WTO members are slow to ratify the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement

IN A NUTSHELL
Ratifications of the June 2022 Fisheries Subsidies Agreement
May 13, 2024

Total ratifications = 75
(= 46% of all members, = 68% of the first target)
First target (two thirds of 164 members) = 110
Additional ratifications needed to reach two thirds = 35

Members that have not ratified = 88
Eventual target (agreement applies to all members) = 164 members (or 163 ratifications*)

● The agreement takes effect after two thirds of the membership have ratified (“accepted”) it. Even then it only applies to the countries that have ratified
● The WTO’s up-to-date list of ratifications is here

* So long as the EU’s ratifications count as 27 (the number of EU member states) instead of 28 (member states + EU itself, also a WTO member), total ratifications cannot exceed 163

---

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JUNE 7, 2023 | UPDATED MAY 14, 2024

June 17, 2023 is already buried in the distant the past. That was the first anniversary of WTO members agreeing by consensus to curb fisheries subsidies. It was also the original target for enough countries to ratify it so that deal could take effect.

That target was then moved to the February 26–29, 2024 Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi. When that was going to be missed by a substantial shortfall, the deadline was quietly dropped.

Instead the Ministerial Conference was turned into a celebration of the ratifications that had been submitted, including nine at the conference. That brought the total to 70, still 40 short of the 110 needed to activate the agreement in ratifying countries.

It may take many more months, if not a year or two, to reach 110 — two thirds of the membership. Even then 53 countries will still have not ratified the agreement, meaning it will not apply to them. (Ignoring the likelihood that by then the WTO is likely to have at least two more members.)

COUNTRIES THAT STILL HAVE NOT RATIFIED THE 2022 AGREEMENT
MAY 13, 2024

Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eswatini, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, India*, Indonesia*, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico*, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco*, Mozambique, Myanmar*, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, North Macedonia, Oman*, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand*, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam*, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe (88)

* In the top 20 fishing nations by catch size (FAO data)

Down a rabbit hole in search of the Wensleydale deal with Norway

Rabbit hole noun

A complexly bizarre or difficult state or situation conceived of as a hole into which one falls or descends
— I wanted to show this woman descending into the rabbit hole: this loss of self, becoming a servant to her job and to the work — Jessica Chastain

Especially : One in which the pursuit of something (such as an answer or solution) leads to other questions, problems, or pursuits
— While trying to find the picture again on Google, I fell down the Cosmo rabbit hole, scrolling through a gallery of swimwear, then through “How to Be Sexier-Instantly” and then through all 23 slides of “Sexy Ideas for Long Hair.” — Edith Zimmerman

— Merriam Webster Dictionary online

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JUNE 8, 2021 | UPDATED JUNE 9, 2021

This is a cautionary tale about just how difficult it is to crack the secret codes of trade agreements. We can ask a simple question: how will the agreement change trade in a particular product. To reach the answer we often have to venture out into a wonderland of obscure paths and hidden traps.

Does it matter? Yes, if we want to find out for ourselves what is in the agreement. Bob Wolfe and I have argued at length about the need for more transparency in trade. This is true of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which is part of the rabbit warren. It is also true of free trade agreements.

Transparency doesn’t just mean making information available. It means making it accessible and understandable. Tracking down tariff commitments can be a nightmare, as this story shows.

What have the UK and Switzerland agreed on trade post-Brexit?

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED FEBRUARY 5, 2019 | UPDATED JANUARY 27, 2021

A summary of this is on the EU Relations Law blog, here

What have the UK and Switzerland agreed on their trade relationship post-Brexit? Essentially, they have been partly “rolling over” to the UK the present Swiss-EU trade relationship.

EU agreements are being “rolled over” into UK agreements in order to allow as much continuity as possible for trade and for business. They are called “continuity agreements”.

Below are an introduction to the provisions on goods and services, followed by Swiss government summaries of key parts of its agreements with the UK, mainly on goods but also narrowly on services.

But first, some context and explanations.

In a nutshell: Brexit and the UK’s trading relations with the EU

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 | UPDATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016

This is a summary of the four main options facing the UK for its trade relationship with the EU after Brexit. The four options are well-known but their implications are not always understood. These are the options: