Filets for France

Fish-heads for the Philippines

Prepared by Marc Allain for Greenpeace International

WTO Public ForumSeptember 26, 2006

International fish trade, tariff reduction and sustainability

World Fisheries Production

Source: FAO, Review of the state of world marine fishery resources (2005)

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

All countries

World Fish Trade Export Value

- in 1000 US$ -

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Developing countries orareas

Developed countries orareas

World Fish Trade Export Value

- in 1000 US$ -

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Developed countriesor areasDeveloping countriesor areas

World Fish Trade Export Volume

- in MT -

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

US

$

Developed countries orareas

Developing countries orareas

World Fish Trade Value per ton

US$

Import value distribution Main markets (% 2004)

EU39%

US16%

Japan19%

Dev'ing12%

Dev'ed14%

Trade flows(2002 Export values %)

High value species/products flow North

(shrimp, salmon, tuna, grounfish, lobster, octopus)

North ↦ North ↤ South

(42 %) (43%)

Low value species/products flow South(pelagics/fishmeal & oil)

North ↦ South ↤ South

(6.5%) (8.5%)

Trade flows

High net surplus in fish trade for Developing countries (20 Billion US$ - 2004)– LIFDC:

9 billion US$ net surplus (2003)

– Helps reduce balance of payments problem

Tariff overview main markets

EU– MFN average for seafood 12%– Lots of tariff peaks and tariff escalation

US– Seafood tariffs much lower than EU– Anti-dumping levies very high (shrimp/catfish)

Japan– Seafood tariffs higher than US lower than EU– Some tariff escalation & peaks – Import quotas

Theory of fish trade liberalization

Tariff cuts change price– Consumers pay less– Producers get paid more

Price change increases supply

In fisheries supply can only increase up to maximum sustainable levels

Theory of fish trade liberalization

Ineffective management leads to overfishing and depletion.

Fish trade liberalization can only bring sustainable benefits if effective fisheries management exists in both exporting and importing countries.

State of the World’s stocks

Long term stock trends

UNEP case studies

Mauritania, Argentina & Senegal

Duty free access to EU for fish exports in exchange for EU access to stocks

Mauritania

Duty free access to EU in 1987 Majority of demersal species now over-exploited.

– Shark and ray stocks heading towards extinction– Previously plentiful species have disapeared from

Mauritanian waters– Discards and dumping so voluminous creating marine

polution problems– Food security worsening

Government under IFI pressure to sell off fisheries resources to meet minimal economic growth targets.

Argentina

Duty free access to EU 1994 Fish production & exports increased

rapidly in a context of “enormous deficiencies” in fisheries management.

In 97 TAC exceeded by 111%. By 2002 – 6 Argentine stocks endangered

Externalizing the costs

Cost benefit analysis of argentine hake fishery:– Private fish companies: + 1.6 billion US$– Fishworkers: + 1.4 billion US$– Argentine state: + .05 billion US$– Future generations -3.5 billion US$

“The market is short sighted with respect to any concern for future generations and a sustainable environment.”

Senegal

Duty free access to EU has created a conservation crisis & undermined food security.– Catch rates falling for all species but export species

especially high/some threatened with extinction.– Export species being fished before they reach sexual

maturity– Dragging in offshore areas has destroyed & changed

habitat, eroded biodiversity & induced ecological replacement.

– Quantity & quality of domestic supply diminished & costs to consumers increasing.

Conclusions

Senegal, Mauritania, Argentina are not exceptions in fisheries management.

Developing countries– Can’t afford fisheries management.– Squeezed by IFIs to increase exports.– Preyed upon by fishing nations.

Conclusions

Only handful of fish exporting developed countries will benefit longterm from tariff cuts: Canada, Norway, Island, New Zealand.

Short/medium term gains for Thailand.

All others will lose.

Conclusions

Tariff cuts in this context will only accelerate resource depletion, loss of biodiversity, undermine food security, livelihoods and employment in LDCs.

When this happens we all lose.

Conclusions

Fundamental incoherence of Doha.

If Doha is about sustainable trade & development for LDCs then it can’t be about fisheries.