Fisheries Subsidies Agreement Explained with Oceana's Dan Skerritt

Fisheries subsidies are at the heart of one of the most important global trade agreements for the ocean. In this episode, I sit down with Dan Skeritt to break down the World Trade Organization’s new Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, discuss why it matters, and explore its implications for countries around the world. We explore how harmful subsidies have fueled overfishing, why some countries still haven’t ratified the deal, and how this agreement could shift billions of dollars toward sustainability.

Fisheries subsidies remain a complex and contentious issue, but this conversation provides clarity and perspective from someone who has followed the negotiations closely. Dan offers insider insights into what’s in the agreement, where the gaps remain, and how developing nations can be supported to meet their commitments. If you care about the future of ocean governance, sustainable fisheries, and global cooperation, this is an episode you won’t want to miss.

 

Join the Undertow: https://www.speakupforblue.com/jointheundertow

Connect with Speak Up For Blue
Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf
Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue
Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc
YouTube: www.speakupforblue.com/youtube

 

 

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
For the first time ever, theWorld Trade Organization has
a binding agreement to stop.
Harmful subsidies thatdrive over phishing, but not
every country is on board.
I sat down with Dan Scar fromOceana, who's been following these
negotiations for years to unpackwhat this agreement actually means.

(00:20):
We talked about how billions ofdollars in subsidies have propped up
unsustainable fishing fleets, and whysome of the biggest fishing nations
have yet to ratify the agreement.
Dan gives a breakdown of subsidies,the World Trade Organization.
Why this is all important and whatwe need to know about this agreement
and how it's going to move forward.

(00:41):
Now, as someone who's been coveringocean issues for a long time, I can
tell you this agreement feels like aturning point, but it's also a test.
Will countries follow through?
And to be honest, that's up tome and you we're gonna talk about
all this on this episode of theHow to Protect the Ocean Podcast.
Let's start the show.
Hey everybody.
Welcome back to another exciting episodeof the How to Protect the Ocean Podcast.

(01:04):
I'm your host, Andrew Lewin, andthis is the podcast where you find
out what's happening with the ocean,how you can speak up for the ocean,
and what you can do to live fora better ocean by taking action.
Now on today's episode, we'regonna be talking about subsidies.
We're gonna be talking about the WorldTrade Organizations new agreement.
On fishery subsidies, howto handle fishery subsidies.
Now, subsidies is also a term that we'regonna be discussing, why it's important

(01:27):
that we need to know about this type ofterm and why it's important and how it
drives fisheries for a lot of countries,we talk about harmful subsidies,
we talk about beneficial subsidies.
And we talk about how there's reallyno legal framework of how to dole out
these subsidies within each nation andhow there's not a lot of checks and
balances when it comes out to beinglike, are the fleets and companies

(01:50):
who are receiving these subsidies?
Are they actually following the law,you know, and or are they making sure
that these fleets are following the law?
There's a lot of things that go on, andas taxpayers, we don't like to fund stuff
that doesn't follow the law or peoplearen't, you know, in it for the best of
the country that you're part of, right?
As taxpayers, we don't wantto have to deal with that.

(02:10):
We don't want to have to propup specific industries so that.
You know, they can justdo whatever they want.
That's not fair.
That's not what these subsidies are for.
These subsidies are to benefit not onlythe industry, but also the citizens of
that country, or part of the citizensor part of that nation, of that country.
And so I think it's really importantto have this type of agreement.

(02:30):
But when you have this type ofagreement, as Dan mentions, there's
a lot of context within that.
There's a lot of legal frameworksand legal words and phrases that
are very difficult to understand.
Spoiler, there are loopholes, andDan and I discuss that and we try
to look at how to move forward withthis agreement and what it looks like
in the impact we think it will have.
So without further ado, here's Dankertalking about the World Trade Organization

(02:53):
Agreement on fishery subsidies.
Enjoy the interview andI will talk to you after.
Hey Dan, welcome back to the Howto Protect the Ocean Podcast.
Are you ready to talk aboutthe WTO subsidy agreement?
Hi Andrew.
Yeah, really happy to be back.
Al always ready to talk about subsidy.
Yep.
Alright.
This is great.
This is something that, uh, it cameto be because you, you contacted

(03:15):
me, like Andrew, I'm not sure ifyou've heard, but there's a, a really
great agreement that's coming out.
This was last week when you contactedme and I was like, okay, let's do this.
We need to get this out.
We're gonna be talking about fisherysubsidies and sort of the agreement
that the WTO has come out and said.
Hey, you know what?
Like we need to establish some ruleshere of who gets subsidies, who doesn't,

(03:37):
and what countries can do when theygive out subsidies and what rules they
have to abide by or they should abideby based on a lot of expertise over
the years and what we've learned overthe years about global fishing and
even fishing within our own countries.
I just wanna premise this.
This is a great first step andwe're gonna celebrate that here.
But this is a, the first step in along battle towards getting, you know,

(03:59):
subsidies handled properly, especiallywhen it comes to illegal activities and
the illegal fishing, uh, and everythingthat goes around with overfishing.
So Dan is super happy for you to behere to, to help us break it all down
and just really get to, to sort of the.
All the information that'sgiven out in this agreement.
So we really appreciate you being here.
Before we get into all that though,Dan, why don't you just remind

(04:20):
the, uh, the, the audience hereof who you are and what you do?
Yeah, sure.
Uh, I'm Daniel Skerrett.
I'm a senior manager in Oceania'sScience and Strategy, uh, group.
We're kind of a bit like theresearch and development team in,
in Oceania, so we support all ourvarious country offices, but also do
a bit of, you know, novel research.

(04:42):
My particular area of research is oninternational fisheries, so that's why I,
I, I study things like fishery subsidiesas we're gonna talk, talk about today.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it's gonna be, uh, it's gonna beeasy because like when, when we talk
about what you, you know, you look areon here to talk about and what your
expertise is in it is a broad, uh, field,you know, that you could go into a lot.

(05:03):
We were just talking before we recordabout technology and how to, to monitor
better over phishing and to understand itand to act on it and, and, and so forth.
And then there's also like the policyaspect of everything and how to.
Get countries on board to anagreement and to ratify these types
of agreements that we're gonna talkabout today to put action into place.

(05:24):
Because we can talk about it, wecan do a lot of research on it,
and we can identify the problems.
But until governments start to enactthese types of agreements and make sure
that they put it in their own, uh, legalcontext, nothing is gonna get done.
And the more countries we getto, to ratify this agreement
and, and agree to this agreement,then it's gonna be amazing.
So.

(05:44):
Let's get started here.
Um, why don't we just break down,you know, who the WTO is, why it's
important that, that they comeup with this agreement and how
this whole agreement came to be.
Yeah.
Uh, I'll try and give kind ofa, a brief history of that.
So go into a lot of detail, Dan.
Like we've got hours, we've got, yeah.
And I, and just to caveat that I am,I'm not a trade kind of expert, right.

