The ocean covers more than 70 percent of our planet’s surface, produces half of the oxygen we breathe, feeds billions of people and provides hundreds of millions of jobs. It also plays a major role in mitigating climate change: More than 80 percent of the global carbon cycle passes through the ocean.
Yet this precious natural resource is not invincible. Despite all the benefits it affords us, the ocean today faces unprecedented human-made crises that threaten its health and its ability to sustain life on Earth.
The greatest threat to marine biodiversity is overfishing. More than one-third of global fish stocks are overfished and a further 60 percent are fully fished.
Each year, governments around the world encourage overfishing by providing US$22 billion in harmful fisheries subsidies. Although these subsidies are designed to help support coastal communities, they instead prop up unsustainable and unprofitable fishing activity, depleting the very resource on which local populations’ livelihoods depend.
This problem is not new. The WTO’s members have been trying to negotiate a deal to curb these damaging payments since 2001. World leaders reiterated their commitment to tackling the issue when they agreed in 2015 to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Under SDG 14, which aims to put a healthy ocean at the heart of the global sustainable-development agenda, leaders promised by last year to reach an agreement at the WTO that would reduce fisheries subsidies.
However, they missed the deadline, as negotiations slowed during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Research shows that if WTO members were to eliminate all harmful fisheries subsidies — the most ambitious scenario — global fish biomass could increase by 12.5 percent by 2050.
That is an additional 35 million tonnes of fish, or more than four times North America’s annual fish consumption in 2017 — and that is a conservative estimate. Removing destructive subsidies really would mean more fish in the sea.
The aim is not to remove support from fishing communities, but rather to redirect it in a more meaningful and less damaging way. Even if a deal does not eliminate all harmful subsidies, it would create a global framework of accountability and transparency for subsidy programs.
That, in turn, would spur dialogue between governments, fishing communities and other stakeholders to spur the development of redesigned policies that better support fishers while protecting the global commons.
Moreover, an agreement is within reach — if the political will is there to deliver it. The most recent lapse of the negotiations resulted from differences over how to structure flexibility in subsidy regimes for developing countries, as well as how to define and enforce rules on illegal fishing and sustainable stocks.
However, after numerous proposals and discussions, the comprehensive draft now on the table combines measures to curb harmful subsidies with specific exceptions for developing countries.
The WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, was due to start on Tuesday, but was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. No new date has been set for the conference, but it would be the opportune moment for a deal.
Failure to conclude one would not only harm the ocean and the livelihoods of those who depend upon it, but would also diminish the global rules-based system and damage the pursuit of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
In contrast, ending harmful fisheries subsidies would reduce the cumulative pressures on the ocean and increase its resilience in the face of climate change.
In the wake of the COP26 UN climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, governments must demonstrate their willingness to use every tool at their disposal to tackle the climate crisis. The stakes at the next WTO Ministerial Conference have perhaps never been higher.
The future of multilateral trade cooperation is at risk; but, above all, jobs, food security and the health of our global commons are on the line.
That is why 33 former government leaders and ministers from around the world have joined forces with nearly 400 scientists in urging WTO members to “harness their political mandate to protect the health of the ocean and the well-being of society.”
Governments have given their word that they will curb destructive fisheries subsidies. The next meeting in Geneva would test the credibility of that pledge.
Helen Clark is a former New Zealand prime minister (1999-2008), Arancha Gonzalez is a former Spanish minister of foreign affairs (2020-21), Susana Malcorra is a former Argentine minister of foreign affairs (2015-17) and James Michel is a former president of the Seychelles (2004-2016).
This commentary is also signed by: Axel Addy, Liberian minister of commerce and industry (2013-2018); Mercedes Araoz, Peruvian prime minister (2017-2018) and vice president (2016-2020); Hakim Ben Hammouda, Tunisian minister of economy and finance (2014-2015); Herminio Blanco, Mexican minister for trade and industry (1994-2000); Maria Damanaki, European commissioner for maritime affairs and fisheries (2010-2014); Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, Chilean president (1994-2000); Michael Froman, US trade representative (2013-2017); Tim Groser, New Zealand minister of trade (2008-2015); Enrique V. Iglesias, Inter-American Development Bank president (1988-2005); Hilda Heine, Marshall Islands president (2016-2020); Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general (2007-2016); Ricardo Lagos, Chilean president (2000-2006); Pascal Lamy, WTO director-general (2005-2013); Roberto Lavagna, Argentine minister of economy (2002-2005); Cecilia Malmstrom, European commissioner for trade (2014-2019); Peter Mandelson, European commissioner for trade (2004-2008); Sergio Marchi, Canadian minister of international trade (1997); Heraldo Munoz, Chilean minister of foreign affairs (2014-2018); Pierre Pettigrew, Canadian minister for international trade (1999-2003) and minister of foreign affairs (2004-2006); Tommy Remengesau Jr, Palauan president (2001-2009, 2013-2021); Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spanish prime minister (2004-2011); Jose Manuel Salazar, Costa Rican minister of foreign trade (1997-1998); Susan Schwab, US trade representative (2006-2009); Juan Somavia, International Labour Organization director-general; Alberto Trejos, Costa Rican minister of foreign trade (2002-2004); Allan Wagner, Peruvian minister of foreign affairs (1985-1988, 2002-2003, 2021); Andres Velasco, Chilean minister of finance (2002-2006); Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon, Mexican president (1994-2000); and Robert Zoellick, US trade representative (2001-2005).
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS