The core of the agreement revolves around phasing out subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing. These subsidies, primarily from developed nations, have historically incentivized overfishing, weakened domestic fishing industries, and fueled the growth of illicit fishing operations. The agreement specifically targets subsidies for catching fish in the high seas, those relating to overfished stocks, and those allowing the use of destructive fishing gear. According to a 2023 report by the International Union for Conservation of Fisheries Solutions (IUCSF), over 60% of global fish stocks are overfished, and nearly 90% of global fish stocks are threatened by human activities. This situation isn’t simply an ecological concern; it is a profound security risk.
Historically, the absence of robust multilateral rules regarding fishing subsidies has allowed nations to engage in practices that destabilize regional economies and exacerbate tensions. The Pacific Island nations, for example, have long voiced concerns about the detrimental impact of subsidies from larger, industrialized countries, which have contributed to the collapse of crucial tuna stocks – a primary source of income and food security. The impact of IUU fishing extends beyond the immediate fishing communities; it can destabilize entire nations by draining their economies and fueling social unrest. Furthermore, the rise of organized crime and transnational criminal networks exploiting the vulnerabilities created by unchecked fishing practices adds another layer of complexity. These groups often utilize fishing vessels for smuggling, drug trafficking, and human trafficking, blurring the lines between commercial fishing, illicit trade, and national security threats.
The WTO’s Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, while a landmark achievement, faces significant challenges. Its enforcement mechanisms are largely reliant on member states’ willingness to cooperate, a factor that has proven repeatedly unreliable. Critics argue that the agreement lacks sufficiently stringent penalties for non-compliance, and that the monitoring and verification processes are under-resourced. Data collection on fishing subsidies remains fragmented, creating blind spots and hindering effective oversight. A 2024 study by the Stockholm Resilience Centre highlighted that “the vast majority of nations lack robust systems for tracking and reporting fishing subsidies, relying instead on self-reporting, which is inherently susceptible to manipulation.”
Key stakeholders – including major fishing nations like China, Iceland, and Norway – have expressed reservations about certain aspects of the agreement, arguing that it could unduly restrict their fishing activities. China, the world’s largest fishing nation, has argued that the agreement’s provisions on high seas fishing subsidies disproportionately affect its access to resources. Iceland has voiced concerns about the potential impact on its quota system. These objections underscore the inherent tensions between national economic interests and the need for global cooperation. The United States, despite withdrawing from the WTO’s fisheries agreement in 2020, maintains a significant interest in the issue, driven by concerns about illegal fishing and the security implications for the U.S. coastline.
Recent developments over the past six months have revealed the continuing challenges. In July 2025, the European Union issued a strongly worded statement condemning the continued use of destructive fishing gear by several Southeast Asian nations, failing to adequately address the systemic issues linked to IUU fishing. Similarly, reports emerged of increased Chinese vessel activity in disputed waters within the South China Sea, raising concerns about potential overfishing and the broader strategic implications. These events highlight the urgency of strengthening the agreement’s enforcement capabilities and fostering a more collaborative approach among nations.
Looking ahead, the short-term (next 6 months) impact of the agreement will likely be characterized by continued monitoring and limited enforcement action. The focus will be on data collection, capacity building in developing nations, and fostering dialogue among member states. In the longer term (5-10 years), the success of the agreement will depend on a fundamental shift in global attitudes toward sustainable fisheries management. There needs to be a concerted effort to reduce overfishing, promote responsible fishing practices, and address the root causes of IUU fishing, such as poverty, weak governance, and lack of enforcement. However, without substantially increased investment in monitoring and verification, the agreement risks becoming a hollow symbol of global cooperation, failing to effectively address the escalating security risks posed by the world’s diminishing oceans. The coming decade will be crucial in determining whether the WTO Fisheries Subsidy Agreement can truly become a force for stability or merely a missed opportunity to safeguard a critical element of global security. The stakes are exceptionally high, demanding a renewed commitment to multilateralism and a pragmatic understanding of the interconnectedness between environmental sustainability and national security.