(06:07):
I, my background as we talkedabout last time is in fisheries.
Uh, I then studied fisheries economicsfor quite a while, so I've been working
on subsidies for almost 10 years, which inthe world of fishery subsidies is, is I'm,
I'm, I'm very much a, a newcomer to it.
Um, so, so I come from a kind ofeconomics background, but not, not a trade
expert, but the world, the World TradeOrganization, um, was established, so it's

(06:29):
based in Geneva and Switzerland, and itwas essentially established to try and.
Organized trade, global trade, so totry and usually to break down barriers
to ensure like more free trade, soany kind of barrier like tariffs and
things like that, which obviously havebeen in the news a lot at the moment.
They're kind of the governing bodyof that, that try and help facilitate

(06:50):
easier trade around the world inorder to reduce poverty, I guess, or
to improve, uh, you know, GDP in, invarious countries to connect the world.
So, you know, if there's a tradedispute that will go to wto.
So, so that's their background.
Fishery subs for the WTO is, is, is quitean interesting topic because at the heart

(07:11):
of it, although you know it's aroundtrade, it's around unequal competition
or, or, or the kind of the distortion ofmarkets that fishery subsidies can have.
This agreement at its heart hassustainability, environmental
sustainability, and so this is thefirst time the WTO have really brought
together an agreement that kind offocuses on environmental sustainability.

(07:33):
So.
You know, it's quite, it'squite a new thing for them.
Uh, I say new.
They started these negotiations in2001 at their fourth ever ministerial
conference in, in Doha, in Qatar.
And so, and they agreed, they, the,the, you know, the, the text of
the agreement in 2022 in Geneva attheir 12th ministerial conference.

(07:54):
So, uh, 21 years of, of talking andnegotiation to agree to the text of
this first part, this fish one, and thenanother three years after that for, for
countries to kind of take that text away.
Uh, to ratify into their own lawand for it to have come into a
force, you know, just last week.
So, uh, you know, please feelfree to ask any more questions.

(08:16):
That's kind of a brief overview ofwho the Wwo O are and what they do.
Well, I just wanted one thing that I'vealways, I'm always interested in as, as
a science, a marine biologist myself.
Uh, and, and, you know, you have thebest, you know, very similar background.
Obviously, you've.
PhD you've been studying fisheriesfor, for quite some time.
I was always of, you know, growing upin this industry, I was in this field.

(08:37):
I was always of the, the matterof, it's interesting how, you know,
certain organizations like the WTO,like the Trade, the World Trade
Organization, even ces, which is allabout trade, have such a huge impact on.
What is traded and, and youknow, like fisheries traded
and, and where the money goes.
And as well, like with ces, likewhat items cannot, cannot be brought

(09:01):
past a specific border and so forth.
And I find it interesting when wediscuss this type of work, uh, that
fisheries itself, like when you look atdoing the fisheries models and looking
at, okay, we have fisheries models.
We are, we, we know what we can catch,we know how much we can't catch.

(09:23):
You know, we've setting the quota here.
How come we need like world, theworld trade organization or society
to regulate this trade when in myopinion, science should be enough.
So that's sort of where I'm at with this.
Like I'd love to hearyour opinion on that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Uh, that's a, a great question and agreat point and a quite a frustrating

(09:46):
right, you know, situation thatwe see quite a lot for, for us.
Um.
I think, and there was a great,um, article that just came out,
uh, I saw yesterday about this.
I think the issue part, part of theissue is, you know, fisheries, although
they are, you know, essentially this, soyou can see them in kind of two lights.
And we, we were kind of talking aboutthis a little bit before we, before

(10:06):
we start recording about dependingon the lens through which you see.
You know, fisheries or this agreement.
So, you know, a lot of us with afisheries background see it through a
biological or an ecological lens, right?
This extraction of these, of theseanimals out of an out of the environment.
And so, you know.
Our models are often built aroundthat, around that idea of, of,

(10:27):
you know, the population, howmuch fishing can it, can it take?
But obviously the other hugepart of it are the people and
in, and in the case of industrialfisheries, the businesses, right?
That, that are, that areextracting these resources.
And if you see it from a kind ofeconomics or trade heavy lens or focus.

(10:47):
You know, then your prioritiesmight be quite different or Yeah.
Uh, you know, the goals thatyou have for the fish, this
fishery might be quite different.
I mean, I think the frustration is thatmany of us see that like, well, surely
the first principle should be like,you can't keep fishing if the bi, if
the biological sustainability is, isflawed, or you are, you're over fishing.
Right.

(11:07):
But, you know, I, I guess it becomesvery murky, especially with these
international fisheries when there's allthis like competition and trade, you know?
Um, I, I feel like thatcan kind of add to it.
So I think all theseelements are, are important.
And I think, you know, fisheries as awhole, so you need these kind of, mm-hmm.
This economic understandingand you need political will.

(11:30):
I think that's the other important thing,you know, when there's these resources
out there that could be extracted,especially when it's, you know, in
other people's waters or the high seas.
Right.
Yeah, I think especially in the high seas,you know, you can end up with this kind of
race to fish and so, so I, I, I think it'sbecause probably there's, you know, it's
a lot more complicated sadly, than simplyhere's what the science and what the

(11:51):
biology of this fishery says, you know?
And, and that's it.
And you know, I guess this is the cruxof everything that was happening in
the WCA for the last 20, 25 years,was this political toing and throwing.
I don't think there wastoo much argument around.
The scientific principles ofwhat was being discussed, right?

(12:12):
It was the political, youknow, manifestation of that.
Like how do we get an agreementthat we can all sign up to?
And I think, you know.
That's the frustration, butI guess that's the reality of
our, you know, current systems.
Yeah, no, a hundred percent.
I, I totally agree, and I, I, I wantedto kind of put that out into the podcast
sphere because I think it's somethingthat a lot of people look at as, as

(12:35):
scientists, but also just from theoutside in, it'd be like, well, hold on.
Why do we need all these differentmeasures and all these different tools?
They are very important tools whenwe look at fisheries management.
On a global scale.
Uh, and so I'm glad we're, we're,we're able to distinguish that.
But that's something that's alwaysbeen kind of like, well, what,
why is it the science just enough?
So, yeah.
I mean it's the same with, um, youknow, climate change science, right.

(12:57):
You know, that's probably, that's probablyan even better example where there's even
less uncertainty, you know, fish stockassessments, you know, we we're pretty
good at it, especially when we have a lotof data, but there's always uncertainty.
There's always like, you know,you're trying to hit this.
This, this, this single pointthat we've kind of come up with
of maximum sustainable yield.
You know, there is a lot of uncertaintyin it and we try and as scientists we try

(13:19):
and accommodate that and, and explain it.
But in climate change there'sa lot less uncertainty.
Yet still we see this, youknow, it seems so simple, right?
Like what we have to do.
Yeah.
Actually doing it apparently becomesa lot less, a lot more complicated.
Yeah, absolutely.
Uh, before we get into more of this,this agreement, can you just help

(13:39):
explain how subsidies work and, and youknow, obviously it doesn't have to go
into the great detail 'cause it's, it'sdifferent for each country, but this is
a big part of this agreement be, and,and the big argument around overfishing
is like, we need to stop subsidizing.
Uh, certain fisheries or certain types offishing because it's, it's perpetuating
the overfishing problem that we have.

