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:
Victory in Colombia: Citizens Vote to Ban Mining in their Territory
On March 26, 2017, 98% of voters in Cajamarca, Colombia decisively rejected mining in their territory. The results of the referendum (or “popular consultation”) are binding under Colombian law. Now municipal authorities must issue regulations to implement the ban. AIDA was part of the legal team that advised the Cajamarca community and developed a strategy, including the referendum, to stop a proposed mine that threatens to pollute the water supply. AngloGold Ashanti was in the exploration phase of a project called La Colosa (the Collosus)—aptly named, because it would be among the world’s 10 largest open-pit gold mines, the second-largest in Latin America. In a country coming out of a 50-year civil war, the referendum is a victory not only for the environment, but also for democracy. Banning mining through popular consultation demonstrates a commitment to solving environmental conflicts in a peaceful and participatory manner. It also allows citizens to exercise their human right to have a voice in public issues that affect them—a key element of true democracy—and to safeguard their human right to a healthy environment.
Read moreVictory in Colombia: Citizens Vote to Ban Mining in their Territory
On March 26, 2017, 98% of voters in Cajamarca, Colombia decisively rejected mining in their territory. The results of the referendum (or “popular consultation”) are binding under Colombian law. Now municipal authorities must issue regulations to implement the ban. AIDA was part of the legal team that advised the Cajamarca community and developed a strategy, including the referendum, to stop a proposed mine that threatens to pollute the water supply. AngloGold Ashanti was in the exploration phase of a project called La Colosa (the Collosus)—aptly named, because it would be among the world’s 10 largest open-pit gold mines, the second-largest in Latin America. In a country coming out of a 50-year civil war, the referendum is a victory not only for the environment, but also for democracy. Banning mining through popular consultation demonstrates a commitment to solving environmental conflicts in a peaceful and participatory manner. It also allows citizens to exercise their human right to have a voice in public issues that affect them—a key element of true democracy—and to safeguard their human right to a healthy environment.
Read more
Lowering Peru’s air quality standards is regressive and harmful to public health
The government of Peru has proposed increasing the legal amount of sulfur dioxide in the air by more than 12 times and doubling the allowed level of particulate matter, substances known to cause serious health harms. The proposal ignores both scientific evidence and the government’s obligation to uphold conditions that are suitable for human life and health. Lima, Peru. Peru’s Environment Ministry has proposed new National Environmental Quality Standards for air, which would impact the health of Peruvians everywhere. The proposed standard increases by more than 12 times the limit for airborne concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and doubles the allowable amount of fine particulate matter. The increased limits ignore scientific evidence that finds these substances can cause lung problems and other illnesses, particularly among the most vulnerable populations such as people with asthma, children, and the elderly. “There is overwhelming scientific evidence to conclude that sulfur dioxide pollution poses a serious health risk, particularly when the contamination reaches high levels over short periods of time, something the proposal does not take into account,” said Anna Cederstav, co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). AIDA prepared comments on the proposal that were presented to the government of Peru together with APRODEH. These pointed out that, contrary to the government’s assertion, reducing sulfur dioxide levels in the air would lead to longer life expectancy. This is because, among other reasons, sulfur dioxide also promotes the formation of PM2.5, small particulate matter that lodges in human lungs and causes acute respiratory problems such as bronchitis and pneumonia, as well as premature death. The government proposes to simultaneously double the legal limit for these extremely harmful particles. The organizations also highlighted flaws in the public consultation process. The government published the draft standard on Saturday, April 8, just before the Easter week holiday, giving only 10 working days for public comment on this critical public health issue. They also failed to make public the entire scientific and technical basis for the proposal. In so doing, the government has violated the rights to information and public participation. The comments also emphasize that the government’s proposal violates the American Convention on Human Rights and other international treaties to which Peru is a party, by failing to guarantee the human rights to life and health. While the proposed changes would impact Peru’s entire population, the residents of cities with high levels of pollution, such as La Oroya, would suffer the most severe impacts. La Oroya is an emblematic case because the metallurgical complex operating there—which has for decades been a macro-emitter of pollutants—is in the process of being sold. The government has publically acknowledged that the weakening of the air quality standards is an attempt to promote the sale of the complex. But it ignores the effects those relaxed standards would have on the people of La Oroya, who have seen significant improvements to both their air quality and their health in recent years. People affected by the pollution in La Oroya have sued the State before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in an attempt to protect their rights. For ten years, they have been granted precautionary measures due to the risk the pollution poses to their health and life; those measures were recently extended to additional people because the level of risk has continued. “Relaxing air quality standards to facilitate the sale of the complex and increase investment in Peru would be a setback for the protection of health and the environment, which could result in the State being held responsible before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights,” said Christian Huaylinos of APRODEH. “In addition, such actions would violate free trade agreements signed by Peru with the United States and the European Union.” Consult the comments sent to the Environment Ministry of Peru and more information on the case of La Oroya. Press contacts: Rodrigo da Costa Sales, AIDA, [email protected], +51 994767961 Christian Huaylinos, APRODEH, [email protected], +51 959 789 232
Read more