The Future

The Fight to End Harmful Fisheries Subsidies

Overfishing is one of the most critical global challenges facing our oceans, posing significant environmental and social risks if it continues. Discover how certain harmful subsidies are contributing to overfishing and what can be done to change our course.

Put simply, overfishing is the removal of marine species at a higher rate than that they can naturally replenish. It is responsible for devastating entire fish populations, destroying and irreversibly disturbing habitats, and putting several species, like sharks and rays, at risk of extinction.¹

But beyond environmental concerns, overfishing also presents substantial economic and social risks if it’s left unchecked. Worldwide, seafood provides 3.3 billion people at least 20% of their average animal protein intake on a daily basis.² Furthermore, the seafood industry directly employs around 58.5 million people and supports the livelihoods of 600 million, with a high concentration of those people coming from low-income coastal regions. So, if fish disappear, so do jobs and so does our food.

Fishing subsidies, what’s the catch?

In 2019, an estimated 35.4% of global fish stocks were overfished.² This is caused by a wide range of factors such as unreported catches, insufficient data on managed fisheries, bycatch, illegal fishing activities, and political influences leading to hasty decision-making. However, one of the main culprits is governmental financial support, or subsidies, provided to the fishing industry to keep aspects of the industry afloat.³

Subsidies are generally provided as a way to offset business costs, promote industry growth and enhance food security. And while this might sound like a good thing, not all subsidies have positive effects. Over the past few decades, data and several studies have indicated that ‘capacity-enhancing fisheries subsidies’ - such as those for boat construction, modernisation, and fuel - are particularly harmful.³ These are what could be categorised as ‘bad subsidies’, and make up the majority of the subsidies that the large scale fishing sector receives, amounting to USD 18.3 billion annually.⁵

A fisherman sorts out the bycatch from shrimp fishing in the North Sea, Germany. Photo via Getty.

So what actually makes a ‘good’ subsidy good, and a ‘bad’ subsidy bad?

In a previous interview with FoodUnfolded, Prof. Ray Hilborn from the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington explained that the difference lies in the goals of the subsidy. Positive subsidies generally aim to improve the understanding of fisheries and how to sustainably manage them by investing in science associated with the oceans and its management. These positive subsidies should be encouraged. Harmful subsidies on the other hand, such as those for fuel and construction, aim to artificially increase the profits for fishers through reduced operating costs, giving fishers the opportunity to increase fishing pressure.³

Hidden costs of harmful subsidies

Despite governments around the world investing billions of dollars annually into these harmful fisheries subsidies, they have largely failed to alleviate poverty in low-income coastal regions. In some cases, they have only worsened their food security situation.⁴^,⁵ In 2018 only 19% of subsidies worldwide reached small-scale fisheries, whilst 80% went to large scale industrial fisheries, further exacerbating the unfair distribution of resources, with richer large corporations being favoured in comparison to small local businesses.⁶ Adding to that, high-income regions often support large industrial fleets that fish far away from their countries of origin, frequently depleting fish stocks that feed local coastal populations.

For example, larger industrial fishing nations like China are well known to take advantage of coastal African countries with poor marine governance and limited monitoring, control, and surveillance capabilities through non-transparent fishing access agreements and illegal and unreported fishing, further depleting these countries' fishery local resources.⁷ Harmful subsidies from large scale foreign fisheries operators, including the EU, only exacerbate this problem. Unable to compete with foreign subsidised industrial vessels, local fishermen without the means to travel long distances offshore in search of fish now find themselves with fewer opportunities to land local fish.

These subsidies also contribute to overcapacity of fishing, resulting in more fishing boats than necessary to meet fish demand, and enable fishing in places that would otherwise be economically unprofitable.⁸ For example, fuel subsidies have contributed to increased fishing pressure on tuna species such as the Bigeye tuna in the Pacific, resulting in overfishing and significant declines in their populations. Without these subsidies, far fewer fishing vessels would have an economically viable means to access these tuna stocks, meaning reduced fishing pressure on the stock. If operators depended solely on the fish they catch for profit, as fish populations become overfished, their profitability would decline, forcing them to either allow fish populations to recover or face higher fuel and labour costs to catch the same amount of fish that was once easily obtained.⁹ However, artificially inflated fishers' profit margins allows the fishing can continue, even in areas where fish stocks are severely depleted or at risk of irreversible collapse.

What can we do?

To combat overfishing around the world and safeguard fish populations, putting an end to overfishing is essential. And to do so, we need to eliminate harmful subsidies.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organisation dealing with the rules of trade between nations, and in June 2022, representatives from countries around the world joined the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference and put together an agreement to tackle this issue.⁸

Despite being a step in the right direction, the agreement fell short in addressing some key aspects. While it does acknowledge the impact of subsidies in extreme cases like illegal fishing and already depleted stocks, it falls short in preventing subsidies from fueling overfishing and in rectifying the disproportionate support favouring industrial fisheries over artisanal ones. Some of these concerns were left to be discussed in the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference in February 2024. It had the aim to create a new, fairer and better agreement, building on the previous one. Unfortunately, this meeting was far from a success as not all member states could reach an understanding on certain issues.⁴

Several countries opposed the suggested measures, arguing that they would disproportionately affect their developing fishing industries and local fisherfolk. India, for example, opposed the measures proposed by other members, arguing that the proposed restrictions would disproportionately affect their developing fishing industries and local fishers.¹⁰ India also called for a 25-year ban on subsidies supporting distant-water fishing activities beyond their exclusive economic zones, a proposal rejected by many consuming countries.⁸^,¹¹ Brazil and the Pacific Island Nations argued that subsidies for deepwater fishing should be banned, something China did not accept.¹²

With each state seemingly prioritising their immediate economic interests over collaboration for a sustainable future, no consensus was reached and the discussions remain tabled.¹³ The result is one many viewed as a missed rare opportunity to address one of the world’s most urgent environmental and social threats.

Learn more about the social cost of seafood production in Cheap Seafood | The Social Cost of Production

The path forward

For the 2022 agreement to take effect, at least 110 out of 164 WTO members need to ratify it. Presently, only 78 have done so.¹⁴ While it may not fully address all concerns, initiating it is at least a step forward, even if our ambitions should aim higher than the bare minimum.

At the same time, WTO working groups will continue to refine the draft text of the second meeting that took place in February 2024, until member states make another attempt to finalise a better agreement at the next meeting in Cameroon in 2026.⁴ And let’s hope that they succeed. Because, given the rate at which fish stocks are being depleted, an agreement to ban harmful subsidies is not just necessary, but urgently required.

Editor’s note: as more countries sign the 2022 agreement, the number of signatories will continue to change. For updated information see the WTO’s page on fisheries subsidies.