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
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS