[ad_1]
For each fisherman family, India gives a subsidy of barely USD 15 a year. On the other hand, there are countries which give up to USD 42,000, USD 65,000 and USD 75,000 to a fisherman’s family.
“It is the extent of inequality that has been sought to be institutionalized through the existing fisheries lesson,” the commerce and industry minister said. Piyush Goyal Told.
Subsidies such as income and livelihood support during seasonal no-fishing for the regeneration of fish stocks, and the provision of social safety nets for socially disadvantaged fishing communities may not contribute to overfishing.
India has also sought a transition period of 25 years for developing countries who are not fishing in distant waters, as the sector is still at an early stage.
“The transition period of 25 years sought by India is not in the form of permanent carving, it is necessary for us and other similarly located non-remote water fishing countries. We think the 25 years agreed to Without the transition period, it would be impossible for us to finalize the talks, as policy space is essential for the long-term sustainable development and prosperity of our low-income fishermen,” Goyal said.
The fisheries sector of India is traditional and small-scale and it is essentially one of the disciplined nations in the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources.
Intervening on fisheries subsidy talks, Goyal said India could not agree to an “unbalanced” lesson that would be taken by developing countries to help millions of small-scale and artisanal fishermen meet their real needs and catch their fish. Examining subsidies given to enable access. Livelihood in their own EEZ (Special Economic Zone).
world trade organization (WTO) members negotiate an agreement through a text.
He said it would be a matter of great concern to India that the draft ministerial text on fisheries subsidies provided to countries engaged in fishing in distant waters under the shelter of conservation and management measures.
“India would strongly urge that the distant water fishing countries to refrain from providing any subsidies for 25 years for fishing or fishing-related activities beyond their EEZ (200 nautical miles from the coast). It is essential that they move to give developing countries and LDCs (least developed countries) a chance to develop these capabilities,” the minister said.
WTO members are negotiating a Fisheries Subsidy Agreement, which aims to end subsidies for legal, unregulated and unreported fishing; curb subsidies for over-fishing and over-capacity; and promote sustainable fishing.
He said that the present lesson has not provided an equal opportunity to the developing countries to fulfill the aspirations of their traditional fishermen.
About 9 million families in India are dependent on the help and support of the government.
“Any decision not to give space to small and traditional fishermen to expand their capabilities will take away their future opportunities,” Goyal said.
In addition, the minister said that a lot of countries are very concerned about their fishermen whose population is around 11,000 or 23,000 or 12,000.
“The livelihoods of nine million fishermen in India are rife with concerns about the low number of fishermen. This is completely unacceptable! And that is why India opposes the present text,” he said.
In addition to the issue of determining the geographical limit (12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles) for providing subsidies to traditional fishermen, the other contentious issue in the present text is about deciding which developing countries or least developed countries will receive. Some subsidies will be exempted from restricting. Leads to overfishing.
WTO members are discussing whether to set limits in countries with less than 0.7 percent or 0.8 percent of global sea catch.
“A minimum based on global catch without reference to fishing, the size of the fisher family involved, the size of the nation, the size of the supported population is a completely arbitrary and unreasonable situation. Whether 0.7 or 0.8 percent, it doesn’t matter.” that an African country is supporting maybe 220 million people or possibly a very large number of fishermen against another country which is supporting maybe 2 million-3 million population and ten thousand fishermen, How can there be D-minimis for all sets of people,” he said.
India has also raised serious concerns over the proposed ban limited to only specific fuel subsidies and the exclusion of non-specific fuel subsidies.
Of the total fisheries subsidy, the share of fuel subsidies is estimated to be around 22 per cent, mostly in the form of non-specific fuel subsidies.
“There is no justification in the science of fish conservation by disciplining non-specific fuel subsidies,” Goyal said.
Exemption from subjects for low-income or resource-poor or livelihood fishing, especially again for countries that do not engage in long-distance fishing up to the EEZ (200 nautical miles), allows these vulnerable communities to socially- It is essential to provide financial security. , They said.
“It is necessary to open the eyes of this esteemed gathering to the deep concerns of low-income countries and developing countries and developed countries, which were once again imposed on us in agriculture for like 35 years of enormous inequality. First,” Goyal said.
[ad_2]
Source link
