, Fisheries Science 85, 443.
95 D.K. Schorr (2007) ‘Sustainability Criteria for Fisheries Subsidies: Options for the WTO and Beyond’, Working Paper No. UNEP/ETB(02)/S374, UNEP and WWF, Geneva, 20–21.
96 Y. Sakai (2017) ‘Subsidies, Fisheries Management, and Stock Depletion’, Land Economics 93(1), 173.
97 U.R. Sumaila et al. (2010) ‘A Bottom-up Re-estimation of Global Fisheries Subsidies’, Journal of Bioeconomics 12, 205; G. Porter (2004) ‘Analyzing the Resource Impact of Fisheries Subsidies: A Matrix Approach’, Working Paper No. UNEP/ETB/2004/10, UNDP, Geneva, para. 173.
98 J. Lubchenco and P.M. Haugan (2023) ‘The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet’, in J. Lubchenco and P.M. Haugan (eds.) The Blue Compendium: From Knowledge to Action for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 398–399.
99 K. Kelleher et al. (2012) ‘Hidden harvest: The global contribution of capture fisheries’, Report No. 66469-GLB, World Bank, Washington, DC, 3.
100 D.K. Schorr (2005) ‘Artisanal Fishing: Promoting Poverty Reduction and Community Development through New WTO Rules on Fisheries Subsidies’, UNEP Working Paper, Geneva, 12.
101 N.L. Andrew et al. (2007) ‘Diagnosis and Management of Small-Scale Fisheries in Developing Countries’, Fish and Fisheries 8(3), 227.
102 Schorr, supra n. 100, at 10.
103 A. Giron-Nava et al. (2021) ‘Sustainable Fisheries are Essential but Not Enough to Ensure Well-Being for The World's Fishers’, Fish and Fisheries 22(4), 819–820.
104 U.R. Sumaila, (2018) ‘Small-scale Fisheries and Subsidies Disciplines: Definitions, Catches, Revenues, and Subsidies’, in International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Fisheries Subsidies Rules at the WTO: A Compilation of Evidence and Analysis. Geneva: ICTSD, 112.
105 Ibid., at 114.
106 D. Gibson and U.R. Sumaila (2017) ‘Determining the Degree of “Small-scaleness” Using Fisheries in British Columbia as an Example’, Marine Policy 86, 122.
107 D. Pauly and D. Zeller (2016) ‘Catch Reconstructions Reveal that Global Marine Fisheries Catches are Higher than Reported and Declining’, Nature Communications 7(1), 10249.
108 Ibid.
109 Hopewell, supra n. 17, at 479.
110 J.G. Ruggie (1998) Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalisation. London and New York: Routledge, at 73, 83.
111 General Council, supra n. 22, at 1.
112 L. Rajamani (2008) ‘From Berlin to Bali and beyond: Killing Kyoto Softly?’, International & Comparative Law Quarterly 57(4), 927.
113 See Human Development Insights, Access and Explore Human Development Data for 191 Countries and Territories Worldwide. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/country-insights#/ranks (accessed 12 October 2023).
114 General Council, ‘The Continued Relevance of Special and Differential Treatment in Favour of Developing Members to Promote Development and Ensure Inclusiveness’, WT/GC/W/765/Rev.2, 4 March 2019, 1.1.
115 C. Weinhardt and T. Schöfer (2022) ‘Differential Treatment for Developing Countries in the WTO: the Unmaking of the North–South Distinction in A Multipolar World’, Third World Quarterly 43(1), 84–85.
116 Ibid, at 86.
117 See UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, LDC Identification Criteria & Indicators, www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/least-developed-country-category/ldc-criteria.html (accessed 12 October 2023).
118 Negotiating Group on Rules, ‘Communication from the Chairman’, TN/RL/W/254, 21 April 2011, para. 49.
119 E.O. Verger et al. (2023) ‘Healthy Diet Metrics: A Suitability Assessment of Indicators for Global and National Monitoring Purposes’, WHO, Geneva, 15.
120 EFSA Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA) (2014) ‘Scientific Opinion on Health Benefits of Seafood (Fish and Shellfish) Consumption in Relation to Health Risks Associated with Exposure to Methylmercury’, EFSA journal 12(7):3761, 40.
121 UNFCCC (1992), art. 4.1.
122 The data of Marine production(tones) are from the FAO, supra n. 34, at 14. The data of population are from the World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL (accessed 12 October 2023).
123 The Twelfth Ministerial Conference, ‘Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies: Draft Text’, WT/MIN(22)/W/20/Add.1, 12–15 June 2022, 10–11.
124 Negotiating Group on Rules, supra n. 49, at 5–6.
125 R. Martini and J. Innes (2018) ‘Relative Effects of Fisheries Support Policies’, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 115, OECD Publishing, Paris, 20.
126 Sumaila, supra n. 35, at 10.
127 R. Sumaila (2015) ‘Fisheries Subsidies’, www.seaaroundus.org/doc/Methods/SubsidiesMethod/Methods-subsidies-New-June-12-2015.pdf (accessed 12 October 2023).
128 Kelleher et al. supra n. 99, XVIII.
129 Su, S. et al. (2020) ‘Evolution of Marine Fisheries Management in China from 1949 to 2019: How Did China Get Here and Where Does China Go Next?’, Fish and Fisheries 21(2), 438CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
130 Cohen, P.J. et al. (2019) ‘Securing a Just Space for Small-Scale Fisheries in the Blue Economy’, Frontiers in Marine Science 6, 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
131 UN Fish Stock Agreement, art. 24(2)(b).
132 Negotiating Group on Rules, supra n. 49, at 2.
133 AFS, art. 4.
134 BBNJ, art. 20.
135 FAO, supra n. 34, at 48.
136 See UNDP ‘SDG Goal 14: LIFE BELOW WATER’, www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals/below-water?gclid=CjwKCAjw2K6lBhBXEiwA5RjtCUtKKL7YkuxVAl-ZI69ODdsnvPLgjOJ4Zbw7NaK2airK0msz8MaiXxoCDSoQAvD_BwE (accessed 12 October 2023).
137 U.R. Sumaila et al. (2019) ‘A Global Dataset on Subsidies to the Fisheries Sector’, Data in Brief 27, 3.
138 AFS, art. 7.
139 Ukpe, supra n. 78, at 92.
140 TFA, art. 21.