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:
Environmental Impact Assessments Necessary for Informed Consent
In January 2009, Muriel Mining Corporation moved into the department of Chocó, Colombia to launch Mandé Norte, a project for the exploration and development of copper, gold, molybdenum and other minerals. The US-based company began the project without proper consultation, and without the free, prior and informed consent of the local ethnic groups that would be directly affected by the mines. Consultation with the affected communities did not begin until 2006, a year after the company was awarded the mining contract. What's more, several of the affected communities were not invited to participate in the consultation process, and those that participated were not represented by traditional authorities. Then, despite serious objections raised by Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities, the consultation process was concluded in August 2008. This project took place during a difficult period of Colombia’s armed conflict.The Inter-Church Commission for Justice and Peace, a Colombian human rights group, filed a legal action for protection against the mining project. AIDA contributed to the action by submitting an argument (in Spanish) demonstrating that without an adequate environmental impact assessment to analyze the project's social and environmental impacts, the affected communities would have no basis to give or deny consent, as required by international law. The Colombian Constitutional Court ruled on the case in the T-769 Sentence of 2009 (in Spanish), ordering the suspension of exploration and production activities and the awarding of licenses for the project. It also ordered a new consultation to meet both national and international standards, and required the completion of accurate environmental impact studies. AIDA has prepared a summary sheet (in Spanish) to make it easier to understand the sentence. The ruling in this case set a key precedent by incorporating and recognizing, for the first time, the right of ethnic groups to free, prior and informed consent. It was a breakthrough in the recognition of the rights of ethnic groups in Colombia. Both the Ministry of the Interior and the mining company sought an annulment of the constitutional sentence. But AIDA intervened (in Spanish) to defend the sentence against the annulment requests, as did the Colombian Commission of Jurists (in Spanish), Dejusticia (in Spanish), Harvard and Diego Portales (in Spanish). These efforts paid off. On March 12, 2012, the Constitutional Court upheld its decision (in Spanish) on Mandé Norte. Without this ruling, the mining project would have had serious social and environmental impacts on the biodiverse region of Chocó, damaging crop animals, rivers and the mountain of Caraperro, long considered by indigenous peoples to be a sacred site. The project would have both physically and culturally harmed the local indigenous peoples, and would have caused the deterioration of traditional economies. At AIDA, we work to defend the right to a healthy environment and the protect human rights of communities and ethnic groups against powerful interests. Follow us on Twitter: @AIDAorg "Like" our page on Facebook: www.facebook.com/AIDAorg
Read moreLives of no return: Stories behind the construction of Belo Monte
By María José Veramendi Villa, senior attorney, AIDA, @MaJoVeramendi When you start the descent by plane to the city of Altamira in Pará, Brazil, the darkness of the night is interrupted by the bright lights of worksites a few kilometers outside the city where construction of the Belo Monte dam is underway. That’s when things turn bleak. On a recent trip to the area I was able to see how the situation of thousands of residents – the indigenous, riverine and city dwellers of Altamira - continues to deteriorate. Their communities and livelihoods are being irreversibly affected and their human rights systematically violated by the construction of the hydropower plant. When night becomes day From the plane, the lights from the worksites are just momentary flashes. But for the indigenous and riverine communities closest to them, those lights have brought a radical change to their lifestyles. José Alexandre lives with his family in Arroz Cru, a waterfront community located on the left bank of the Volta Grande, or Big Bend, of the Xingu River in the municipality of Vitória do Xingu. The community is in front of the Pimental worksite. His entire life has been spent in the area, where hunting and fishing are major activities. But everything changed when construction of the dam started.
Read more
The link between international environmental law, human rights and large dams
The article is an update and reissue of two chapters of the report Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease, written by Jacob Kopas and Astrid Puentes Riaño. The article identifies “the main obligations, standards, decisions and international law applicable to large hydropower plants that our governments should use in the planning, implementation, operation and closure of these projects." The article is divided into two parts. Chapter I offers an overview of the main standards, the legal framework of international human rights and environmental law as well as the decisions and international jurisprudence applicable to the cases of large dams. In Chapter II, this framework is applied to the cases of human rights abuses caused by the degradation of the environment through the development of a large dam.
Read more