The World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations aimed at eliminating subsidies that drive overfishing are a rare species within the Doha Round of global trade talks. Although discussed side by side with core trade issues such as "antidumping", the topic is recognized as something new and different. As the Round enters what are likely its final months, this novelty may give fisheries subsidies negotiators their best hope for success, and their greatest challenge.

With more than 75% of the world's fish stocks now fished to their biological limits or beyond, the need to eliminate inappropriate subsidies to the fishing industry is widely recognized. When world leaders gathered at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development they included the elimination of harmful fisheries subsidies among the top priorities for achieving sustainable fisheries, and specifically called for a successful conclusion to the WTO fisheries subsidies talks.

Now, the commitment of governments to translate years of rhetoric into effective international action on fisheries subsidies is about to meet its acid test.

The Doha Round is edging towards a year-end negotiating deadline, if it can surmount the current impasse over agricultural subsidies and market-access. By the end of July, the chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules is meant to bring forward a draft text including proposed legal language on fisheries subsidies.

The objectiveor at least its outlineis not in doubt. When WTO ministers met in Hong Kong last December to chart the end phase of the Doha Round negotiations, they set a significant level of ambition on fisheries subsidies, mandating that the new rules include at least four specific elements:

• A new WTO prohibition on "certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and over-fishing";
• Provisions addressing the problem of "transparency" (i.e., the amount and quality of information about fisheries subsidies that governments provide to the WTO);
• Provisions to ensure the enforceability of new fisheries subsidies rules; and
• Provisions to provide "appropriate and effective special and differential treatment" for developing country WTO members.

The Hong Kong consensus in favor of a conservation-oriented ban was heralded by the international press as a breakthrough for the WTO. But with the clock ominously ticking, the devilish details remain to be filled in.

And this is where the novelty of the fisheries subsidies talks make things both interesting and daunting. At one level, the negotiations over the ban have looked like a typical WTO parley. On one side, New Zealand has called for banning all subsidies affecting wild capture fish products, with only carefully enumerated exceptions; at the other extreme, a coalition led by Japan wants to ban only a narrow list of subsidy types. Meanwhile, a "middle path" proposal tabled in May by the EU (calling for a ban on certain types of subsidies related to vessel overcapacity) has been received with sharp skepticismperhaps because it appears to disallow specific types of capacity-enhancing subsidies that the EU has already foresworn, while leaving room for many of the damaging subsidies that the EU (among others) is still inclined to maintain.

But beneath this standard dance are at least two "envelope pushing" questions that need practical answers if the Hong Kong mandate is to be fulfilled. First, the now explicit orientation of the talks towards natural resource husbandry means that new fisheries subsidies rules will have to take account of phenomena that lie at the border between economics and fisheries management policy. For example, finding a WTO-appropriate definition of "fishing capacity"likely a necessary element of the new ruleswill take deft drafting to avoid making the WTO a partisan in long-standing fisheries policy debates. More fundamentally, the new disciplines will almost certainly require distinguishing between depleted or patently undermanaged fisheries and those that appear healthy or at least under minimally adequate regulation. Here, the WTO will need to look to accepted international fisheries norms without setting itself up as an authority over them.

Second, negotiators need to craft rules addressing "production distortions" in the fisheries sector, and not just "trade" distortions. Many governments recognize that a fisherman must be able to catch a fish before offering it for international sale, and that existing WTO subsidies ruleswhich focus almost exclusively on sales distortionsthus offer scant help to fishermen. Still, some delegations fear that the concept of "production distortions" in the fisheries sector could set a precedent for limiting production subsidies in other sectors. But there are few other industries in which production subsidies have such a direct impact on the availability of a common resourceand thus the rare nature of the fish problem may open the political space needed for innovation.

Negotiators will face similar challenges in granting "special and differential treatment" to developing countries. Even in a world where too many boats are already engaged in too much fishing, the legitimate desire of developing countries to take fuller advantage of their own fisheries resources is clear. New WTO disciplines will need to leave room for developing countries to make appropriate public investments in their fisheries sectors. But this right to develop should not mean a "blank cheque" for developing countriesmany of whom have already indicated their desire for WTO rules that help prevent harmful "South-South" competitive distortions, and that discourage all governments from making counterproductive use of fisheries subsidies.

In the other areas of the Hong Kong mandatetransparency, enforceabilitythe fisheries subsidies negotiators will also have to find solutions that are bold, but perhaps not as ground-breaking. For example, effective rules will require "notification" provisions that impose real penalties on governments that keep vital information about their fisheries subsidies hidden from public view.

Even as "lowered expectations" now seems to be the mantra for the Doha Round, the fisheries subsidies talks remain a potential bright spot on the WTO horizon. The unusual opportunity for the WTO to make a real difference to the conservation and sustainable exploitation of a vital natural resourceand to the well-being of fishing communities around the worldhas brought energy to the fisheries subsidies talks from the start. Now, with the finish line in sight, the true willingness of WTO member governments to reach for constructive innovation will soon be revealed.

David Schorr is a Senior Fellow at WWF, and an independent consultant based in Washington, DC.