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:
La Oroya triumphed in the Constitutional Court, but the ruling was not implemented
In 2006, the Peruvian Constitutional Tribunal recognized that high levels of pollution in La Oroya were causing serious health problems for the local population. The Tribunal ordered the Ministry of Health to comply with the law and take urgent action to prevent additional irreversible impacts to the environment and human health. This decision was supported by numerous scientific reports from the government, civil society organizations, and Doe Run Peru, which operates the smelter. In its decision, the Tribunal accepted all the arguments presented by the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA), which represented La Oroya citizens in the case with AIDA’s support. The court gave the government 30 days to: Provide emergency medical attention for people contaminated with lead, giving priority to pregnant women and children; Implement an action plan to improve air quality in La Oroya; Declare States of Alert when pollution levels are excessive; Establish epidemiological and environmental monitoring programs. This ruling established a key legal precedent for three fundamental reasons. First, it recognized that extremely high pollution levels like those in La Oroya can cause serious and irreversible harm to people’s health, violating human rights. Second, it reiterated the State’s obligation to protect citizen rights, requiring specific actions to reduce health threats. Third, by ordering the State to coordinate with the polluting company, the Tribunal confirmed that corporations are responsible for conducting their businesses in ways that respect the human rights to health, to life, and to a healthy environment. In response to this ruling, the Peruvian government made some changes, but by no means complied fully with the order. Thus, in 2006, AIDA, in conjunction with Peruvian lawyers, Earthjustice, and CEDHA, brought the case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Through this case, we seek enforcement of the Peruvian court’s order and implementation of additional measures that would truly protect health in La Oroya. Follow us on Twitter: @AIDAorg "Like" our page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AIDAorg
Read moreInter-American Commission on Human Rights Examines Impacts of Large Dams in Latin America
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Examines Impacts of Large Dams in Latin America Washington, D.C. - On November 2, 2009 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will hold a hearing on the impacts that large dams in Latin America have on human rights and the environment. Dam-affected peoples and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will present information showing that Latin-American governments are building dams at great social, environmental and economic costs, often disregarding national and international laws and violating human rights. “More than a million people have already been affected by large dams in Latin America, many of whom are from indigenous and small farming communities,” said Rafael González, Board Member of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “More than 300 new dams are being planned throughout the region, which could destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people and harm precious ecosystems.” The over 40 national and international NGOs requesting this hearing will present findings from AIDA’s forthcoming publication, Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?, to the IACHR documenting the poor track record of dam construction in the hemisphere. They will also encourage the Inter-American Commission to make recommendations to member States on how to avoid major environmental damages and human rights violations. “The granting of this hearing by the IACHR is a positive demonstration of their interest in examining the link between large dams and human rights violations,” said Astrid Puentes co-Director of AIDA. “We hope that the IACHR will begin an investigation and recommend that States strictly enforce international standards and human rights law, to avoid major environmental impacts and human rights tragedies.” The human rights impacts of large dams are numerous. Affected communities and stakeholders—mostly indigenous, fishing and farming communities—rarely have the opportunity to participate in decisions on dam developments, and frequently are subjected to intimidation, harassment and even military actions when they oppose projects. Families displaced by large dams often receive inadequate or no compensation. Equally troubling are poorly developed resettlement plans that do not account for lost livelihoods or lack of access to medical attention, fishing areas and farming land, leaving families worse off as a result. Large dams have also had profound environmental impacts. Enormous reservoirs inundate biodiverse wildlife habitats and fertile farmlands. Dams and river diversions also harm fish populations, and are the main cause for the extinction or endangerment of one-third of the world’s freshwater fish species. “We are not against development.” said Father Gabriel Espinoza, spokesperson for communities affected by the El Zapotillo dam in Mexico, and who will speak before the Inter-American Commission. “We understand that a country’s needs for energy and water should be met as a fundamental right of all peoples.” “But governments cannot proceed without consulting and providing information for local communities, according to national and international law. That would violate our fundamental freedoms and disrespect our lives, history, culture and livelihoods.” “There are often better, cheaper, and less-destructive alternatives to building a large dam, whether to meet energy or water needs, or to reduce the impacts from floods,” said Monti Aguirre of International Rivers. “Small-scale, decentralized water supplies and new renewable energy sources, as well as large-scale efficiency and conservation plans are only some of the options available. Unfortunately, governments and corporations frequently ignore these choices or dismiss them out-of-hand when a large dam project is on the table.” The World Commission on Dams, in its ground-breaking report on large dams, Dams and Development, recommends using a comprehensive, participatory process to evaluate needs for water and energy and to assess the full range of available options. The hearing is open to the public and will take place on November 2, 2009, from 5:30 to 6:15 p.m., Room Rubén Darío, 8th Floor of the OAS General Secretariat Building, 1889 F Street NW, Washington, D.C. Guidelines for press coverage of public hearings at http://www.cidh.org/Prensa/guidelinespresscoverageENGL.htm. Opportunities for interviews with presenters after the hearing. For more information on large dams in the Americas: International Rivers, Redlar
Read more
Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?
"Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?", analyses the problems with large dams from the perspective of human rights and international environmental law. Our objective is to promote a greater understanding of the situation, demonstrate the connection between the grave environmental impacts and human rights violations potentially caused by large dams, and to encourage a more comprehensive assessment and implementation of these projects. Through the analysis of five case studies representing different regions of Latin America, including México, Central America, the Andean region, Brazil and the Southern Cone, we describe how States and other actors are continuously causing serious impacts to the environment and ignoring multiple international laws and standards when implementing large dam projects. Among the most important impacts that this report covers, are, among others: the destruction of strategic ecosystems; the forced displacement of communities, particularly disadvantages ones such as indigenous, campesino and afro-descendent communities; the loss of food sources and livelihoods; the lack of public participation and access to information; and the contribution to and impacts from climate change. Read and download the Executive summary (in English) Read the full report (in Spanish)
Read more