India has called for a per capita-based approach to fisheries subsidies at the World Trade Organization (WTO), highlighting the disparity between the massive subsidies provided by developed nations and the minimal support given to small-scale fishers in developing countries.
New Delhi pointed out that developed nations provide subsidies averaging $76,000 per fisher per year, while India allocates just $35 annually per fisher. India’s proposal aims to ensure fairer rules for fisheries subsidies by considering the per capita distribution rather than aggregate subsidy amounts. This approach, India argues, is crucial to protect the livelihoods of artisanal and small-scale fishers while promoting sustainable fishing practices.
The proposal will be discussed at the upcoming WTO General Council meeting next week. India contends that the current aggregate-level approach ignores the actual intensity of subsidies and their impact on sustainability, penalizing countries that provide essential, subsistence-level support.
India also invoked the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), emphasizing that historical subsidizers owe a “subsidy debt” to developing and least-developed countries (LDCs). Developed nations, which have long exploited global fish resources, should therefore be held to stricter disciplines based on their per capita subsidy levels.
In parallel, India remains firm in its stance on agriculture talks at the WTO, prioritizing a permanent solution to public stockholding (PSH) to ensure food security. Indian officials criticized the facilitator-led process for lacking transparency, underscoring the need for member-driven decisions.
The debate comes as developed economies like the US and the EU provide substantial agricultural subsidies—$20 billion and $6 billion, respectively—compared to India’s $416 per capita support for its farmers.
New Delhi is actively building a coalition to oppose any proposals that undermine food security or the livelihoods of small fishers and farmers, asserting that these are “non-negotiable” red lines.