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 submit amicus curiae brief to Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court, demonstrating that Congressional authorization of the Belo Monte Dam is illegal
The authorization violates national and international law because the communities affected by the project were not consulted. Construction of the dam continues, causing harms to people, communities and the ecosystem of the Brazilian Amazon. Brasilia, Brazil. Construction of the Belo Monte Dam continues. Meanwhile, biodiversity and the communities of the area already suffer severe damage. Civil society organizations submitted to the Supreme Federal Court an amicus curiae (in Portuguese) (friend of the court) brief that demonstrates that the Congressional decree authorizing the controversial dam is illegal because the government didn’t consult with the affected communities. The brief contains national and international law arguments for the protection of the environment and human rights. The arguments support a legal action filed by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público Federal), which seeks a Supreme Federal Court ruling that annuls the decree. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) prepared the document in cooperation with the Centro de Estudios de Derecho, Justicia y Sociedad (DEJUSTICIA), Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), la Associação Indígena Yudjá Mïratu da Volta Grande do Xingu (AYMÏX) and the Conselho Indigenista Missionário (CIMI). "The Belo Monte project was approved without the State having consulted and obtained the consent of the affected indigenous communities and traditional populations. This, alongside the environmental degradation that began with construction, has placed the individuals and communities in a situation of extreme vulnerability," explained AIDA’s attorney, María José Veramendi Villa. By not guaranteeing the right to free, prior and informed consent of the affected communities before authorizing the project, Congress violated the Brazilian Constitution and Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO). Even though public information meetings about the project were held, they did not constitute prior consultation because they were held after the project was approved. Additionally, information provided in the meetings was not translated into indigenous languages. Not all the affected people had access to the meetings and those who did received incomplete and last minute information about the project. As well as the issues related to free, prior and informed consultation and consent, the document reinforces the Federal Prosecutor’s arguments with regard to the right to access to justice. This right was violated when the government used a law known as Suspension of Security to suspend lower court decisions against the project and favorable to the affected population, ostensibly to protect public security and the economy. "If the Supreme Federal Court issues a favorable decision, the Brazilian State will have two obligations. Not only will it have to suspend the authorization it gave for the dam’s construction, but also it will have to remedy the past and ongoing harm inflicted on indigenous communities and other populations affected by Belo Monte," said Dejusticia’s international director, César Rodríguez Garavito. "Traditional populations affected by the dam are living in unacceptable conditions for democratic times. There is a judicial decision that recognizes that the right to prior consultation was violated, but at the same time another, preliminary and provisional, decision that authorizes construction to move forward," said Leonardo Amorim, an attorney with Instituto Socioambiental. "Consequently, this population suffers worsening health conditions and invasion of their lands. We hope that the Supreme Federal Court rejects this situation." This past Tuesday, the Xingu Alive Forever Movement (MXVPS), with the support of several organizations, requested a hearing (in Portuguese) with the President (Chief Justice) of the Supreme Federal Court to demand an immediate decision in this legal action, as well as in others that challenge large hydroelectric projects in the Amazon.
