I.  Introduction

The Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AoFS) is the first of its kind in the WTO due to its focus on the environment as opposed to free trade. It finds its roots in a simple, but nonetheless alarming fact –government subsidization for fishing fleets allows them to harvest fish at a rate faster than the fish are able to replenish their stock. If the current subsidization continues, marine resources will be completely depleted by 2048.[1] The AoFS, therefore, aims to curb government capacity-enhancing subsidies i.e. subsides which enable fishermen to increase their catch and, consequently, profits. However, while the voices of various countries clamour during WTO’s monthly Fish Week for different demands – fisheries management measures, carveouts, reverse-carveouts, list-approach, hybrid approach and more – one aspect that seems to have flown under the AoFS radar i.e. the invisible subsector constituted largely of fisherwomen. – what is S&DT, what does it cover

II. Fisherwomen: Invisible Crutch of the Sector

The general perception of fishing has always been of a male-dominated activity, in large part due to societal roles and expectations – women stay at home, while the fishermen brave the forces of nature out at sea. However, the statistics beg to differ – women accounted for 15% of the workforce in the primary fishing sector and over 50% of the secondary fishing sector in 2020. When counting informal labour or part-time jobs, these figures come up to 18% and a staggering 71% respectively.[2] Fisherwomen largely handle the pre-harvest and post-harvest activities such as processing, cleaning, marketing, distribution and selling. Other supporting activities include but are not limited to net repair, book keeping, bait collection, etc.

According to a study, women’s contribution to small-scale fisheries is 11% of the global workforce and landed catch of 2.9 million tonnes annually, translating into $6.5 billion (12% of the total landed value of small-scale fisheries catches). Additionally, this lack of recognition is not a problem limited to the global south, but prevalent in developed countries as well, where women engage in tasks that would count as basic administration or even senior management if these were part of the formal sector i.e. accounting, relations with banks, fisheries administration organizations.[3] In fact, if women’s contribution through gleaning (collection of invertebrates onshore) and post-harvest activities were counted, fisheries and aquaculture would be considered a woman’s domain.[4]

III.  Why Should Governments Care?

Traditional definitions of fishing focus solely on harvesting activities that are carried out by fishermen. It is easy, therefore, to argue that fisherwomen’s activities do not fall within the scope of the AoFS. After all, pre and post-harvest activities do not have a direct impact on the quantity of a fisherman’s catch. However, the unpaid labour of fishers’ wives in such activities has the effect of subsidizing fishing activities of their husbands.[5] For instance, processing catch into a product that is marketable and tradable can often be a labour-intensive task and the women employed for such tasks provide this service for low wages or even no wages at all.[6] These jobs, while often considered supporting activities to “real fishing”, have the cumulative effect of subsidizing fishing efforts undertaken by fishermen.  According to Sumaila, fishermen are able to continue employment in what is an unprofitable sector (due to scarcity of marine resources) due to the hidden efforts of the women within the fishing community, especially for export.[7] In fact, it has even been theorized that governments have largely profited from the buffer that women provide in this sector without bestowing either the recognition or rights they should receive.[8] 

This is relevant for the AoFS negotiations because at present WTO members are currently in a deliberated bargaining process of distinguishing harmful government subsidies, which will be discontinued, from beneficial ones. While the boost provided by women to fisheries is a far cry from any government subsidies, their activities would ultimately undermine the goal of the AoFS because the eventual effect of subsidizing cost of fishing activities and consequent stock depletion will remain.

The negotiations for the AoFS has gone down the path of combatting capacity-enhancing subsidies and pushing for sustainable fisheries management by governments.[9]  However, it can be argued that efforts should be channelized towards formalizing the informal fishing subsector of post-harvest activities conducted by women. For instance, EU’s Directive 86/613/EEC (which has been since discontinued) gave legal status to the “collaborative spouse” with benefits such as maternity leave, pension rights etc.[10] This would negate the subsidization effect that the invisible sector currently has on fishing activities.