(14:02):
So can you just kind of go into a, adescription for my, for the audience
to be like, Hey, like what is subsidiesand, and why is it important to
have certain regulations around it?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure.
And you know, there's, there's, there'svarious, um, versions of the, of
definitions of, of water, a subsidy,and especially a fishery subsidy.

(14:22):
I'm gonna take the wto.
Definition and that's generally all mywork kind of is based on that because
these, you know, because of this agreementand the negotiations of this agreement,
so from the WTOs point of view, a subsidykind of needs, needs three elements.
So it's a direct orindirect financial transfer.
So direct essentially, youknow, here's some money.

(14:45):
Indirect is like, maybe you don'towe me that money you owed me before.
So it's a transfer of of wealth.
The second part is it, it has tocome from a government or a public
body and go to the private industry.
So it's, it, it is government,it is public to private,
indirect or direct transfer.
And then that, that transfer has to, uh,you know, confer some kind of benefit.

(15:07):
Um, you know, historically there's a lotof reasons why governments might do that.
You might want to, um, incentivize thedevelopment of a particular sector.
So we hear a lot about, um, youknow, subsidies for offshore
renewable energy, for example.
Mm-hmm.
I mean, we also provide subsidiesfor offshore oil and gas, but
that's a different conversation.
So you might want to, you might want toincentivize the development of sector that

(15:29):
maybe is quite, you know, costly at thebeginning of that, of that development.
Um, you might want to, um,address social equity issues.
So you may want to prop up the way,support the wages of certain, you
know, sectors of society, for example,or particular jobs that, that maybe,
you know, are really important.
We need to kind of, uh, subsidize thewages there to encourage people into it,

(15:51):
for example, like health workers maybe.
And then, uh, the other one thatwe're talking about today is to
address conservation, um, concerns.
So.
In the UK for example, a lot of farmersmight get paid to not farm up to the edge
of a river or to leave certain fieldsto, to go, uh, you know, to go wild or

(16:12):
to, to kind of have this crop rotation.
Mm-hmm.
And the government might give themmoney, so, so they benefit and
then we benefit from this likeadditional conservation benefit.
Mm-hmm.
So there's a lot of different.
Reasons why.
Um, another key reason it's often actuallyunspoken is this competition element.
You know, particularly in fisheries,if we're all targeting the same tuna
stocks, well, if, you know, if we, if we,if we help out the cost of our fishing

(16:36):
fleet, they might do a bit of a betterjob or, or manage to get a bit more
of that, of that fish or sell the fishcheaper access certain markets, right?
So, you know, so there's, there's statedreasons or drivers of subsidies, and
then there might be hidden ones as well.
Yeah.
In, in the case of fisheries, um, youknow, the harm that they can cause

(16:56):
as, as I said earlier, they can causewhat we call trade injuries, which
the WT o have largely been focused on.
That's, you know.
Steel from One Nation is beingsubsidized, so is really cheap and,
and changes the market, you know?
Mm-hmm.
The wt a might step in and be like,you shouldn't subsidize that so
you can get these trade injuries.
But in fisheries we get what wecall this capacity enhancing effect,

(17:18):
and that's the ones that we kind ofcall harmful fisheries subsidies.
And what that is, is it's basically thatthat subsidy the government give is,
is, is lowering the cost of phishing andby or, or increasing their profits, but
let's say lowering the cost efficient.
By doing that, what we end up withis, is is it results in over capacity.
So each fishing vessel or thefleet as a whole essentially gets

(17:40):
too big for this, for what thefishing the fish stock can handle.
Mm-hmm.
So like really simply, you have toomany boats chasing too few fish.
Right?
Right.
Instead of like in what you might callthe free market, you know, situation,
some of those vessels might drop out orgo bust 'cause there's not enough fish.
You know, I can't makeprofit, I have to leave.

(18:02):
But if you start reducing the cost offishing or, or, or, you know, reducing
the cost of fuel, for example, you kindof maintain this fishing fleet at a scale
at size, that, that wouldn't actuallyexist based on either the size of the
stock or the economics of the fishery.
So we kind of are to fisher hold thesefleets, you know, uh, size that, that we

(18:22):
wouldn't really see without the substance.
And that's over capacity.
And when you have over capacity,it tends to lead to overfishing.
Yes, you can have really strictrules in there that prevent that.
But you know, the science kind of showsthat that doesn't always happen, as we
talked about just a minute ago, right?
You can have these stockassessments say Only take X tons.

(18:42):
Yeah.
But it's even harder when you've got boatsand you know, a lot of a huge inflated
industry on this particular fishery.
Maybe saying like, you know.
We need more tons because otherwisewe're not gonna be able to pay all
these work, you know, hundreds ofthousands of workers potentially.
Yeah, so, so that's kind of the issuewe have here is this economic tool.
That actually then ends up havingthe ecological impact by, by,

(19:05):
by creating a, a, a bloatedfishing industry with subsidies.
Have you seen models where there'salternative to subsidies or alternative
to subsidies proposed that might workbetter or have worked better in the past?
Yeah, I mean.
So, you know, generally we have these kindof three categories of fishery subsidies.

(19:27):
So I thought there a lot about theseharmful capacity enhancing subsidies,
but we also have beneficial subsidies.
You know, that's a bit like theexample I gave you of the, the farmer.
Who might be getting paid to, to leavesome, you know, not, not farm right
up to the edge of a river, to, to,to ensure the river stays healthier.
You know, that's a beneficial subsidy.
We have that in fisheries too, you know,um, that might be to, to, to pay fishes,

(19:51):
not to fish in a particular area or touse to, to help fund the replacement
of certain gear that they have to amore environmentally friendly gear.
And then we have these ones wecall ambiguous, which is like, we
don't really know what affects it.
It might depend who you giveit to or how you apply it.
So they're kind of agray area, but, right.
Let's think we have these harmfuland we have these beneficial, you

(20:14):
know, a lot of the times when, whenI'm advocating for removing harmful
subsidies, and this is a point I tryand really emphasize, especially to,
to, you know, my industry colleagues.
Is, I'm not saying stop funding fishing,you know, don't invest in fisheries.
I, I want to see moneybeing spent on fisheries.
Yes.
I think it's vital.
I'd like to see more money spent on it.

(20:35):
I just don't want to see it spentin a way that incentivizes over
capacity and leads to overfishing.
Right?
Like, let's find beneficial waysthat we can invest in our fishing
fleets to try and, yeah, makethem more efficient without.
Adding capacity or to help, like,boost the amount of fish available
or, you know, lower the impact it hason the rest of the, um, ecosystem.

(20:58):
So a lot of this, you know, we,what we hope this agreement might
achieve is a reduction in harmfulsubsidies, but really want, we
wanna see that then, you know, spentelsewhere in, in a beneficial format.
Yeah, a hundred percent.
I think that's, I thinkthat's really great.
And, and a lot of these subsidiesare coming from tax dollars, right?
They're coming from the budget of thegovernment that's largely funded by tax.

