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:
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Asked to Prevent a Public Health Crisis in La Oroya, Peru
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 21, 2005 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Asked to Prevent A Public Health Crisis in La Oroya, Peru March 2005 study finds 99 percent of town’s children poisoned by lead SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA – The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, along with participating organizations Earthjustice and the Center for Human Rights and Environment, asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on behalf of a group of La Oroya residents, to take action to protect the right to life and health of residents of La Oroya, Peru. The population in La Oroya is seriously affected by contamination from the operation of a lead and copper smelter. Specifically, the organizations asked that the Commission demand that the government of Peru: Provide adequate health examinations and medical attention for the citizens of La Oroya Implement educational and health programs Ensure appropriate evaluation and monitoring of the “Environmental Management and Mitigation Plan” proposed by the company Effectively control air emissions from the complex Evaluate the contamination levels in homes Take additional measures needed to ensure that the blood lead levels of La Oroya residents meet international health standards. The need to take action on behalf of this Andean city, located 175 km east of Lima, stems from the extreme amount of contamination that the smelter generates, particularly lead, arsenic, cadmium, and sulfur dioxide. Since 1999, the Government of Peru has known that almost all the children living near the complex suffer from lead poisoning, yet has taken no action to remedy the situation. A March 2005 study again showed that 99 percent of the children tested had blood lead levels vastly exceeding the limits established by the US EPA and the World Health Organization. “We are looking to lower the high levels of lead and other contaminants such as cadmium, arsenic and sulfur dioxide in the city. These generate serious public health problems, including high levels of respiratory illness such as asthma and bronchitis,” affirmed Earthjustice attorney Martin Wagner. According to Romina Picolotti, CEDHA President, ”instead of protecting the health of its citizens, the Peruvian government has delayed the implementation of measures to control the contamination, and has failed to enforce health and environmental laws.” “This lack of action has increased the risk to health, life, and physical integrity suffered by citizens in La Oroya”, added Fernanda Doz Costa, attorney with CEDHA. In April 2005, a Peruvian court ordered the State to take measures to protect the population, but this order was appealed and no action has been taken. "There can be no doubt that the severe injuries caused by the contamination in La Oroya violates the residents’ fundamental human rights,” said Earthjustice attorney Martin Wagner. “Action by the Inter-American Commission could protect thousands of children and other victims from further injury.” CONTACT: Carlos Chirinos, +511-422-2720 ([email protected]) Romina Picolotti, CEDHA +54 (351) 425-6278 ([email protected]) Astrid Puentes, AIDA +52 (55) 5212-0141 ([email protected]) Martin Wagner, Earthjustice +1 (510) 550-6700 ([email protected])
Read moreJudge Orders Measures to Protect Public Health in La Oroya
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 14, 2005 Judge Orders Measures to Protect Public Health in La Oroya In April of 2005, a Lima civil court ordered the Peruvian Ministry of Health (MINSA) and the General Directorate for Environmental Health (DIGESA) to take steps to alleviate a public health crisis in La Oroya, Peru, a city where the Doe Run company of Missouri operates a large multi-metal smelter. The court ruled that MINSA and DIGESA have failed to carry out the government’s duty to protect the population in La Oroya. In spite of numerous studies showing a severe health crisis in the city, the government has taken no action to protect public health. The Doe Run smelter emits large amounts of toxic heavy metals and sulfur dioxide into the environs of the city. According to a recent study by the company and health authorities, the contamination is so severe that 99.9 percent of the children in the neighborhood closest to the smelter—La Oroya Antigua—have blood lead levels that far exceed the permissible levels recommended by the World Health Organization.
Read moreLegal Action Temporarily Protects Leatherback Sea Turtles in Costa Rica
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 30, 2005 CONTACTS: Rolando Castro, CEDARENA, (506) 283-7080, [email protected] Anna Cederstav, AIDA / Earthjustice (510) 550-6700, [email protected] LEGAL ACTION TEMPORARILY PROTECTS LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLES IN COSTA RICA SAN JOSE, Costa Rica — By admitting a suit filed by environmental organizations to protect the leatherback turtle, the Constitutional Chamber of the Costa Rica Supreme Court has granted an injunction against construction projects in the Leatherback Turtle Marine Park. The defendants -- the National Technical Environmental Secretariat (SETENA), the Municipality of Santa Cruz, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, are charged with violating the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The suit, brought by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and its Costa Rican participating organizations – the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Center (CEDARENA), and Justice for Nature (JPN) – seeks the effective protection of the park. Specifically, the suit aims to halt construction of beach houses and tourist developments within the national park area, and to prevent the government from authorizing potentially detrimental construction before the lands dedicated to the park have been protected. The leatherback turtles are ancient reptiles surviving from the age of the dinosaurs. The species is highly endangered; with Pacific populations threatened with extinction within a decade, and as such is protected under various international treaties and the Costa Rican legislation. The presence of humans and particularly lights from houses, disturb turtles coming ashore to lay eggs and prevent the hatchlings from finding their way to the sea, thus posing a severe threat to the reproduction and future viability of the leatherback turtle. The Costa Rican Congress created the Leatherback Turtle Marine Park in 1995, to protect critical habitat where the leatherback turtle is known to reproduce. The park includes the most important remaining nesting beaches on the Pacific Coast of the Americas -- The Carbon, Ventanas, Langosta, and Grande beaches. In fact, eighty percent of the leatherbacks that nested in the 2001-2002 seasons in Costa Rica did so in the Park. Other Costa Rican nesting beaches, such as Flamingo, and Tamarindo, have already been destroyed by the lack of coastal environmental planning. “The Leatherback Marine Park should be protected from poorly planned development,” said Anna Cederstav, AIDA Program Director. “Costa Rica has an important opportunity to protect this species, which is not only part of our global environmental heritage but also a valuable economic resource for the nation.” In a 2004 report, the Costa Rican General Attorney’s office urged the authorities to not permit construction in the Park, citing impacts on the leatherbacks. The recommendation has not been heeded. The NGOs assert that the government has failed to fulfill their obligations to protect the Park and endangered marine biodiversity. The Santa Cruz Municipality should defend local interests and guarantee environmental protection within its jurisdiction. SETENA must ensure that development does not damage fragile ecosystems and protected areas. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for expropriating and conserving the land within the national park limits, and the Ministry of Finance is supposed to dedicate the necessary funds. “The injunction against construction and further permitting sends a clear message to SETENA and the Municipality that in the case of National Parks, governments must act with caution and not approve projects that threaten the ultimate goal for which the parks were established,” said Rolando Castro, attorney with CEDARENA. “We trust that the Constitutional Court will decide in favor of the leatherback turtle, a species that the court has previously determined to be a shared and highly migratory resource. The Park has great potential for scientific and tourism purposes and is an important source of local income.” This case will prevent irreparable damage to the area designated as National Park while the expropriation proceeds, and will establish an important precedent in that there are many other parks, not only in Costa Rica but throughout the Americas, that face similar threats.
Read more