Oceans

AIDA celebrates WTO agreement to curb harmful fisheries subsidies

We consider the agreement a "crucial step" for the sustainability of fishery resources in the short, medium and long term, as well as for ensuring food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities.   Geneva, Switzerland. As an environmental organization that has closely followed the negotiations to limit global fisheries subsidies, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) applauds that member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) reached, after more than two decades, a binding agreement to curb some harmful fisheries subsidies. It represents a fundamental step toward achieving the effective management of our fisheries resources, as well as toward ensuring global food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities. "This is a crucial step towards ensuring the sustainability of fishery resources in the short, medium and long term," said Gladys Martinez de Lemos, executive director of AIDA. "We urge the 164 member countries of the WTO to ratify the agreement as soon as possible, and to implement the necessary changes derived from it to contribute significantly to the health of marine life and the well-being of those who depend on it." It is estimated that, each year, governments spend approximately $22 billion in negative subsidies to offset costs for fuel, fishing gear and vessel improvements, among others. As a result of that support, 63 percent of fish stocks worldwide must be rebuilt and 34 percent are fished at "biologically unsustainable" levels, according to recent data. The agreement reached at the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference, held June 12-16, provides for the creation of a global framework to reduce subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; subsidies for fishing overexploited stocks; and subsidies for vessels fishing on the unregulated high seas. The high seas fishing provisions represent an achievement for Latin America, a region whose fishing industry is severely threatened by aggressive foreign fleets fishing inside and outside of national jurisdictions. The agreement also includes measures aimed at greater transparency and accountability in the way governments support their fisheries sector. The countries agreed to continue negotiating rules to curb subsidies that promote fishing in other countries' waters, overfishing and the overcapacity of a fleet to catch more fish than is sustainable. "This agreement is one part of the movement we need at the international level to contribute to the health of the ocean," explained Magie Rodríguez, AIDA attorney. "We have three more to go: the high seas treaty, more ambitious and rigorous standards for ocean mining, and recognition of the key role the ocean plays in the climate crisis. We will continue to work with our allies to achieve these goals.” Although negotiations on fisheries subsidies officially began in 2001, it was not until the 2017 WTO Ministerial Conference that countries committed to taking action to reach an agreement at the next conference—which was to take place in December 2020, but was suspended due to the pandemic. This commitment also responds to the fulfillment of target 14.6 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In 2021, the Ministerial Conference failed to reach an agreement, but it did reach a draft text. "This year's achievement would not have been possible without the joint efforts of many different organizations, academia, governments and the private sector," said Martinez. press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +525570522107  