(21:20):
It could be funded by other, other sourcesdepending on where this money comes from,
but it's largely funded by tax dollars.
So some people, citizens, I know herein Canada we're always like, why are we
funding, you know, like big time for big,uh, a problem for, for Canada or a big
contentious issue is, you know, funding.
Oil and gas subsidies here, right?
So people are like, why are we doing this?

(21:42):
I don't want to do this.
Um, even though it's like, it's, it's anecessity when you look at, you know, oil
and gas and the benefits usually outweighthe, the subsidies that we have to pay.
Um, but a lot of people.
We'll say that, you know, we'll belike, why are we funding If, if they
want to decrease over phishing, whyare we funding, you know, subsidies

(22:02):
for, for phishing in general?
But it's not necessarily, not allsubsidies are going to encourage.
Uh, overfishing or illegalfishing, that that's not what
the subsidy iss for, correct.
Like the, the subsidy is for, youknow, the agreement, I assume with the
people who who are receiving and thecompanies who are receiving the subsidy
is to do legal fishing under the lawof that country and not to do that.

(22:26):
I know that sounds stupid to saythat as I say that, I'm like, Andrew,
why are we talking about this?
But I want people to really understandthe purpose of a subsidy is to.
Help that with the industry benefit notonly the citizens, but also that, that
industry, um, but also to contribute tothe legal phishing of a, a specific stock.
Correct?

(22:46):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I mean, I, I don't thinkthat many subs are, are.
You know, dished out with that kindof, with environmental destruction in
mind and, and also, you know, a lotof the, kind of the drivers of, of, of
maybe providing this, these subsidies.
You know, again, as you say, it's not toencourage legal fishing or overfishing.

(23:07):
You know, in many cases thesegovernments are probably trying to
support a lot of jobs that may be, youknow, um, may be, um, in the balance.
You know, the, the, the, a lotof these jobs, they're not.
You can't predict year on year,you know, how, how secure they are.
'cause they're based on, you know, weatherand, and, and the biology of the fishery.
So, you know, I think, I think some ofthe subsidies are provided with intentions

(23:30):
like that also, you know, although we'vetalked a lot about the, the business of
fishing and that element of it ultimatelyis also producing a food source.
Right?
And again, we see a lot of subsidies beingspent on, you know, uh, food production.
A big argument around that is foodsecurity, sadly, that again, that doesn't
always actually kind of, um, add up whenyou look at the end result in that we're

(23:55):
subsidizing a lot of phishing vessels,you know, in the EU or the uk where,
where the fish actually goes elsewhere.
Like, you know, it's notsupporting food security in the uk.
So, you know, it is a reallycomplicated system and.
A lot of kind of, what we do is, andwhat this agreement should be doing is,
is trying to reveal, you know, what isthe actual result of this subsidization?

(24:17):
And when we do that, can we have a, youknow, better, more informed discussion
about, okay, what are the intentions ofthese subs and what is the actual outcome?
You know, are, are we seeing,are we achieving what we, what
we say we're gonna do with this?
Are we actually achieving, you know,environmental degradation at home?
Or taxpayers' money is being usedto, you know, it's resulting in
environmental degradation and foodsecurity for, you know, another nation.

(24:42):
You know, if that's a result, like,is this the best way to do this?
Is there a better way we can do this?
So yeah, the intention is veryrarely, I would say, if, if
ever, to fund over phishing.
Right?
But as I say, when, when the, whenthe, when the data and the science
says that's what's happening, I thinkthere needs to be a reconsideration of.
Of how we, how, how we're funding that.

(25:04):
Of course, here and, sorry.
No, no, go ahead.
No, please do.
Go ahead.
Uh, just to emphasize, again,not saying don't fund it.
Not saying take the moneyout, just of course, let's
find a better way to spend it.
Right?
Well and income.
This incomes this, thisWTO agreement, right?
This World TradeOrganization agreement where.
This is like a, a, a, essentiallylike a, a framework that countries

(25:25):
can use to implement into theirown legal, uh, you know, legal
structure to say, Hey, you know what?
This is a great way to go forwardbased on a lot of research that's
been done, a lot of expertisethat's been, uh, put together.
This is what we recommend.
How you sort of, you know, put inthe rules to put in subsidies or
not give subsidies to specific,uh, fleets who are not abiding

(25:48):
by the laws, not only of the sea.
Also by their own country, which for a lotof countries who have signed onto the, to
the UN Law of the Sea is the same thing.
Right?
So, um, you know, I thinkthat's, that's really important
coming into this agreement.
So I want to, to get that the, thereasoning why we're putting in this for
a lot of our, our audience members here.
Um, and because this is all stuff we allhad to learn, you know, in terms of what's

(26:10):
been happening with these subsidies,how does this continue to happen?
Um, in many countries it does get a littleoutta hand sometimes, uh, you know, in
terms of illegal phishing as we've seen.
Um, and so.
Let's talk about this, this agreement.
Mm-hmm.
How important is this as a first stepto the battle of really reducing and
hopefully one day eliminating, uh, youknow, over phishing and illegal fishing?

(26:33):
Yeah, I mean, as we said at the beginning,it's really important, you know, we
are celebrating this, this agreement.
Um, you know, and we'll, we'll talkabout this and we'll probably talk
about it right now actually, abouthow this is just the first step.
This was never intended to be thekind of the end of this discussion.
This is, um, you know, it's.
A lot of us are calling it,referring to it as Fish one.

(26:53):
Fish Two is being negotiated right now,and we can maybe come onto that later.
But yeah, I mean it'sincredibly important.
What it does at the moment is it, itfirst tackles the worst kind of it,
it tackles where these subsidies,who these subsidies are going to.
It doesn't yet tackle subsidies because ofthe nature of certain subsidies being bad.
It tackles who these subsidiesgo to, like we said earlier.

(27:15):
Mm-hmm.
So what it does is these ratifyingmembers, I think there's 112 now.
Are now bound by law to, to stop providingsubsidies to, um, any illegal fishing.
Um, you know, the, who determineswhether it's legal fishing or not.
We'll see how that actuallyplays out in reality.
Um, at the moment, from from the text,it says it's either the, the, the vessel

(27:38):
that, the, the flag state that, youknow, the, the vessel is fishing under.
Mm-hmm.
The coastal state where the vessel isfishing, or if they're fishing in the
jurisdiction of an RFMO, a regionalfisheries management organization, you
know, they can determine, so they're thethree, the three groups, the entities
who can determine it's illegal phishing.
Right.
At the moment, we have, you know, all the.

(28:00):
Kind of official lists of IUU, um,vessels in the world, I think at the
moment adds up to about 230 vessels.
Okay.
So hopefully there'll be a, you know, amore stringent way of, of actually doing.
'cause if it's only 230 vessels thatare gonna have subsidies pulled,
you know, it's not gonna make a hugedent in the 22 billion of harmful
subsidies currently provided.

