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:
Organizations asked that the IACHR urge the Colombian State to comply with international obligations, to declare a moratorium on mining and energy projects, and establish a Working Group between authorities and the affected communities
They also asked that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) urge the State to adequately attend to the victims of the forced displacement caused by the “development” projects, and to begin a dialogue between the victims and the authorities seeking effective solutions to the problem. Washington, D.C., USA – In a hearing last Monday before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), in its 153rd Period of Sessions, organizations and social movements requested that the international body urge the Colombian State to recognize that forced displacement caused by the implementation of "development" projects is a human rights violation that must be prevented. They also asked that the Commission verify this grave situation with a visit to the affected areas. The organizations expressed their deep concern for the dangerous situation in which people and communities are placed as they defend their land and their environment. The resistance to megaprojects has resulted in the murder of 13 people, the disappearance of one, and threats against 25 people who defend the country’s rivers. The violence has included the recent assassination of a Nasa indigenous community leader, opposed to the Colosa mine, and a serious threat against the indigenous governor of Córdoba. The participants presented concrete cases in which the megaprojects have destroyed territories, ecosystems and ancient cultures, causing irreparable damage and leading to the forced displacement of populations. The participants presented before the IACHR three main factors that have been driving the forced displacement: 1.The close relationship between the armed conflict and the implementation of megaprojects; 2. The deregulation and violation of laws in the authorization and implementation of projects; and 3. The direct impacts from the implementation of the megaprojects. They pointed out that sociopolitical violence has enabled the implementation of mining and hydroelectric projects, causing the exodus of people from their lands and the appropriation of those lands by corporations. "The paramilitary leader Salvatore Mancuso recognized that three-thousand people from the region of Córdoba were displaced to make way for the megaprojects, because the companies needed the land for the construction of dams," the participants stated. They also indicated that the implementation of megaprojects in Colombia precludes the processes of truth, justice, and reparation, let alone any guarantees to the victims of armed conflict and development that these wrongs will not be repeated. Additionally, the participants pointed out that the State is making arbitrary use of legal instruments, such as the declaration of public utility, to clear the way for these projects, without considering their impact on human rights and the environment. The State is championing the principle of public interest, which, in practice, has been converted into a mechanism for expropriation or legal dispossession, and, as a consequence, has been the cause of the displacement. The megaprojects are having a grave impact on the ancient territories and cultures, causing irreparable damage, such as environmental contamination, that is resulting in the forced displacement of entire populations. These causes, which have created at least 200,000 victims of forced displacement, are the basis of the organizations’ request that a moratorium on mining and hydroelectric projects be instituted in Colombia as the only guarantee for the protection of further human rights violations until the policy is structurally evaluated and fundamental rights are guaranteed to those affected populations. Finally, the organizations asked for the intervention of the IACHR so that the Colombian State immediately establishes an Integrated Working Group, where the victims may participate in a discussion about mining and energy policy and have a voice in the development of a responsive business model that meets the needs of the affected communities. In this discussion, the State would also be urged to take note of the warnings issued by the Constitutional Court and the Comptroller General of the Republic regarding the need to identify alternative sources of energy, as stipulated by the World Commission on Dams.
Read more
The Protection of Coral Reefs in Mexico (in Spanish)
This report outlines the importance of coral reefs in the world—in Mexico in particular—and explores case studies, outlines relevant international treaties and obligations, and looks to best practices from nations around the region for inspiration. Download the report (in Spanish)
Read moreOrganizations alert World Bank to risks of Colombian mining investment
Delegation explains to the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a branch of the World Bank Group, illegalities and possible harms to people and the environment from Eco Oro Mineral’s Angostura mine in Santurbán, Colombia. Washington/Ottawa/Bogota/Bucaramanga. From September 11-13th, representatives from the Committee for the Defense of the Water and Páramo of Santurbán, a local coalition in the area affected by the mine, met with officials of the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), to alert them to illegalities and socio-environmental risks associated with the Angostura mine project in Colombia, in which the IFC invested four years ago. The Committee was accompanied by representatives from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), and MiningWatch Canada. IFC bought shares in Eco Oro Minerals, which hopes to open a large scale gold mine in the Santurbán páramo, a source of fresh water for millions of Colombians, habitat for endemic and threatened species, and important for climate change mitigation through the capture of atmospheric carbon. The delegation emphasized that mining puts all of this at risk and as such, according to Colombian legislation and international norms, is prohibited in páramo ecosystems. They added that cumulative effects should have been considered because the Angostura project has stimulated interest in a possible mining district in the area, in which extensive areas have been concessioned to various mining companies and that has also been affected by the armed conflict. In 2012, the Committee, with support from its allies, presented a complaint to IFC’s accountability mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO). As a result, the CAO opened an investigation to determine whether the IFC adequately evaluated the social and environmental risks associated with this project before making its investment. The results of the investigation will likely be published before the end of the year. "We hope that, as a result of the CAO report, IFC will withdraw its investment from this mining project, since there is no way that Angostura can live up to the World Bank policies," remarked Erwing Rodríguez, a member of the Committee. "This is a very important case in Santander and the whole country. Through thousands-strong marches and many other actions in defense of water, páramos and territory, we have made it clear that we do not support large-scale mining in the Santurbán páramo," stated Miguel Ramos, another Committee member. A lawyer for AIDA, Carlos Lozano Acosta, continued: "This is a key case because it will set a precedent in the region with regard to the protection of páramos, which are vital for the provision of water and in the fight against climate change." "The World Bank is taking on an unnecessary and unprofitable risk. The value of the shares in Eco Oro that the IFC purchased has considerably dropped. This project is not good for the páramo, for Colombians, or for the IFC. We don’t understand why the IFC insists on maintaining this investment," concluded Kris Genovese of SOMO.
Read more