Latin American fisheries are at risk

By Magie Rodríguez (AIDA) and Ernesto Fernández Monge (The Pew Charitable Trusts)   Fishing is fundamental to the Latin American economy and, for of our region’s people, their way of life. It’s a centuries-old industry at risk. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the region produces 21.5 million metric tons of fish each year, a quarter of the world's annual production. Roughly 2.3 million people are involved in fishing activities. However, the industry is losing out to aggressive foreign fleets, mostly from Europe and Asia, fishing within Latin America's exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and in areas just outside them. Unlike domestic vessels, these fleets often benefit from substantial funding from their home governments, which allows them to fish outside their own countries' waters. These fishing subsidies, intended to increase capacity, are harmful. They pay for fuel and other expenses, artificially reduce the cost of fishing, and allow fleets to fish in areas where it would otherwise be unprofitable to do so. After more than two decades of talks, the 164 member governments of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are closer than ever to agreeing on a new globally binding treaty that would curb harmful subsidies that allow fleets to fish both in other countries' waters and on the high seas. Fishing offshore, on the periphery of another nation's waters, can harm a country's fisheries in part because it allows foreign vessels to catch migratory species, such as tuna or billfish, before they enter the EEZ. As trade ministers prepare to meet in Geneva for a WTO ministerial conference June 12-15, Latin American leaders must push for a fisheries subsidies agreement that will help their countries' fishermen better compete with foreign fleets. To do so, the agreement should eliminate all capacity-enhancing subsidies that prop up so-called distant-water fishing and allow more fishing than the market would otherwise sustain. Each year, governments around the world dole out $22 billion in harmful subsidies to fisheries and, of that amount, nearly two-thirds comes from just six countries and the European Union. About one-third of that amount, $7.2 billion, is targeted to help countries fish in other nations' EEZs and offshore at the edge of those territorial waters, according to a new research-based tool developed by scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara, with funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The increase in distant-water fishing is driven by a sad reality: having depleted fish stocks in their own waters, major fishing nations are looking elsewhere to fill their nets. Ecuador's Galapagos Islands made headlines last year when research revealed that in just one month, 300 Chinese vessels spent 73 thousand hours fishing off the EEZ surrounding the Galapagos. In addition, the tool shows that, for example, 180 vessels from just four countries (China, South Korea, Chinese Taipei and Spain) spent a total of 84 thousand hours fishing in Argentina's EEZ in 2018. That's the equivalent of 9.6 years on the water. That undertaking was made possible by nearly $92 million in harmful subsidies. Encouragingly, leaders across the region have long supported reducing subsidies in distant waters: Argentina, Chile and Uruguay co-sponsored a WTO proposal in 2019 to ban such subsidies and, in July 2021, Uruguay's foreign minister stated that such a ban would have "enormous potential to have a significant impact on the state of the oceans and the livelihoods of fishing communities." However, major fishing nations are seeking to water down the text of the potential WTO agreement so that they can continue fishing in other countries' waters. That’s why Latin American trade ministers must continue to push for the elimination of subsidies in distant waters, helping to ensure that fish from their waters primarily reach their vessels, restore competitive advantage to the region's fishermen, and sustain a vital industry—and livelihood—across the continent.  

In Chile, progress for indigenous participation in decisions affecting their territories

In January, Chile’s Supreme Court ruled that indigenous communities have the right to be informed of and participate in decisions affecting their territory and way of life. The high court ordered industrial salmon farmer Nova Austral to engage in public participation processes prior to authorizing the relocation of four farms into the Kawésqar National Reserve. The government's Environmental Evaluation Service had authorized the relocation of those farms without implementing mechanisms for consultation with the Kawésqar communities, and later rejecting their requests for public participation. It did so by arguing that the farms posed no harmful environmental impacts. The case at hand Since 2018, AIDA has been working in strategic alliance with Greenpeace Chile and FIMA to exclude industrial salmon farming from protected areas in the Magallanes Region, in the heart of Chilean Patagonia, and to defend the rights of the Kawésqar peoples, ancestral inhabitants of the area's canals and fjords. By approving the relocation, the environmental authority ignored the effects that salmon farms have had in the Los Lagos region, in the extreme north of Patagonia, demonstrating the serious risks posed by the industry's expansion into the extreme south of Patagonia, still a pristine natural area. These effects include biological contamination from the introduction of exotic species, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, and frequent mass salmon escapes, as well as the accumulation of food and feces on the seabed, generating total or partial loss of oxygen and red tides. The environmental agency also overlooked the fact that salmon farming is incompatible with the protection objectives of the Kawésqar National Reserve, one of which is "to comply with the fundamental demands of the Kawésqar people." In fact, when the reserve was created in 2018, an indigenous consultation process chose to exclude industrial aquaculture, considering the fragility of the ecosystems of the area and the indigenous cultural legacy, closely linked to the sea. An appeal for improvement Faced with the government’s authorization of salmon farming in their territory, Kawésqar communities—with the support of the coalition formed by AIDA, Greenpeace Chile and FIMA—filed an appeal before the Supreme Court for the protection of constitutional guarantees. The judgment in favor of public participation was significant due to the fact that Chile has often been questioned for its low standard of compliance with ILO Convention 169, the most important international instrument for guaranteeing indigenous rights, including the right to prior consultation. One of the main criticisms is that the regulation for incorporating indigenous consultation into the environmental assessment encourages this not to take place. This is particularly relevant in projects evaluated by Environmental Impact Statements, for which a consultative mechanism of lesser incidence is applied and which is subject to a great deal of discretion on the part of the authority to be carried out. Moreover, in precisely those cases—including the relocation of salmon farms— public participation is not mandatory, as it is for projects evaluated by environmental impact studies. This further diminishes the possibility for communities to have their voices heard in this type of procedure. The future of participation in Chile The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a contribution to the deepening of public participation as a tool to improve environmental decision-making. It highlights the voice of indigenous communities in matters affecting their ancestral territory. It also broadens the geographic scope of citizen participation by recognizing that these communities exercise a legitimate interest in environmental conservation, thus breaking with the idea that direct involvement depends only on their proximity to where people live. We hope that this is the first step to completely rejecting the installation of salmon farms in the Kawésqar National Reserve, in any protected area and, in general, in the seas of Chilean Patagonia.  