(28:21):
The sec, the second prohibit, prohibition,prohibition that it, that it has is
it stops, uh, subsidies to phishingon overfish stocks, which again,
sounds really strong on paper, has thepotential to be really strong on paper.
The entity that determines whetherthe stock is overfished is the
country who, whose waters it's in.

(28:43):
So it's kind of marking your own homework.
There, there's also a bit of aloophole that says, you know, if you
have management measures in placethat you know, show that it's gonna,
that that are aimed to rebuild thestock, then you can keep subsidizing.
And again, it's a subsidizing memberthat can be like, yeah, it's over
fished, but you know, we've got thesemanagement measures in place that aim to

(29:04):
rebuild it so we can keep subsidizing.
So, you know, again.
It's a really great first step.
Mm-hmm.
Hopefully over, you know, over thecourse of implementation, we can
really tighten the kind of nut onthat and be like, you know, yeah,
no, you haven't rebuilt the stock.
Stop subsidizing it.
Right.
And then the last one is, is, is,is, um, subsidies to phishing on

(29:25):
the unregulated high seas, which.
It is a small fraction ofkind of global fisheries.
You know, most fisheries are incoastal waters, but it's quite an
important one because that's thefishing, uh, activity that basically
is, you know, the wild west.
There's very little,very few rules on that.
So, you know, probably shouldn'tbe, um, subsidizing that.
So they're the kind of three mainprohibitions that, that it includes.

(29:49):
As I said, there's, there's,you know, loopholes and, and
we'll see how it's implemented.
There's a couple of really strongarticles in there that I like.
Mm-hmm.
Um, there's an article on,you know, transparency.
So WTA members are now gonna haveto be a lot more stringent in the
information they give to the WTO everyyear on the subsidies they provide,

(30:09):
who they go to, what fish stocks are.
They kind of, are thesesubsidies impacting?
You know, that's a really great step.
In the nine years I've been doingthis research, there's often, you
know, quite poor data and we'reoften filling gaps in with, with
kind of models or, or, or, you know,through, through poorer data sources.
Um, and then, and then another one is, is,is this article that allows member states

(30:33):
to basically hold each other accountable.
And that's the one that I think couldbe really key to the success of this is.
How well will each of our, these membersbe able to hold each other to account to
say, you know, show us you're working.
Prove to us that, you know,these management measures are
helping to rebuild the stock.
And again, I, I think also that's probprobably where civil society comes in.

(30:55):
You know, trying to work with, withdifferent members to, you know, to
ask for this information or to, to,to, you know, to get them to kind of.
Show us.
Yeah, show us whatsubsidies are you providing?
Like what subsidies are going tothese distant water fishing fleets,
or which fisheries are you, areyou subsidizing in your waters?
And I think that could bea really key part to it.
Yeah, I think it's really, Ithink it's really important.

(31:16):
The question with that, so you have.
WTO members.
Uh, and there are 166 WT membersas of, uh, July 17th, 2024.
I just looked it up.
Kimura is, is the, the last countryto, to join, which is great.
So you have these WTO members who haveto, uh, abide by this transparency
rules when they, when they report tothe WTO, which is, which is great.

(31:39):
So it's almost separate ofwhether they ratified or not, if
they want to be part of the WTO.
They have to submit to thistransparency rule for phishing.
Is, is that, am I getting thatright or do they still have to
ratify this agreement to do that?
Um, I guess that's thequestion at hand, right?
So me, I mean, I'm not, I'm notentirely sure, but, um, members

(32:01):
have always been able to andshould have been notifying the wto.
You know, right before this agreementcame in, um, it has been improving over
the years as these negotiations have beengetting a lot closer and since the, since
the, they agreed the text, we've seen morecountries, uh, notifying with, with, with
better, uh, more detailed information.

(32:22):
So I think there is a requirementto report to some extent.
I think what this agreement doesis it really sets out like this
is what you must include and theperiodicity, so it has to be annual now.
Unless you're a, um, kind of self, uh, if,if you're a developed or least developing
country, uh, developed country, they'rethe terms that are used, then you have,
then you can report every four years.

(32:44):
Okay.
So there are parts of this agreementagain, that try and what they call
special and differential treatment.
Yeah.
And that account either allows likea lower threshold or, uh, longer
time periods for developed and leastdeveloped countries, uh, to adhere to
the rules, which is, that's usually.
Yeah.
And that's usually 'cause they don'talways have the resources to like
the people and stuff to do thatreporting and even the, the means

(33:06):
to get that data at this point.
Yeah.
Which obviously, you know, not greatin terms of a, of a, of a way of un
understanding what's happening in theirfishery, but also understanding that these
countries are trying, they have otherthings to that, that they're focused and
they just may not have the, the people,the resources to be able to accomplish,
uh, an annual type of reporting.
Right.
It, it, it is, it is true to that as well.

(33:27):
The other, the other thing is it reallyhelps to, or this is part of the goal, is
to, um, ensure that the biggest subsidizersubsidizes those with the broadest
shoulders burden the most, you know, havethe biggest burden from this agreement.
Yes.
So, just to go a few stats that mighthelp the, uh, you know, the, the
listener on this, we talked about22 billion US dollars a year is

(33:48):
provided in harmful fishery subsidies.
Across the whole world.
But when we look at kind of howthat breaks down, who's providing
it, you know, the top 10 areproviding about 70% of the top 10.
You know, countries areproviding about 70% of all that.
So that's, uh, China, the eu,the us, Japan, Korea, Indonesia,

(34:09):
um, I don't remember that.
I, I think that's aboutthe right order, right?
So 70% is provided bythose, by those 10 entities.
Some of those are actually developednations, although they won't be
able to, uh, benefit from thespecial and differential treatment.
Right.
And then even within that, so youhave, so you have 10, let's call
'em like the richest countries,providing most of the subsidies.

(34:29):
When you're looking even within that,about, uh, 90% of that is then going to
the, to the large scale fishing fleet.
So the biggest boats often fishing,you know, um, furthest away from shore,
hardest to kind of monitor control.
Um, and then even when you, youknow, there's so many layers to this.
And then below that, we found about,um, you know, recent paper we did,

(34:52):
we found that about, um, 20 to 37%of all those harmful subsidies are
actually being given to vessels,not even fishing their own waters.
So it's often the EU or China,for example, will be subsidizing
vessels that are fishing elsewhere,generally in, um, Africa or Oceania.
Um, you know, so, so there's a realinequality kind of baked into how

(35:15):
ssis who provides them and who theyprovide them to, if that makes sense.
So, you know, so part of this specialdifferential treatment is also
because, you know, as, as we've justsaid there, 10 countries account
for, you know, 70% of all of it.
So it's kind of to also to putthe emphasis on like who this
agreement should really be targeting.

(35:36):
And it's those the biggest subsidizes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's not to say that thatharm can't be done, you know,
by spending a l less money.
Uh, it's just that, you know, when youlook at it on a global scale, which
as a wt, you know, is interestingkind of global trade and systems.
Yeah.
That, that's how, how it's done.
And I think this is really importantwhen we, when we talk about this type

(35:57):
of, of work and, and what it's, what itseems to bring, uh, in terms of like.
Countries really wantto be part of this WTO.
Like they, this a, it's a very importantaspect to their pride, uh, to be
part of a, of a, a global sort ofagreement, a, a global organization,
uh, to say, Hey, you know, we'reparticipating in all these things.

