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:
Astrid Puentes Lectures at American University
The link between protection of the environment and human rights isn’t always immediately obvious. In fact, international law didn’t begin to establish the human right to a healthy environment until the 1990s. But these are some of the things that can happen when the natural environment is harmed: We can lose our source of food. Our health can suffer. We may lose access to clean water. Our livelihoods can be destroyed if the land we farm or the sea we fish no longer supports a harvest. If a dam floods a village, people lose their homes. In some cases, these losses lead to the loss of a way of life—a culture. International law is clear: the right to food, water, work, home, personal safety, and culture are all protected human rights. That’s why AIDA uses international law to protect the human right to a healthy environment. The relationship between human rights and the environment is gaining wider understanding in the national and international environmental and legal communities. Indeed, American University’s Washington College of Law, in Washington D.C., invited AIDA Co-Executive Director Astrid Puentes Riaño to share her expertise on the subject in June. She gave a weeklong seminar on human rights and the environment in Latin America, available for students attending the summer program. Astrid also spoke on a panel, organized by the Academy of Human Rights of American University and AIDA, about how the two are linked in the specific case of the Belo Monte Dam. Belo Monte is a large hydropower dam under construction in Brazil. The dam will destroy rainforest, kill off plant and animal species, and increase the emission of greenhouse gases, worsening climate change. The human impact is dire. More than 20,000 people will be displaced (independent estimates double this number). Already communities are being stripped of their villages, their cultures, and the cemeteries of their ancestors to make way for the world’s third-largest hydropower dam. Many river dwellers have moved to cities where they find themselves alone and struggling to find new trades. “Our work is a constant David and Goliath battle. Sharing experiences with expert colleagues from the environment and human rights departments at one of the most prominent universities in the US was an honor” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, AIDA’s co-executive director. “It gives us hope that academia is recognizing this link, and is willing to study it. We look forward to continuing this kind of exchange, and to helping train more young lawyers about these issues.”
Read more
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 moreColombia 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 more