The moment has arrived. After long delays caused largely by the pandemic, 164 WTO members gather in Geneva to debate one of the most consequential topics shaping the future of global fisheries: subsidies. On the agenda of the WTO’s XII Ministerial Conference, subsidies are a red line for many observers and a potential turning point for an industry facing high costs for fuel, electricity, shipping, and essential materials. Within the eyes of the WTO and environmental groups, subsidies that help purchase diesel are seen as a key driver of overfishing. In prior discussions with multiple amendments, these subsidies have consistently appeared as an incentive that distorts markets. Yet there is cautiously hopeful news for now. According to Europêche, the European fishing employers’ federation, the possibility of a full ban on diesel exemptions appears to be temporarily set aside. Still, the sector stays vigilant, acknowledging that the long process ahead will test many positions.
The debate poses two questions: Do subsidized diesel practices in the European Union and countries like Canada, Australia, and the United States encourage greater resource use? And is a tax exemption, such as the one observed in Spain, itself a form of subsidy? Europêche does not view this as acceptable and Brussels has made it a clear point in negotiations. The issue remains contentious as the final agreement is prepared for WTO members to scrutinize. One negotiator noted that some members argue fuel tax reductions should be excluded entirely from the agreement, while others argue for a broader inclusion of all fuel subsidies, whether they fall under the agreement or not.
For some states, fuel subsidies—including tax relief programs—are among the most harmful tools affecting fishery sustainability. In correspondence, differences proved so wide that stakeholders recognized the need for additional study and reflection by the members. The looming possibility of a continued threat to the Galician fishing fleet was discussed, but the core commitment of the fishing subsidies framework remains unchanged: no member should subsidize activities that contribute to overcapacity or overfishing. The definition explicitly includes subsidies that affect fuel, ice, or feed intake. In short, while the push to ban certain subsidies has stalled, the risk to fish stocks persists.
Last year, government data on exempted supplies for ships was available only through 2015. Since then, figures declined due to milder weather and a shrinking trawler fleet. The latest reports show a notable drop in subsidized fuel usage as environmental and economic pressures intensify across the sector. A larger trend emerges: subsidized aid and direct subsidies are being weighed together in the WTO offer, with comparisons to different regional approaches. For instance, observers note that subsidy schemes differ markedly by country, influencing how capacity, fishing effort, and fuel use interact on the water. A study of global subsidies pointed to substantial amounts provided in certain regions, underscoring why the topic commands intense international attention.
Differences
Some members argue that fuel tax rebate programs should be excluded from the scope of the agreement entirely. Others oppose this stance, urging that all fuel subsidies, whether linked to specific measures or not, be included to ensure an effective, comprehensive framework.
Position on the relief
Views among members vary, but many consider fuel subsidies, including tax reductions, to be among the most damaging for fishery sustainability if they persist. Some participants contend there is little justification for removing these programs from negotiations when they aim to balance economic needs with long-term ecological health.
Loyalty
Each member is expected to notify the governing committee in writing, on an annual basis, about any fuel subsidies granted or maintained for fishing and fisheries-related activities, reinforcing transparency in policy actions and their potential effects on global fisheries.