(36:19):
That's something that I'verealized when it comes to
policy and, and to these, these.
Being part of these large organizationsor these large agreements is
it's, it's a prideful thing.
We're a part of this, we'repart of the Paris Agreement.
We're a part of the WTO, and, andwe're abiding by the rules of the, of,
of this, these organizing bodies tosay, Hey, let's, let's do this thing.
So when it, when an agreementlike this comes out.

(36:42):
Uh, you know, it's important forlike, we can, it's, it's not like
we, I mean, you can use it as like aname and shame of like, these, these
countries haven't ratified this yet.
Like, why haven't they ratified it?
But it's also, it's like you cansay, Hey, look, like if you want
to really be a part of this WTO.
Incorporating this agreement into your,into your laws not only benefits your
fishery, but also benefits like for the,the long-term aspect of your fishery.

(37:06):
Um, so I, I think that's a, a reallygood point to, to hammer home that I want
to, to get across is because of this.
Countries are, are, have a little bitmore incentive to be a part of this
agreement, especially, you know, someof the top 10 that you mentioned just
earlier, that, that are providingthe most harmful, uh, subsidies, the
most amount of harmful subsidies.
But I think there's also like somereally cool things, although we've,

(37:28):
we've identified already someloopholes, potential loopholes that
countries can get a get through.
But I really like that, uh, the subsidiesthat enable, uh, phishing on unregulated.
High seas.
Like you, you can't do that.
So this is really interesting 'causeI'm working on this story for, I, I
mentioned it to you before we recordedthat, uh, for the, for the next episode.

(37:48):
And, and one of the things that Ifound is like, they're using sar,
which is like a, a type of radar,like satellite radar that identifies
like the presence of fishing boats.
You know, they, they know whatthese fishing boats look like and
the SAR can really identify these.
They come and look up like blackdots or, or, or black objects.
So you can identify.

(38:09):
Which, and using that in the combinationof a number of other things, AI a
IS and stuff, you can identify whichboats are in the high seas and like
they shouldn't be in the high seas.
And, and eventually you can getwhere they're from if they're
part of the a IS program.
And you can get, so like, I feel likethis, there's a lot of potential in that
last, or the, the third thing that yousaid in terms of the pro prohibitions,

(38:31):
um, especially as like, if you'refound on the un, like on the high
seas and it's, you know, we know it'sunregulated, we know it's, it's difficult.
Then you can remove those subsidiesfrom that, from that vessel or
that company that that monitorsthat vessel or, or works that
fleet or vessel, just like that.
Like you have the capability todo that if you incorporate and
ratify this, this agreement.

(38:52):
I feel like there's a benefit in thatif, you know, people start to use that
now there are limitations with this,this technology, because it only passes
certain amount of times and you know,it could be difficult to do that.
But just having that access, there'sa potential there to really be able
to enforce these types of subsidieson the high seas, which traditionally
has been impossible to, to navigateand, and to really monitor.

(39:15):
Right?
Yeah.
And, and just, you know.
Important as well to say a lotof these fish, this fishing
on the unregulated high seas.
So this is, you know, generally anyfishing that's outside of a regional RFMO
or what we call regional fisheries bodiesRFPs, um, you know, it's not illegal.

(39:36):
It just, it just, there thereare no laws that regulate it.
Right.
So, so, you know, so the, the, they'renot necessarily not supposed to be there.
It is just that mm-hmm.
There isn't any rules that regulate it.
Um, you know, I'm not sure how,what proportion of fisheries are
unregulated on the high seas.
It's kind of mm-hmm.
I generally work on fisheriesthat have regulation.
Yeah, of course.

(39:56):
Um, but I think, um, you know, and I, Iwas thinking about this the day, like,
I, I, I, I think there could be a real,this could be a strong article in terms
of, um, you know, maybe future fisheries.
You know, I hear a lot about.
The potential of like misofisheries, these are mm-hmm.
I think as I understand it, these highseas fisheries of, of fish stocks are,
are below the surface a bit, I think.

(40:17):
Mm-hmm.
And they're generally like this,you know, uh, I hate to say untapped
resource, but they're, they'renot really targeted at the moment.
Yeah.
From my understanding, you know,initially when I looked at, you know,
these fisheries, the cost of them, youknow, for the return is so low that it
looks like the only way they might beable to establish these fisheries is.

(40:38):
As kind of, um, you know,experimental fisheries or I
assume by heavily subsidizing it.
So, so I wonder if this article thatstops that actually also might be quite
useful for preventing, you know, uh,these, these experimental fisheries
being, you know, trying to, trying to,trying to target this, this, this, uh,
this, um, you know, resource that'scurrently not being targeted, but because

(41:01):
it's so inefficient, it needs subsidies.
You know, maybe this mightprevent things like that.
I don't know.
Yeah.
As I said, I think throughout all of this,you know, it's really gonna be around, and
this is what we want wt O members to focuson now, is like, start implementing it.
Show us like, you know, how arewe gonna make sure that this
actually has some impact and, andstarts to, you know, remove or

(41:24):
redirect these harmful subsidies.
And I think, you know, seeing really,because the texts, as you said at the
beginning, when it might have been off,off count, off mic, you know, some of it's
a bit vague and it's, you know mm-hmm.
Some of these especially legal texts.
You know, you almost need a qualificationin, in how to read legal text
to, to, you know, and there's allthese footnotes and, and, you know,
and, and if this, then, so I thinkthat's gonna be key, is like mm-hmm.

(41:48):
Start, start reporting whatsubsidies you give now.
Let's see what this does over time.
And you know, maybe in two or threeyears when we can see a change
in how subsidies are provided.
And then ultimately, hopefullythat will start leading into, you
know, more sustainable fisheriesideally, or more equitable fisheries,
you know, as, as well, hopefully.
Yeah.

(42:08):
It's interesting 'cause you, whatyou mentioned there is like being
transparent and, and identifyingwhat subsidy is given out for, for
what you know, in terms of fisheries.
Um, I was just actuallygonna look it up being like.
I don't even know, like Ilive in Canada, I don't even
know what subsidies are given.
And to a lot of these, these, uh,industries, we don't know how many,
like what's given for how much money isgiven, what companies or, or parts of the

(42:34):
industry like get more than than others.
What do we get back from it?
Uh, that's, I feel like there, that.
Information.
I'm hoping that information is outthere, you know, as, as a government,
'cause it should be transparent.
But sometimes I, I, you know, based onyour smile, you know, just being like
that probably isn't, isn't readilyavailable to, to your average sort of

(42:56):
citizen who, who might want to know.
And maybe there's like, I know like.
With, with Canada, we get like freedomof, of information act, so you can
submit a freedom of Information Actif you want to know specific data,
uh, that they have to abide by.
And usually it's a bit of a crap shoot.
I know journalists do do that quite a bit.
Um, this, that, that informationis usually not readily

(43:16):
available, I assume, right?
Yeah, it is.
It's, you know, patch it best.
Obviously cer certain countries or certainkind of groups are much better at this.
You know, I'm, I'm based in, orwas based in the European Union.
I'm in the uk, but the EuropeanUnion are, are kind of, you know,
they're, they have, they haveincredible kind of fiscal management.
You know, you can find out a lot ofinformation about, about the provision

(43:39):
of the finance of funding, uh,particularly for the Fisher Sector,
not, not everywhere's like that.
I think part of the issueas well is the format of how
these subs might be provided.
You know, it's generally quiterelatively straightforward to find
direct transfers of, you know.
This fishing fleet or thisindividual vessel got money
to put in a brand new engine.

