The WTO Reform Through the Prism of the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement – to – Be

Abstract

Actively ongoing discussions shaping the WTO reform are aimed at solving urgent and systemic issues impeding both the functioning and the progress of the Organization and ensuring the relevance of the multilateral trading system in future. While a number of procedural and substantive suggestions were already accumulated, no big institutional decision has provided a reality check to the talks so far. A Doha Development Round issue, the dilemma of fisheries subsidization is a long-timer on the WTO agenda. Following certain reinforcement in Hong Kong (2005), yet stagnating thereafter, the subject made a return in Buenos Aires (2017). This time - largely due to the SDG 14.6, calling for the prohibition and/or elimination of certain forms of fisheries subsidies before 2020. Even though this deadline was extended [at least] till MC12, the fisheries subsidies agreement remains an only multilateral outcome expected for prospective delivery. The treaty-to-be could be viewed as a litmus paper for the WTO reform in several important respects, since the negotiators would have to find at least situation-specific solutions to the issues topping the agenda of the latter in order to reach a deal. As with other WTO subsidies disciplines, elaboration and implementation of the rules would heavily depend on transparency, which, so far, is crippled in the area, with notifications of trade-related effects of the fisheries subsidies being sporadic and, allegedly, incomplete. In the light of the ongoing discussions related to re-definition of development, it might be expected that a specific SDT approach would be espoused relying, to one extent or the other, on the fishing capacity or other indicators (national history of fishing subsidization; current volumes of subsidies granted; characteristics of the existent fishing fleet, etc.) or ability to implement particular disciplines, rather than on the development status as is. Particular ways towards implementing the SDT decided on should also be carefully considered. While discussions on the institutional aspects are not yet advanced, potential enforceability of the agreement via the WTO dispute settlement or, in alternative, ensuring its performance through other means, for instance, via a combination of transparency and deliberative mechanisms at the WTO, is to be established in the face of the recent AB demise. Finally, if reached, the agreement would explicitly open the door for the affirmative introduction of non-trade (in the present case – mostly environmental) concerns into the WTO Rule book, by shaping those as obligations, rather than exceptions.