Reaffirming the legitimate protection of the right to a healthy environment

In December 2016, two women from Veracruz decided to defend the Veracruz Reef System in court. They sought to protect the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico from the expansion of the port of Veracruz, which would cause serious and irreversible impacts on the reef’s biodiversity and, by extension, the local population.  Residents of the Veracruz metropolitan area, represented by the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA), filed an injunction against the project because its environmental permit resulted from a fragmented impact assessment that did not consider the full range of risks to the reefs. AIDA supported our partners at CEMDA by filing an amicus brief with detailed information on the important services the reefs provide: sequestering carbon, generating oxygen, producing food, and protecting coastal areas from storms and hurricanes, among others. In April 2017, the court that heard the case rejected the injunction and, with it, the request to suspend work on the port expansion. The court argued that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the project had "a real and relevant impact" on their rights and that they lacked a "legitimate interest" in the case. Legitimate interest—also known as legal standing—refers to a person’s capacity to claim damages before a court of law, in any scope. In a traffic accident, for example, only you have the legitimate interest to claim the damages your vehicle may have suffered, which must be individual and quantifiable. However, in matters of environmental damage, the situation is more complex. The degradation of an ecosystem affects more than one person and even transcends generations.  The residents of Veracruz appealed the judicial setback and their case arrived before Mexico’s highest court, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Given the lower court’s limitations in recognizing in its ruling the right of all people to equal access to justice in environmental matters, AIDA and Earthjustice filed a second legal brief before the Supreme Court, requesting an expansion of the requirements for legitimate interest. We provided legal and technical evidence regarding the human right to a healthy environment and access to justice, enshrined in international law. These rights mean that the Mexican government must ensure that anyone whose fundamental rights are threatened by environmental degradation has the possibility of achieving justice, regardless of whether their connection to the threatened ecosystem is indirect or remote. The Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide also contributed a brief that analyzes court decisions from various jurisdictions recognizing the right of any person, civil society organization, or local resident to file lawsuits against projects and decisions that may negatively affect the environment. Finally, on February 9, 2022, more than five years after the original lawsuit was filed, the residents of Veracruz won an important victory for the area’s reefs. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that government authorities violated the right to a healthy environment of the people of Veracruz by authorizing the port’s expansion. Since it was unopposed, the ruling creates a binding precedent for all courts of the nation. The Veracruz decision is a landmark ruling, valuable for not just Mexico but for the entire region because it: Ratifies that proximity to a project does not define who the affected people are or who can claim protection of their right to a healthy environment before the courts. Reaffirms that it is not necessary to prove quantifiable and individualized damage in order to have access to environmental justice; it is sufficient to demonstrate that a project or activity, by degrading an ecosystem, damages or threatens to cause damage (economic, social, cultural, health, etc.) to a community. Recognizes an expanded legitimate interest, as well as the collective nature of the right to a healthy environment and public participation in environmental assessment processes. Sets a precedent with the capacity to transform the way in which environmental impact assessments are carried out in Mexico, incorporating the principles of prevention and precaution. Points to Mexico's international obligations, including those acquired under the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement). As an organization and individuals, we are celebrating this important step toward strengthening the defense of the right to a healthy environment in the region. We are proud to have contributed to this achievement, and hopeful that the implementation of the ruling will be carried out according to the highest standards.  