(44:00):
You know, stuff like that is relative.
There's always a paper chain.
It's more the indirect subs or, um,you know, one of the, one of the subs
I work quite a bit on is, uh, fueltax concessions, which sadly won't be
kind of picked up by this agreement.
But what that is, is basically weall pay tax for fuel when we go
to the, you know, to the pump tofill up your, the gas in your car.

(44:23):
Um.
You know, most are pretty, I wouldsay all phishing industries don't
have to pay tax on fuel generally, orthey pay a very reduced rate of tax.
Right.
And so that's the subsidy, right, becauseyou've reduced the cost of, of, of, of
phishing by reducing the cost of mm-hmm.
You know, the arguments around itmay be valid or may not, you know,
around competition or like to, uh,makes sense, shield them from fuel,

(44:44):
price hikes, things like that.
But regardless, like it'sa, it is a subsidy, but it's
one that isn't generally.
Uh, you know, there'sno paper trail for that.
And actually we've worked with governmentsfor where we've modeled what is the cost
of that, and they then used our modeledestimate as like, cool, this is the
fuel tax con concession that we provide.
Because they just haven't, you know, theyhaven't done the work now of how much

(45:06):
fuel is used by the industry every year.
What's the reduction in cost perliter, you know, and things like that.
So, so hopefully, you know, we'llsee with this transparency article.
What information the governmentsdo have, like and, and what
they don't because right.
Not all subs are, are, are,are born equal, as it were.

(45:27):
No, exactly.
Exactly.
And I, I think it's importantto, to identify that and,
and, and to understand that.
And I think it's great.
Um, you know, you being a, you know,coming from a science background and, and
you know, working with policies, seeingagreements like this, do you automatically
identify, okay, this is where we need todirect our research in the future to help.

(45:52):
With this agreement, like from anOceana perspective, when you look
at this agreement, what are youlooking at for in the future of how
this, this will shape the future?
Is this gonna have, like, do youthink this is gonna have a, I guess
the first question is, do you thinkthis is gonna have a big impact
on the fishing industry worldwide?

(46:15):
Just this agreement, notlike, you know, steps later.
I think it will, but, and, and we'llget onto those, um, habits for sure.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
For sure.
And I, I think it will, because this isthe first legally binding agreement on
fishery subsidies, like we now have Yes.
Rules that say, you know.

(46:36):
They, they even recognize like,you know, certain subs are bad.
Yeah.
And we need to stop providingthem and redirect them.
Like I think that is a, is a, is abit of a, you know, a sea change.
And, and even because there was, that wasa debate, you know, quite a while ago.
Hasn't been from, I don't thinkfor the last five, six years as
they've really been sitting downand trying to negotiate this text.
So I think it is gonna have a big change.

(46:58):
Will this.
Fish one, you know, from my readingof it, result in a, in a significant
reduction in harmful fishery subsidies.
You know, next year, maybe not.
And I think because of some of these,um, caveats, you know, some of these
loopholes, the fact that it doesn'tquite, you know, a third of, uh,
the world's fish catch is made bycountries that haven't yet ratified it.

(47:21):
You know, so when you start lookingat that and taking out the little
bits that aren't quite covered yet.
You know, it starts to reduce.
But having said that, as, as wesaid at the beginning, like, we do
celebrate this, I think it is important.
I think it's a really important platformto build off, you know, and, uh, as
I've said two or three times now, Ithink we're gonna learn a lot more
as this starts getting implemented.

(47:42):
Um, you know, I think I, I potentiallysee a role for, as in and other
entities is in trying to hold.
You know, the governments wherewe operate accountable, you know?
Mm-hmm.
Asking for that transparency, lookingfor the receipts and the, the evidence
of, you know, okay, you're sub, like,are you subsidizing this Overfish stock?

(48:03):
You know, if yes, are you gonna stop that?
Or like, what's your evidencethat the stock is rebuild?
You know, so trying to use this as atool to kind of say, you know, you are
now legally bind, you ratified this, younegotiated it first, then ratified it.
Like let, let, let's, let'send to this with, you know.
Kind of honesty and, and reallytrying to actually, you know,
adhere to the letter, the spirit ofthe agreement rather than mm-hmm.

(48:25):
You know, maybe tryingto find these loopholes.
So yeah, I think it is gonna have a bigimpact in that sense, in the sense that,
you know, it's the first real tangiblestep, you know, to 25 years of talking
and, you know, maybe this would happen.
Like we now have somethingthat we can hold up.
It's in force.
Uh, you know.

(48:45):
Yeah.
And we now have, as I said, the nextthing four years to, to, to get the, the
rest of the agreement, to make it in theWTOs own words, to make it comprehensive.
Right, right now from, uh, you know,for, for ratification, so there's,
people can sign on that they want,they, they like the agreement,
but then they have to ratify it.
That means they have to actually, oncethey ratify it, that means they're putting

(49:06):
in laws in their own, like they're,they're incorporating the, the components
of this that they have to incorporate tofully ratify it and put it in their laws.
Uh, this is something from a,from an individual perspective,
uh, what can people do to help?
That ratification like to help countries,like their country, their own country,

(49:27):
to sign on to that ratification.
So for instance, I live in Canada.
I want my country to ratifythis as an individual.
What can I do to ensure that this country,like my country, ratifies this deal?
Yeah.
I mean, thankfully Canadaand as a Canadian as well has
ratified it, so that's good.
But if we're in a country,yeah, prior to that.

(49:50):
You know, we are members and there's,and there's dozens of members
of this coercion called the StopFunding Over Fishing Coalition.
And, you know, certain, certaincolleagues in that have been doing
really tireless work on trying to pushnations and work with nations and, and
their delegation at the, at the WTOin Geneva to try and get this, even to
just get the text agreed, you know, the,the individual words on it, but part

(50:14):
of what they do as well as work with,uh, local CSOs, local NGOs to try and.
You know, campaign or advocatein those particular countries.
So I, I, I, you know, it may not beeasy, but I think maybe first step would
be check out, stop funding of fishing.
See who their membership is, if there'smembers from your country and trying to
see, you know, do they have campaignson, on fishery subsidies or, or, you

(50:37):
know, um, letters that you can signto, to get sent to your politicians.
And if not, like, you know.
Anybody can contact, I hope in most,you know, country of the world can
contact their politician and saylike, this is an important issue.
What is happening?
Or like, your environmental minister, yourfisheries minister, you know, what are we
doing about the WTOs subsidies agreement?

