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:
Joint letter: Mexico – Detention of environmental and human rights defender Mr. Marco Antonio Suástegui Muñoz
The 57 organizations and persons signatory to the letter, which work for the protection of human rights and the environment, express their deep concern at the detention of Mr. Marco Antonio Suástegui, leader of the Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota – CECOP (Council of Communal Lands and Communities Opposing the La Parota Dam), on 17 June by members of the Ministerial Police of the Attorney General of Justice of Guerrero State. We call upon the Mexican State to take effective and urgent measures to guarantee the human rights of Mr. Suástegui and the important work that the human rights defender performs in defence of the Papagayo River. In particular, we consider it fundamental that the State: Take measures to ensure that the competent authorities guarantee the right to a defence and due process of Mr. Marco Antonio Suástegui, and reverse any action taken in the detention procedure and past transfers that tainted by illegalities, Take measures to guarantee his physical and psychological integrity, and Take all necessary measures to secure the work for the defence of human rights and the environment undertaken by Marco Antonio Suástegui, and take an active role in avoiding any act that hinders the actions taken to defend the Papagayo River.
Read more
Colombia must choose between gold and water: Al Gore
Colombia faces a pivotal choice for its future. It must choose between protecting its high-altitude moors as its water source for millions of people or authorizing large-scale mining in these fragile ecosystems. AIDA, together with its allied organizations, is working to convince the authorities to choose water and this cause recently won a new ally: Al Gore. The former U.S. vice president, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his success at raising awareness about climate change, brought up the issue of mining in the moors, known locally as páramos, in April. “Colombia must choose between the gold in the páramo and profits for a few people, or the drinking water that supplies all of its citizens,” he said at an international summit on the environment in Bucaramanga, a city in northeastern Colombia that gets its water from the Santurbán Páramo. We’ve been calling on the Colombian government to protect this moor and others around the country from mining, given that they provide 85% of the country’s water. Will this happen? By law, the government must keep mining out of the páramos. But to do this, their boundaries must first be mapped. This poses a problem. In April, the government unveiled its map showing that the Santurbán Páramo stretches over 42,000 hectares (104,000 acres). That’s more than the 11,000 hectares of previous estimates. But it’s only about half the 82,000 hectares measured by the Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute, an independent state research center that used a larger scale map than the government. The larger scale provides richer details that show how the moor extends further. The government has not adopted an official measurement, leaving important parts of the moor open to mining, an industry it is promoting to spur economic growth. But at what costs? Large-scale mining will cause irreversible damage to these flora-rich moors that not only supply water to millions of people but also help mitigate the effects of climate change by capturing carbon emissions. Gore was clear on what choice he recommends for Colombia or any country facing questions of economic growth versus environmental protect. “Without a planet, there is no economy that is worth anything,” he said. You can help us spread the message by making a donation and signing our petition so that we can continue the fight to save Colombia’s moors. Thank you!
Read moreOrganizations come out in defense of the Veracruz Reef System
Technical and legal arguments are submitted in support of a lawsuit against modifying the boundaries of the Veracruz Reef System National Park in eastern Mexico, a site protected by international obligations to preserve the natural barrier against storms and hurricanes. Veracruz, Mexico. Six civil society organizations have submitted to a Mexican court an amicus curiae brief containing legal and technical arguments that strengthen arguments in a lawsuit against a government decree to modify and reduce the boundaries of the Veracruz Reef System National Park. The proposed modification puts conservation of this internationally important wetland at stake. The organizations submitted the friend of the court brief to the Third Tribunal of the District of Veracruz on April 25. They are the Interamerican Association of Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), the Strategic Human Rights Litigation Center (Litiga OLE), Pathways and Encounters for Sustainable Development (SENDAS), Pobladores A.C. and the Veracruz Assembly of Environmental Initiatives and Defense (LAVIDA). The Veracruz Reef System in eastern Mexico was declared a natural protected area in 1992 to safeguard its diversity of species and a rational use of its resources, and to encourage research into the ecosystem and its balance. In 2004, the Veracruz Reef System was included as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty to protect wetlands. The amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief highlights the importance of the reef system for Mexico and the region. “Coral reefs are natural barriers against large waves and storms like Hurricane Karl, which hit Veracruz in 1992,” said Sandra Moguel, a legal advisor to AIDA. “Reefs also provide abundant fishing and valuable information for medical research. They’re great spots for recreation and they help to sustain marine life.” The legal brief also argues that the decree, from Mexico’s National Commission on Protected Areas (CONANP), threatens regional biodiversity, violates the human right to a healthy environment, and breaches Mexico’s international obligations to protect this ecosystem. “The local population is more exposed to suffer the impacts of hurricanes and other climate phenomena, because the decree removes the Punta Gorda and Bahía de Vergara reefs from the national park,” said Xavier Martínez Esponda, regional director of CEMDA for the Gulf of Mexico. The organizations’ brief explains how CONANP’s decree infringes specific national laws and international treaties. For example, the Organization of American States’ Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere states that natural park limits can only be modified by legislative authorities. CONANP is not such an authority. The decree also violates the Ramsar Convention, given that the modification of the national park’s defined boundaries did not follow the procedures established by that intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands of international importance. The brief concludes by making it clear that CONANP’s decree is a regressive measure that erases the benefits of environmental protection attained with the creation of the protected area in 1992. “Setbacks like this can cause irreparable damage,” said Moguel.
Read more