Fish for Sale: The World Trade
Organization’s Next Grab
Anyone who cares about fishing communities, public
health, the environment or global equality should pay close attention to what’s
going on at the World Trade Organziation.
In December 2005, trade officials gathered in Hong Kong
for a WTO Ministerial to continue negotiating what’s known as “Non-Agricultural
Market Access.” NAMA involves reducing tariffs on all products not covered by
the WTO’s “Agreement on Agriculture” – including manufactured products,
minerals, lumber and notably fish and fish products. Led by the EU, US, Norway
and New Zealand, trade ministers managed to get a level of agreement on reducing
fishery tariffs – the questions remain of when and how much.
NAMA will pose severe threats to sustainable
development by intensifying the exploitation of natural systems, upon which
millions of people depend for survival. Among many negative side-effects,
small fishing communities throughout the world will lose their livelihoods,
natural environments will be destroyed and food safety standards will erode.
These negotiations are placing a dollar symbol on every aspect of life that has
not already been considered a commodity under WTO rules.
Gloom on the Horizon
The NAMA negotiations precisely reflect the entire
premise of the WTO: Eliminating national policies to empower markets and
international corporations to allocate resources – typically by increasing
volume of trade – without concern for lives, livelihoods or the environment.
The Derbez Text includes a “zero-for-zero”
liberalization for fish and fish products, meaning that WTO members would
completely remove all tariffs on fish. The immediate effect would be that
imported fish would be available in domestic markets at lower prices,
stimulating demand for imported fish.
While this may seem good for trade ministers and
corporate leaders, eliminating tariffs on fish could trigger a downward spiral
leading to environmental destruction, loss of livelihood and
malnutrition.
Fishing to the Brink
In order capitalize on quick profits made possible by
this increased demand, fishing vessels would likely increase their catches
beyond sustainable levels or pressure national governments to increase catch
limits.
Fisheries already being recklessly overfished would
be further endangered. Large industrial boats will fish more aggressively in
order to send their products to send around the world, while local fishing
communities will be left in the dust at both at both the marketplace and on the
shores.
Three-fourth’s of the world’s fisheries are either
overexploited, fully exploited, or in the process of recovering. Overfishing one
type of fish has grave repercussions for the entire ecosystem, as predator-prey
relationships are disrupted.
Also,
because ocean fish are not constrained by national borders, overfishing off the
shores of one country reduces the amount of fish available to other
countries. Cooperative efforts should focus on sustaining common fish
populations for the future, rather than achieving quick profits from increased
trade.
Corporations Out of
Control
Increased demand for imported fish would clearly favor
multinational corporations, which take advantage of economies of scale to
transport fish to markets around the world. And these giants have the technical
and legal expertise to navigate the byzantine world of international trade.
Small-scale fishing communities, however, are generally unable to play at this
level and tend to focus on the domestic and local markets.
As it is, nearly 80 percent of fisheries production
is under corporate control. For example, PESCANOVA of Spain maintains
fleets off of five different continents – and the corporation pays governments
to enable it to fish in their waters. These vertically integrated,
multinational corporations can control world markets and manipulate prices to
the detriment of both fisherfolks and consumers – in the same way that large
agribusinesses destroy small-scale operators – while controlling consumer
prices.
Losing Their Livelihoods
As large fleets unconscionably squander more and more
fish, small-scale fishing operations find it increasingly difficult to get a
large enough catch to survive. Including fisheries in NAMA would displace an
astonishing 90 percent of the world’s fisherfolks, most of whom live in
developing and least-developed countries, according to the International Gender
and Trade Network.
The Subsidy Game
As
with the Agreement on Agriculture, including fisheries in NAMA would
disproportionately affect developing and least-developed countries. Wealthier
countries have the resources to subsidize the industrial fleets to catch and
process fish and fish products, driving down the prices of their exports.
Between $14-20 billion is spent worldwide each year
on fisheries subsidies. China alone spends $500 million-$700 million
annually, allowing it to export fish cheaply to poorer countries like the
Philippines, undermining domestic fish production. With 50 million of the
51 million fisherfolks residing in developing countries, this is a significant
problem.
If the NAMA negotiations follow the same track as the
Agreement on Agriculture, then developed countries will continue to subsidize
exported fish and fish products, driving down the price of fish imported into
developing countries, and thus, competing unfairly with the domestic catches. At
the same time, developing countries will be forced to remove their tariffs.
Budget Busting
Tariff revenues comprise large portions of the
national budgets of many developing countries. In 2003, tariffs comprised 76.6
percent of total tax revenues for developing nations. In contrast, tariffs
only make up 1 percent or less of revenue for industrialized countries.
Under NAMA, developing countries may lose up to half of their non-agricultural
tariff revenues, including tariffs from fish imports.
This would severely harm the economies of developing
countries, which rely on this income to provide basic services such as
education, health care, water, electricity and sewage.
Cuts to these basic services will push these
countries even further into underdevelopment and poverty, leaving the displaced
and the poor without any safety net as they are hit with the other damaging
impacts of NAMA.
Who Needs Regulations?
In addition to eliminating tariffs, a large number of
safety and environmental regulations may be challenged in Hong Kong as so-called
“non-tariff barriers” to trade (NTBs). One contentious category is food labeling
requirements. For example, Thailand has questioned the requirement to label
canned tuna as dolphin-safe. Country of origin, genetically modified organism
content, production method, organic and fair-trade labeling are other labels
that governments may no longer have the ability to require.
Additionally, fishing restrictions that were
established to prevent fisheries depletion have also been challenged as
NTBs. Countries may even be forced to eliminate domestic policies,
such as taxation to promote local development.
What it All Means
If ratified, the WTO’s Non-Agricultural Market Access
policies will pose serious threats to national sovereignty.
The ability of nations to determine their own destiny
has already come under relentless attack over the past 50 years, as economically
and politically powerful countries and multinational corporations have rigged
international trading rules and development programs in order to plunder the
resources of developing nations while stripping them of their rights to
self-determination.
The introduction of fisheries resources to the WTO’s
agenda is yet another assault on national sovereignty. The move also serves to
further commodify food and fish, which should not be subject to the whims of
corporations driven by profits and wealthy nations driven by global power. Food
is a human right.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/fish/fish-and-global-trade-1/factsheet
