Project
ShutterstockTowards an end to subsidies that promote overfishing
Overfishing is one of the main problems for the health of our ocean. And the provision of negative subsidies to the fishing sector is one of the fundamental causes of overfishing.
Fishing subsidies are financial contributions, direct or indirect, that public entities grant to the industry.
Depending on their impacts, they can be beneficial when they promote the growth of fish stocks through conservation and fishery resource management tools. And they are considered negative or detrimental when they promote overfishing with support for, for example, increasing the catch capacity of a fishing fleet.
It is estimated that every year, governments spend approximately 22 billion dollars in negative subsidies to compensate costs for fuel, fishing gear and vessel improvements, among others.
Recent data show that, as a result of this support, 63% of fish stocks worldwide must be rebuilt and 34% are fished at "biologically unsustainable" levels.
Although negotiations on fisheries subsidies, within the framework of the World Trade Organization, officially began in 2001, it was not until the 2017 WTO Ministerial Conference that countries committed to taking action to reach an agreement.
This finally happened in June 2022, when member countries of the World Trade Organization 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.
The agreement reached at the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference 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. It 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 other harmful subsidies, such as those that promote fishing in other countries' waters, overfishing and the overcapacity of a fleet to catch more fish than is sustainable.
If we want to have abundant and healthy fishery resources, it is time to change the way we have conceived fishing until now. We must focus our efforts on creating models of fishery use that allow for long-term conservation.
Partners:
Celebrating 7 Advances to Close Out 2017
As the year comes to a close, we're happy to share with you several recent advances we've made in the name of environmental protection in Latin America. Each project we launch or case we win is a step toward a more just region, and a healthier planet for our children. Because of your support, we: 1. Saved Colombia’s Largest Coastal Wetland We successfully petitioned Colombia to list the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta among the world's most at-risk wetlands, opening up the resources needed for its recovery. Learn More 2. Launched the Bolivian Environmental Justice Network We founded a coalition of environmental and human rights organizations in Bolivia to support citizens’ efforts to defend the environment and those who depend on its health. 3. Campaigned to Protect Patagonia from Salmon Farms We petitioned Chile to investigate damage being done by salmon farm operations in Southern Patagonia, and launched a citizens’ campaign to raise awareness of the growing threat. Learn More 4. Secured Healthcare for Victims of Toxic Pollution We secured specialized medical care for residents of La Oroya, Peru, whose lives and health have long been affected by a heavy-polluting metal smelter that operates beside their homes. Learn More 5. Protected Sea Turtles on the High Seas We represented Latin American citizens and organizations in the development of a United Nations treaty to protect the shared parts of our ocean and the rich life within. Learn More 6. Stimulated Divestment from Mining in a Protected Wetland We convinced the World Bank to withdraw support from a gold mine in the Santurbán páramo, a protected ecosystem and water source for millions of Colombians. Learn More 7. Advised Rural Town in the Lead-Up to a Mining Ban We provided legal advice and scientific analysis to the people of Cajamarca, Colombia, who then voted by a margin of 98% to ban all mining activities from their territory. Learn More
Read moreCelebrating 7 Advances to Close Out 2017
As the year comes to a close, we're happy to share with you several recent advances we've made in the name of environmental protection in Latin America. Each project we launch or case we win is a step toward a more just region, and a healthier planet for our children. Because of your support, we: 1. Saved Colombia’s Largest Coastal Wetland We successfully petitioned Colombia to list the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta among the world's most at-risk wetlands, opening up the resources needed for its recovery. Learn More 2. Launched the Bolivian Environmental Justice Network We founded a coalition of environmental and human rights organizations in Bolivia to support citizens’ efforts to defend the environment and those who depend on its health. 3. Campaigned to Protect Patagonia from Salmon Farms We petitioned Chile to investigate damage being done by salmon farm operations in Southern Patagonia, and launched a citizens’ campaign to raise awareness of the growing threat. Learn More 4. Secured Healthcare for Victims of Toxic Pollution We secured specialized medical care for residents of La Oroya, Peru, whose lives and health have long been affected by a heavy-polluting metal smelter that operates beside their homes. Learn More 5. Protected Sea Turtles on the High Seas We represented Latin American citizens and organizations in the development of a United Nations treaty to protect the shared parts of our ocean and the rich life within. Learn More 6. Stimulated Divestment from Mining in a Protected Wetland We convinced the World Bank to withdraw support from a gold mine in the Santurbán páramo, a protected ecosystem and water source for millions of Colombians. Learn More 7. Advised Rural Town in the Lead-Up to a Mining Ban We provided legal advice and scientific analysis to the people of Cajamarca, Colombia, who then voted by a margin of 98% to ban all mining activities from their territory. Learn More