IV.  Gendered Fishing Techniques

With the eventual enactment of the AoFS, governments would need to recall those subsidies which contravene the terms of the AoFS.[11] However, this prohibition comes with the assumption that fisheries are composed of a homogenous group with identical fishing styles. While there is limited information on the gendered styles of fishing and their linkage to sustainability, it is a field that warrants further exploration. Women tend to fish in shallow waters due to a variety of cultural restrictions from taboos against swimming to superstitions of women bringing bad luck to sailors if they board boats! This creates a spatial difference between the areas of fishing for men and women, where women’s efforts are concentrated in intertidal zones while men venture out deeper in the sea. This difference can have different outcomes on catch effort.

For instance, mosquito net fishing (MNF) where anti-malaria nets are repurposed to catch fish has caused concern for its negative ecological consequences. The structure of the nets is particularly harmful because aside from capturing adult fish, it also captures juveniles, thereby threatening the replenishment of the future stock.[12] However, one study conducted in Mozambique in proved that the manner in which women conducted MNF (“kutanda”) presented little risk in terms of risk of recruitment overfishing due to women fishing in intertidal zones. However when men practised MNF (“chicocota”), the risk was high because it was performed in subtidal and intertidal zones with coral reefs.

A study in Tanzania noted that sustainability issues in octopus fishing arose due to similar reasons. Women caught octopuses in relatively shallow waters, which allowed the octopus to take refuge in deeper waters, thereby keeping the octopus catch at a sustainable level. However, with the use of diving gear, men were able to dive into deeper waters, breaking through the depth refuge barrier. This led to increased catch, but eventually caused to decreased availability of the species.[13]

Similarly, a study conducted in Kerela, India found that due to household chores, women’s fishing effort was carried out for household subsistence or as a recreational activity along with children. For this purpose, women preferred using lines or hooks for fishing as compared to fishermen, who were fishing for profit and therefore used gill nets to maximise catch per unit.[14]  However, studies have proved that line and hook fishing is more sustainable as compared to gill net due to its highest post-release survival of catch as compared to other fishing gear.[15] 

The amount of time women spent fishing was significantly curbed due to their household and child-rearing activities. For instance, a study in the Pacific Islands found that fishermen had almost double the amount of fishing activity (twice a week) as compared to fisherwomen (once a week). The average fisherman’s trip was about 4.3 hours, while fisherwomen would spend 3 hours on a trip.[16] Yet again, this pattern is not characteristic of the global south. A study of the small-scale fisheries in EU demonstrated that most fisherwomen were employed on single-day coastal fishing boats, which gave them the flexibility to balance work with childcare responsibilities.[17] Fishermen, who are not constrained by child-care responsibility are able to venture further into sea for multi-day fishing trips. Therefore, it can be argued that women’s fishing efforts are reduced due to time constraints imposed by their other responsibilities.

Of course, these examples are not meant to prove that all fishing activity conducted by women is in synch with their environment. However, it makes a case that if the AoFS hands out blanket prohibitions on certain kinds of fishing gear or subsidy programs, there is a great risk that it would deprive fisherwomen of their livelihood when such livelihood did not have a negative impact on the environment in the first place. For instance, India sponsored a subsidy program in 2018-2019 entitled ‘Procurement of Craft and Gear’ which provides 60% subsidy (limited to Rs 2,55,000) for fisherwomen.[18] Such a subsidy would come under the purview of the prohibited subsidies list of the AoFS. Therefore, governmental focus and research is needed on the gendered differences on fishing style and its varied impact of the environment, as opposed to uniform application of reforms to the entire fishing community.

V.  Issues With Fishing Technology

It is a persistent issue among fishing communities that women are unable to get the same access to fishing equipment (engine, boat, fishing gear, ice, etc.) as men due to financial constraints.[19] Options of credit are also layered with gender issues as credit schemes are designed for male clients whereas the conditions for borrowing are more exacting for female clients.[20] However, this is only one part of the problem. It has been argued that the even process of innovation can be gendered and thereby work to the disadvantage of fisherwomen.

For instance, in India, clam fishing is done through the use of a metal teethed dragging net (“palli”).[21] Fishermen were able to make efficient use of the equipment in deeper areas of the sea where they were able to harvest large quantities of clam in relatively less amount of time. In contrast, the fisherwomen were unable to handle the weight of the palli and therefore found themselves at a disadvantage as the physical differences between fishermen and fisherwomen had not been taken into account when designing the nets.