Read more
Our fight to protect the coral reefs and mangroves of Mexico goes beyond national borders
Coral reefs, the nurseries of the seas, are vital to the fisheries that provide food for millions of people. Mangrove forests also benefit people: they protect coastal communities from increasingly severe storm surges and help to mitigate climate change by absorbing huge amounts of carbon dioxide. But large infrastructure projects that ignore these benefits threaten some of these vitally important ecosystems. AIDA uses the law to protect coral reefs, mangroves and other wetlands. We have found that it’s not enough to fight at the local level, country by country. AIDA approaches defense at the ecosystem level, which is more effective. We engage in discussions with international authorities, bringing attention to the obligations that countries have to the world to preserve their marine and coastal environments. "What you get with these international legal actions is a strategy that weaves together various aspects of the case: legal, political, scientific and media. So we make the issue relevant not only to local decision makers, but also to international authorities. Public support is generated and consulting or certified experts speak out about it, "said Sandra Moguel, AIDA legal advisor. A prime example of this strategy for environmental protection is a case involving Mexico, a country rich in wetlands. In May AIDA alerted the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands, about the possible breach of Mexico’s international obligations. Mexico’s government is considering approval of the proposed Las Cruces Dam, a hydroelectric project in Nayarit, a state in the country’s northwest. Among other damage, the project would alter the course of the San Pedro Mezquital River, which feeds Marismas Nacionales (National Wetlands), one of the most extensive mangrove systems in North America. National Wetlands are listed as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention. In 2010, diplomats from the Ramsar Convention recommended that the Mexican government advocate sustainable use of the wetland while assessing the project’s feasibility. We have alerted the Ramsar Secretariat that their recommendations would be ignored if Mexico gives a green light to a project that would irreversibly damage National Wetlands, biodiversity, and the communities that depend on that environment. By drawing the attention of international bodies, AIDA strengthens the efforts of our local partner organizations. AIDA has also employed this strategy to protect the unique Cabo Pulmo coral reef, in Baja California Sur. Since 2012, we have continually reminded the Mexican authorities that both the Ramsar Secretariat and the Unesco World Heritage Committee have asked them to consider the cumulative and indirect impacts of tourism projects proposed near the reef. Our arguments were added to those presented by our partners in Mexico to prevent authorization of Cabo Dorado, a mega-resort that would involve building a new city near the reef. This project is the third that tourism developers have attempted to build next to Cabo Pulmo. Construction would surely be fatal to the reef. In a victory that extends beyond Mexican borders, the government decided on May 29 to deny the environmental permit for Cabo Dorado. With your help, we will continue to bring the voice of local communities to international forums. We will continue to add value and support their struggle to preserve marine and coastal environments that benefit us all. Thanks!
Read moreOur fight to protect the coral reefs and mangroves of Mexico goes beyond national borders
Coral reefs, the nurseries of the seas, are vital to the fisheries that provide food for millions of people. Mangrove forests also benefit people: they protect coastal communities from increasingly severe storm surges and help to mitigate climate change by absorbing huge amounts of carbon dioxide. But large infrastructure projects that ignore these benefits threaten some of these vitally important ecosystems. AIDA uses the law to protect coral reefs, mangroves and other wetlands. We have found that it’s not enough to fight at the local level, country by country. AIDA approaches defense at the ecosystem level, which is more effective. We engage in discussions with international authorities, bringing attention to the obligations that countries have to the world to preserve their marine and coastal environments. "What you get with these international legal actions is a strategy that weaves together various aspects of the case: legal, political, scientific and media. So we make the issue relevant not only to local decision makers, but also to international authorities. Public support is generated and consulting or certified experts speak out about it, "said Sandra Moguel, AIDA legal advisor. A prime example of this strategy for environmental protection is a case involving Mexico, a country rich in wetlands. In May AIDA alerted the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands, about the possible breach of Mexico’s international obligations. Mexico’s government is considering approval of the proposed Las Cruces Dam, a hydroelectric project in Nayarit, a state in the country’s northwest. Among other damage, the project would alter the course of the San Pedro Mezquital River, which feeds Marismas Nacionales (National Wetlands), one of the most extensive mangrove systems in North America. National Wetlands are listed as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention. In 2010, diplomats from the Ramsar Convention recommended that the Mexican government advocate sustainable use of the wetland while assessing the project’s feasibility. We have alerted the Ramsar Secretariat that their recommendations would be ignored if Mexico gives a green light to a project that would irreversibly damage National Wetlands, biodiversity, and the communities that depend on that environment. By drawing the attention of international bodies, AIDA strengthens the efforts of our local partner organizations. AIDA has also employed this strategy to protect the unique Cabo Pulmo coral reef, in Baja California Sur. Since 2012, we have continually reminded the Mexican authorities that both the Ramsar Secretariat and the Unesco World Heritage Committee have asked them to consider the cumulative and indirect impacts of tourism projects proposed near the reef. Our arguments were added to those presented by our partners in Mexico to prevent authorization of Cabo Dorado, a mega-resort that would involve building a new city near the reef. This project is the third that tourism developers have attempted to build next to Cabo Pulmo. Construction would surely be fatal to the reef. In a victory that extends beyond Mexican borders, the government decided on May 29 to deny the environmental permit for Cabo Dorado. With your help, we will continue to bring the voice of local communities to international forums. We will continue to add value and support their struggle to preserve marine and coastal environments that benefit us all. Thanks!
Read more