Read more
Why I’m joining the fight for justice for Belo Monte’s victims
On April 1, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights granted protective measures to the indigenous communities affected by a large dam in the heart of the Brazilian Amazon. It was then I first heard of Belo Monte. I was working as a human rights defender in my native country of Colombia. The Commission ordered the suspension of all permits and work related to the dam until the protection of indigenous rights was guaranteed. I remember clearly the excitement generated by the decision, followed swiftly by Brazil’s rejection of it and the imposition of their diplomatic power. Other governments of the region supported Brazil’s position with unusual solidarity, questioning the competence of the international organization to grant such measures in relation to “development” projects. Due to the overwhelming pressure, the Commission, for the first time in its history, modified its decision: it said Brazil must guarantee the life and integrity of affected populations, but that construction could continue. I’ve never understood the governments’ reaction in this case. The Commission had simply fulfilled its mandate: to avoid irreparable harm to the rights of a group of people. The project had not consulted affected indigenous communities, and lacked adequate social and environmental impact studies. It has gone on, as predicted, to cause serious damage to both the environment and human health and wellbeing. The indigenous and riverside communities, which have for generations cared for the Xingu River, have been left to deal with the impacts of a project that interrupted the flow of the river, irreversibly altering their way of life and means of subsistence. The hope continues More than six years have passed since the case was taken before the Commission, which, as an organ of the Organization of American States, is called to protect human rights on the continent. Over this time, Belo Monte has progressed as planned and the threats of social and ecological harm have become a reality. The dam has: caused the forced displacement of more than 40 thousand people, aggravating poverty and social conflict in the area; saturated the health, education, and public safety systems in Altamira, the nearest city; violated the right to adequate housing for thousands of families; and increased violence against human rights defenders. It caused and continues to cause damage to the Amazon rainforest, worsening climate change and its impacts. Despite the setbacks, the hope of achieving justice for affected people has grown over time as well. In September, I became the Senior Attorney for AIDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program. As such, I’m involved with our case before the Commission. I’m honored to have joined an organization that, in alliance with local organizations, has dedicated years to ensuring that the people of the Xingu get reparation for the damages they’ve suffered, and is working to create new standards for environmental and human rights protections in the region. In 2010, AIDA and our allies requested precautionary measures from the Commission. One year later, we filed a formal complaint against Brazil regarding the human rights violations related to Belo Monte. In December 2015, the Commission opened the case for processing. On October 31 of this year, the Commission gave new impetus to the litigation process against Brazil: it decided to unite two stages that, as a rule, are processed separately. In the first, the necessary aspects regarding admissibility of the case are verified. In the second, a fundamental decision is made that analyzes whether a State failed to comply with the international obligations it undertook when signing the American Convention on Human Rights. The petitioners must present the allegations of human rights violations, and the State their responses to them. The Commission will then issue a decision on the case’s admissibility as well as its merit. Their recent exception will expedite the process of reaching that decision. We’re working for the Commission to issue recommendations to Brazil to repair the violations committed. If those recommendations are unfulfilled, the case may be referred to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has the power to issue a ruling condemning Brazil and recommending reparation measures. Valuable lessons Belo Monte is, without a doubt, a lesson for the continent. The case shows that projects of this type are environmentally unviable and generate irreparable damage to human rights. Belo Monte also shows that States must rethink their energy models and turn their efforts toward promoting truly clean and sustainable energy. It’s a warning sign for financial institutions to avoid investing in projects with negative socio-environmental impacts. Finally, it’s an opportunity for the Inter-American Human Rights System to establish a valuable precedent that will hopefully help avoid a similar situation from happening again. On behalf of AIDA, I’m proud to be contributing to the fight for a healthy environment in this and many other cases. Our journey is just beginning.
Read more