Supreme Court orders protection of Veracruz's reefs and wetlands

Mexico’s high court unanimously ruled that authorities violated the right to a healthy environment by authorizing the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. Environmental authorities failed to use the best scientific information, analyze the port expansion in a comprehensive manner, and consider all of its impacts. The ruling implies that the project’s approvals are unfounded and that its impacts must be re-evaluated, this time in a comprehensive manner, to determine the viability of the project.   Mexico City, Mexico — On February 9, residents of Veracruz won a victory before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in a legal injunction filed to defend the Veracruz Reef System (SAV) and its environmental services against the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. The justices of the Court unanimously voted in favor of the draft ruling that protects the reefs of Veracruz and transforms the way the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure operates throughout the country. This decision underpins the protection of the right to a healthy environment, and it sets a new precedent that will change the way officials determine how projects are assessed by their environmental impact. The Court held that "the protection of wetlands is a national and international priority that has led our country to issue a strict regulation of this ecosystem and… any analysis made in relation to wetlands must be guided by a criterion of maximum precaution and prevention." The ruling pointed out that the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) violated the right to a healthy environment by authorizing the expansion project of the Port of Veracruz, since "it did not take into account the best scientific information available; it did not analyze or evaluate in a complete manner each one of the different environmental impacts that the project and its modification could cause, in addition to the fact that the project and the works related to it were analyzed in a fragmented manner." The Supreme Court’s ruling annuls the authorization for the port’s expansion and orders a complete reevaluation of the project’s environmental impacts and determination of the consequent viability of the project. "CEMDA filed this injunction, together with the community, to protect and contribute to the conservation of the Veracruz Reef System, as well as the reefs and the services they provide, since they are key to the well-being of the people living in the Veracruz-Boca del Río-Medellín conurbation," explained Xavier Martínez Esponda, CEMDA's Operational Director. The case sets a precedent that will transform the way in which Semarnat and state authorities conduct Environmental Impact Assessments in the country. Martinez Esponda pointed out that, "with this decision, the principles of prevention and precaution will have to become much more ingrained in the decision-making process. Likewise, authorities and investors should learn the lesson that it is more expensive, in all senses, not to present their projects in a complete manner, than to comply in time and form with the Environmental Impact Assessment." Background The Veracruz Reef System is a National Park and a wetland of international importance according to the Ramsar Convention. It has great environmental value as the largest reef system in the central region of the Gulf of Mexico. This reef system hosts the greatest biodiversity of species in the western Gulf of Mexico and is also home to several protected species, such as the critically endangered hawksbill turtle. The SAV also helps mitigate the impact of storm surges and hurricanes, which have increased in frequency and intensity as a result of climate change. The Port of Veracruz expansion project was proposed in the late 1990s and its implementation included plans for new breakwater works, access and navigation channels, land access, terminals, and port facilities. These works will damage reefs and seagrasses in the area, as they will be impacted by the increased sedimentation caused by the construction works. Due to the importance of the case, international environmental protection organizations supported the process.  Earthjustice and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) delivered a joint amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of CEMDA’s filing with the court. Sandra Moguel, AIDA's attorney, emphasized that "it is not the proximity of a project that determines who are the affected people and who should have access to justice to defend their right to a healthy environment." In its brief, AIDA explains that international law obliges the Mexican government to allow anyone whose fundamental rights are threatened by environmental harm to access judicial remedies, even if their connection to the threatened ecosystem is indirect or remote. Guillermo Zuñiga, an attorney with Earthjustice, emphasized that his ties to this reef are important and personal: "I grew up in Veracruz.  I am a Xalapeño. That area gave birth to me, and I grew up swimming in the rivers and beaches of Veracruz with my family. I want the children of Veracruz to have the opportunity to enjoy the richness of its biodiversity as I did." Alejandra Serrano Pavón, a lawyer with the international organization Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW), was interested in the case because of the opportunity to encourage the Court to broadly interpret the right to access to justice in defense of the environment. ELAW presented an amicus brief that supported the filing, through which is provided examples from various countries around the world that recognize a broad interpretation of this right, which allows "any civil society organization or, at least residents of a place, to initiate a legal action to protect the environment." We widely celebrate this decision of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court, and we hope that in the process of executing the judgment, the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources complies with what it has been ordered to do under the highest standard of protection enshrined in the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, known as the Escazú Agreement. Underwritten by: AIDA Earthjustice ELAW CEMDA press contacts: Ricardo Ruiz, CEMDA, [email protected], 5559644162 Victor Quintanilla, AIDA, [email protected], 5570522107  