(51:00):
Um, yeah.
And as you say, I forget, um, I can'tcalculate off the top of my head, but
it's, I think we've got 112 ratifications.
Did you say 12 outta 1 66?
Yep.
Yeah, so there's a good, you know, 50.
What's that?
54. 55 never do mass live, but,so there's 54 member states that
haven't, that members that haven'tyet done it, some of those will be

(51:22):
landlock countries, you know, whetherthey ratify it or not, I don't know.
And bearing in mind this only,um, addresses marine fisheries.
It doesn't do inland fisheries, youknow, in lakes or rivers or agriculture.
Right.
So some of those landlocked countrieswon't be ratifying it or probably won't.
Um, yeah.
Yeah, so there's still, there'sstill, and there's some, you know, I
think there's two out of the top 10subsidizes still to ratify and some,

(51:45):
some important players in there.
So, yeah.
So there's a lot of kind of work stillto be done, even on ratification.
But, you know, I think the focusespecially, um, well, especially
in those 112 countries is onimplementation, you know, getting this,
getting this thing up and running.
Yeah.
'cause that takes a while too.
Like it's not just, there's, there'sthe one of ratifying it, but then

(52:06):
you actually, the country actuallyhas to put it into place, into
their legal framework to say, Hey,this is what we're gonna be doing.
And then they have to actually act on it.
You know, they actually have to putout those transparent, uh, reports.
They have to, uh, tell people, youknow, their citizens of like, this
is how we're gonna go forward.
That takes a long time.
Government works slow, we know that.
And, and it, and it takes a while.

(52:27):
Yeah.
Um, you know, I like to.
You know, the, the, the, the idea oftalking to your, your local member of
Parliament for, for Canada and the uand, and the UK was, we have members
of Parliament or your governmentrepresentative to, to sort of be
like, Hey, where are we on this?
Like, you know, they, they need to reportto us that being like, hey, like, you
know, we're like, this is what I know.
I know we ratified as, as Canadians,but where do we go from here?

(52:50):
Like, like, you know, how does this,how does this proceed, you know, and
make sure that they, it's on the topof their priority list, you know?
Yeah.
Uh, because that's gonnabe, and remember this is.
This is taxpayer's money, right?
Yeah.
Like that, that, that, that definition wehad at the beginning of what is a subsidy,
it's public money being, being, beingtransferred directly into private sectors.
So, you know, I, I, I think that wehave a right to know where it's going.

(53:14):
Mm-hmm.
Who it's going to and, andwhat it's being used for.
What or what.
It's incentivizing.
Yes.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Um, I think that's really important.
Dan, this has been absolutely amazing.
I really appreciate you coming on.
I know it was a bit of a last minute thingthat we, we kind of put together here and,
and I do really appreciate you coming onand, and breaking down this agreement.

(53:35):
Uh, you know, this is, I feellike I, I think you agree
this is a great step forward.
Um, we still have a lot of work todo in, in making sure that illegal
phishing is done and we're not.
Funding illegal phishing,um, and, and overfishing.
And so, we'll, we'll put people ontothat, uh, stop funding, uh, overfishing
website so people can get access.
We'll, also, I'll put in the, in thedescription all the material that

(53:57):
Oceania has come up with, uh, youknow, based on, on this agreement,
but also on your phishing campaigns aswell, overfishing campaigns as well.
Um, you guys have been so great to us,uh, to provide all this information.
We, we, we reallyappreciate you coming on.
Look forward to having youback on to explain more of, of.
Phishing and, and what the newtechnologies and everything like
that that's coming into play.

(54:18):
Yeah.
And hey, hopefully it's not25 years until the next.
Yes.
You know, fish the next, the nextagreement on fishery subsidies.
Right.
So, absolutely.
Yeah.
Be great.
Yeah.
Well, I think it'll be nice to seelike a, maybe potential amendments to
these ones as we start to learn howcountries are reacting or even not
reacting, uh, to some of these things.
And, and I think like there's thepart of, you know, the ratification.

(54:41):
The putting into the legalframework, acting on it, but
making sure they're acting on it.
And that's where I feel like supportingorganizations such as Oceania, uh, in,
in, in wherever country you, you live inand wherever they, wherever you guys work,
I know we have an Oceania Canada hereinto supporting those organizations into,
you know, working with the government.
Not just pressuring them, but workingwith the government to make sure that

(55:03):
they're, uh, implementing these, these,this agreement and, and, uh, parts of the
agreement that are part of their league.
Legal framework.
So I think that's, that's areally important thing as well.
And we appreciate Oceania for doing that.
So, uh, Daniel, thank youso much for, for coming on.
I'd love to have you back on.
Yeah.
Cheers, Andre.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you, Dan, for coming on once againto break down this important agreement.

(55:25):
I feel like I said at the beginning,this is a turning point in the way we are
looking at how to manage subsidies withfisheries and to ensure that we are not
going to subsidize overfishing or illegalunreported and unregulated fishing.
This is an important aspect toevery country and 112 OUTTA 166.
Members of the WTAO have ratifiedit, including my own country, Canada,

(55:48):
which is great, but there are stillsome big fishing nations who have not
ratified it, and we need them to ratify.
The more countries that are a partof this, the better shape it'll be.
This is a work in progress, of course,as this agreement has come out, and
this has taken a long time to puttogether, but there still needs to be.
More stringent rules as we go forward,but we're gonna see how this plays out.

(56:09):
Initially, conservation is done in steps.
It's not done all at once.
We have not solved over fishingwith this agreement, but we are
moving in the right direction, andI think that's really important.
So I'm very happy thatDan was able to come on.
He actually contacted me to say.
We need to talk aboutthis on your podcast.
You ready?
I'm like, yes, absolutelya hundred percent.
Let's do it.
And so he came out and did that, andI really appreciate him doing that.

(56:32):
So that's always great to have Danand Ocean in the work they do to
share this type of information,to break it down for us.
We really appreciate Oceanand Dan for doing this.
So thank you so much to themfor coming on the podcast and I
wanna thank you for listening.
If you have any questions or comments,let me know in the comments below.
If you're watching this on YouTube, ifyou're watching the audio or listening
to the audio version, I should say.

(56:53):
I really appreciate youlistening to the audio version,
'cause we started with audio.
We're gonna continue with audio always.
And so if you wanna get ahold ofme, you can do so Using Instagram.
Just DM me at how to protect the oceanthat's at how to protect the ocean.
Or you can go on the website, gospeak up for blue.com/contact.
Fill out the form.
It goes right to my personal email.

(57:13):
Love to have a chat with you aboutthat, and that's the episode for today.
I want to thank you so much for joiningme on another exciting episode of
the How to Protect the Ocean Podcast.
I'm your host, Andrew Lewin fromthe True Nord Strong and Free.
Have a great day.
We'll talk to you next timeand happy conservation.