Reaction: IUCN Congress votes yes to a moratorium on deep-sea mining

Marseille, France - A motion calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining was adopted with overwhelming support by the IUCN World Conservation Congress today. Among government and government agencies 81 voted for the moratorium with 18 against and 28 abstentions. Among NGOs and civil society organization the vote was 577 for, 32 against and 35 abstentions, sending a strong message to governments that there is global opposition to deep-sea mining. “We are very pleased to see so many governments, agencies and NGOs voting for a moratorium on deep-sea mining; the support has been overwhelming” said Matthew Gianni Co-Founder of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC).  “Member countries of the ISA, including France which hosted this Congress, need to wake up and act on behalf of civil society and the environment now, and take action in support of a moratorium”. Scientists have warned that deep-sea mining will cause large-scale, irreversible biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation if permitted to occur, particularly in the international areas of the world’s ocean. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), a multilateral regulatory body established under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1994, is debating whether to begin licensing commercial deep-sea mining in as little as two years. 167 countries plus the EU are members of the ISA. The German Environment Ministry, the government of Fiji and many other government agencies voted to support motion 069. Nauru has triggered a so-called Two Year rule at the ISA which it expects will result in the Authority issuing a commercial license to mine. 47 African countries have challenged the trigger and Sian Owen, Director of the DSCC says: "Hopefully the vote in Marseille will translate into a vote at the ISA to adopt a moratorium on deep sea mining." Motion 069 - Protection of deep-ocean ecosystems and biodiversity through a moratorium on seabed mining was sponsored by Fauna and Flora International and co-sponsored by Fundación MarViva (Costa Rica), Natural Resources Defense Council (USA), Sylvia Earle Alliance/Mission Blue (USA), Synchronicity Earth (UK), Wildlands Conservation Trust (South Africa), World Wide Fund for Nature – International. For further information Matthew Gianni, IUCN, 31 646 168 899 Sian Owen, IUCN, 31 648 502 659 Patricia Roy, 34 696 905 907  

Our responsibility in the conservation of fisheries resources

It’s increasingly common to hear people say that they identify themselves as flexitarian, or semi-vegetarian. Being flexitarian means a person eats mostly a vegetarian diet, but occasionally consumes animal products like meat, poultry, seafood and fish. There are also pescetarians, or pesco-vegetarians, who only consume different varieties of fish and seafood As with any consumption habit, it is important to reflect on its environmental impact. While the current pattern of meat consumption is not sustainable, largely due to its impacts on the climate, the situation for fish consumption is no more encouraging. According to the biennial report of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), for more than 60 years global fish consumption has increased at a rate considerably higher than the growth of the world population. In addition, it is estimated that more than 30 percent of the world's fish stocks are overexploited and 60 percent are overfished. The continued increase in overfishing has consequences not only for biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, but also causes a decrease in fish production, with negative economic and social repercussions. Why fish consumption is increasing There are many reasons why people change their eating habits. They are often linked to health, weight and ethical considerations that reflect an ideology of respect for animals and environmental sustainability related to the reduction of red meat consumption. In recent years, fish-rich diets have been strongly promoted, mainly for their nutritional benefits. The nutritional content of fish varies according to factors such as species, age, environment, diet and even the time of capture. However, in general terms, fish are characterized by being sources of vitamins and proteins with high biological value. Oily or fatty fish—among them salmon, sardines and tuna—are usually exceptionally rich in Omega-3 and in minerals such as potassium, magnesium and phosphorus. Nutritionally, it’s advisable to consume them two to three times a week since rational consumption of fish helps regulate blood pressure, and reduce coronary risk and triglyceride levels. Although it’s necessary to eat in a healthy and balanced way to have a full life, it is also crucial to take into account the origin of the food we consume and to question where it comes from, and under what conditions it was caught or processed. An example of the relevance of answering these questions is the case of salmon, whose nutritional value lies in wild species and not in farm-raised ones, which are fed with an excessive amount of antibiotics. Overfishing, incentives and consequences According to the FAO, about 90 percent of marine fish stocks worldwide are fully exploited, overfished or depleted. Negative fisheries subsidies account for much of this problem. By increasing fishing capacity, these subsidies provide short-term benefits, but threaten the long-term sustainability of ecosystems and coastal communities. Worldwide, negative subsidies represent an investment of $22 billion each year. The most widely used are those for the purchase of fuel and the modernization of vessels to increase catches. Ecologically, these incentives reduce fish stocks and hinder their recovery. They destroy marine habitats and exacerbate overfishing. Given that nearly 60 million people work directly in the world's fisheries, it is vital that fish stocks be allowed to regenerate properly, thus ensuring the continued livelihoods of fishing communities. The responsible use of fishery and aquaculture resources must be recognized as a priority for global food security and nutrition, as well as for local development opportunities. The promotion and adoption of responsible fishing practices, from catch to consumption, is a joint effort in which consumers play a fundamental role. How to eat fish responsibly Sustainable fishing allows fish stocks to reproduce adequately and continuously, keeping them healthy and productive. While this task necessitates the active involvement of the fishing sector and government authorities, as consumers we also have a responsibility to promote sustainability through our purchasing decisions. Here are some simple tips fish eaters can implement in their daily lives: Verify the origin and size of the fish or seafood: Learn aspects such as the origin and method of capture, in addition to the size of the piece, which determines whether it reached sufficient maturity. Diversify consumption habits: Consume fish and seafood according to seasonality, a phenomenon related to the times of reproduction and movement of species, which are highly dependent on characteristics such as water temperature. Consuming seasonal fish and seafood allows for proper reproduction and recovery of species, ensuring greater balance and helping to avoid overfishing. Buy from authorized sites: Know if the place of sale actually complies with sustainability and traceability criteria for the products it sells. Traceability is the set of measures and procedures that make it possible to follow the trail of a fishery product from its capture to its final sale. Check labels: Where possible, choose products with certifications in sustainable fishing and marketing practices, such as the MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) seal or the Environmental Responsibility Standard for Fish Marketing, granted by Marviva in Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia.   If we as a society allow for the gradual recovery of our ocean, we will be making a positive contribution to food security, the economy, the wellbeing of coastal communities, and future generations.  

Member countries of the World Trade Organization must reach an agreement on fisheries subsidies

We regret that the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference, held today in Geneva, failed to reach an agreement on fisheries subsidies, an urgent measure to achieve effective management of our fisheries resources, as well as to ensure global food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities. At the same time, we recognize that the negotiations are at an advanced stage and that we finally have a draft text. We wish to highlight the commitment and participation of Latin American delegations including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Uruguay. We urge all WTO member countries to assume the great responsibility of reaching an agreement soon. After two decades of negotiations, the deadlines for completing the negotiations and reaching an agreement have been repeatedly missed. Although negotiations officially began in 2001, it was not until the 2017 Ministerial Conference that countries committed to take action and reach an agreement at the next conference, which was to take place in December 2020, but was suspended due to the pandemic. This commitment also responds to the fulfillment of target 14.6 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This target establishes that by 2020 "certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing" should be prohibited, and aims to "eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation." According to recent estimates, governments spend US$35 billion each year to support their fisheries sectors, of which US$22 billion represent negative subsidies, which promote overfishing. That practice results in alarming data, including that 63 percent of global fish stocks need to be rebuilt and that, according to a 2020 FAO report, 34 percent of them are fished at "biologically unsustainable" levels. While the agreement is being finalized, more needs to be done to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. We urge WTO member countries to define without further delay commitments in this regard at the national and regional levels. For our part, AIDA attorneys will continue to work hand-in-hand with governments to reach an ambitious agreement. It is imperative that said agreement adopt solid rules, eliminate the possibility of creating legal loopholes, and seize the opportunity to establish ocean policies aimed at achieving greater sustainability and guaranteeing the satisfaction of the needs of current and future generations, as well as the conservation of our marine resources. press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +525570522107  

Towards an end to subsidies that promote overfishing

Chile: Report Finds That Approval of Salmon Farms in Kawésqar National Reserve is Illegal

The document prepared by national and international organizations highlights the incompatibility between this type of industry and the purpose of protection of the area. Even without an established management plan, there are already 57 salmon farming concessions, 113 in process and 6 resolutions of environmental qualification have been approved after the creation of the Reserve.   Local communities in the area of the Kawésqar National Reserve—including Kawésqar Atap, As Wal Lajep, Grupos Familiares Nómades del Mar, Residentes Río Primero and Inés Caro—provided Chile’s National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) with a technical report that seeks to provide information on the serious impact that the salmon industry generates on marine ecosystems. Prepared by the NGOs FIMA, Greenpeace and AIDA (the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense), the report will be considered in the management plan that the government entity must develop and implement to comply with the protection of the marine waters that make up the Reserve. "CONAF must guarantee compliance with what was established in the Indigenous Consultation and explicitly prohibit salmon farming in the reserve's management plan. This definition is key to the future health of the Patagonian marine ecosystems," explained Estefanía González, Greenpeace's Campaign Coordinator. "Salmon farming is completely incompatible with the maintenance of healthy marine ecosystems." Historic process for the protection of the Southern seas The creation of the Kawésqar National Reserve in 2018 was a key milestone for the participation of these native people in decision-making regarding the ecosystems that make up their ancestral territory. On that occasion, through indigenous consultation, the need to protect the waters and prevent the development of activities such as salmon farming was expressly established, considering the particular situation of fragility of the area and the Kawésqar cultural legacy, firmly linked to the sea. In their above referenced report, the organizations conclude that salmon farming as an activity is incompatible with the protection objectives of National Reserves, from a legal and ecosystemic point of view, and in particular with the Kawésqar National Reserve, due to the many risks involved. Among the damages caused by this industry are biological contamination caused by the introduction of exotic species, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, periodic massive salmon escapes, and the food and feces deposited on the seafloor, which generate anaerobic conditions and red tides. All of the above endangers a marine area with unique diversity and which the State itself has decided to protect. "Allowing salmon farming in the Kawésqar National Reserve would render the protection given to the area useless," added Victoria Belemmi, FIMA attorney. "This point has even been recognized by the national directorate of CONAF, which when consulted in 2019 by the comptroller's office on salmon farming within protected areas, pointed out that according to the current national and international legal framework, including the Washington Convention, an activity such as salmon farming would not be admissible in an area designed to protect the marine ecosystem." Statement from the Comptroller's Office For its part, AIDA filed a letter with the Comptroller General's Office to solicit a ruling on the approval of a project to increase the biomass of a salmon farming center located in the Alacalufes Reserve, now Kawésqar National Reserve, which was operating under anaerobic conditions. "The approval of this project meant that salmon production was authorized to increase in an area where there was already evidence that the carrying capacity of the site was exceeded," explained Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney. "The fact that the center was located in the waters bordering the Alacalufes Reserve (now Kawésqar) makes it even more serious." The low level of oxygen affecting the waters was evidenced by official documentation recognizing the regulations for that purpose—the Preliminary Site Characterization that the center's owner submitted to request the expansion, and several preliminary reports (INFA) confirming the situation. With the approval, the center acquired authorization to almost triple its original production. Subpesca had noted the situation, even interposing an observation on the matter within the process. However, shortly thereafter, it issued its approval of the project. Subsequently, the Environmental Evaluation Service (SEA) approved the project by means of an Environmental Qualification Resolution (RCA, for its Spanish initials). Read the report here (in Spanish) press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107