Another study demonstrated that at times it is not the physical, but rather the social component that creates a gender divide in fishing technologies. In fisheries’ sister-sector i.e. aquaculture, a new technology of tubular nets was introduced in Zanzibar, Tanzania to counter climate-change issues in seaweed farming. However, it needed the prerequisite knowledge of handling boats and swimming – two skills that were taboo among women due to cultural practices of Zanzibar.[22]   

Fisherwomen are unable to voice their concerns either in fishing organizations or at the policy-making level. Conversely, policymakers and academicians tend to sideline the concerns of fisherwomen, who are seen as outliers in the fishing community. This gap leads to a situation where seemingly neutral technology works to the exclusion of fisherwomen (although this phenomenon is hardly limited to the fisheries sector). Having happened in the realms of both traditional fishing methods and aquaculture, it would not be a far stretch to argue that unless direct intervention occurs, newer eco-friendly technology used for sustainable fishing will be designed without taking into account the realities of fisherwomen.

Discussions around the AoFS include negotiating the differences between subsidies for sustainable and harmful fishing technology – the former receiving an exception, while the latter being prohibited. This creates a situation where we move one step forward for the environment and two steps back for fisherwomen. When the AoFS comes to pass, women would face technological marginalization due to upgraded sustainable fishing equipment, while simultaneously being curbed or banned from traditional (often unsustainable) fishing methods.  

VI.  Ban on Subsidies

The AoFS’ end goal is to help governments transition from profit-driven fishing sector to a more sustainable one. This goal is one that not every country is able to afford, resulting in exemptions being made for developing countries and LDCs in the form of transition periods, financial assistance, capacity building etc.[23] Of course, while developing countries would make use of such exemptions, it is a very real possibility that the profit margin would be covered by the informal sector. It was noted in an FAO study, that when international market standards were imposed on the fisheries sector in India, it increased competition between suppliers, who coped with the increase in costs by shifting the burden to the informal sector. Employers found that hiring on contract provided them with more flexibility, paying casual workforce the lowest possible rates. It noted that 88% of the women workforce was employed on a part-time basis. Aside from monetary compensation, part-time workers are excluded from skill upgrading and advancement opportunities.[24] 

When the AoFS is implemented, the fishing sector will find itself devoid of various governmental subsidies that it has come to depend on. Similar to the example above, employers would find themselves in a position where they would have to cut costs to maintain profits, and this burden would fall on the informal sector, largely composed of women.

Conclusion

The AoFS is an important step for the fate of marine resources. However, environmental concerns cannot overshadow the needs of communities which depend on the marine resources. The WTO is aware of this issue as one component of its negotiations include protecting the livelihood of vulnerable small-scale fisheries in developing countries and LDCs. However, both developing and developed countries have shown a consistent pattern of sidelining women of such communities in traditional fishing and aquaculture. Therefore, unless explicit provisions are added in the AoFS to promote the interests of women, these patterns will be repeated in a post-AoFS world of sustainable fishing.

[1] Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services

[2] State of world fisheries: https://www.fao.org/3/cc0461en/cc0461en.pdf

[3] Gender in maritime affairs and fisheries

[4] A review of gender and fisheries in Tanzania

[5] Women and fisheries: Contribution to food security and local economies

[6] Supra note 2

[7] Women and fisheries: Contribution to food security and local economies

[8] Women’s changing productive practices, gender relations and identities in fishing through a critical feminisation perspective

[9] WT/MIN(22)/W/20

[10] Gender in maritime affairs and fisheries

[11] WT/MIN(22)/W/20

[12] Challenging assumptions: the gendered nature of mosquito net fishing and the implications for management

[13] Recent rise in exploitation of Tanzanian octopuses: a policy and management challenge; Gender and small-scale fisheries: a case for counting women and beyond

[14] Mapping women’s role in small scale fisheries value chain in India for fisheries sustainability

[15] Assessing the factors influencing discard mortality of demersal fishes using a semi-quantitative indicator of survival potential

[16] Fishing impact and food security – Gender differences in finfisheries across Pacific Island countries and cultural groups. Mecki Kronen and Aliti Vunisea, 2009

[17] Women's Contribution in Small-scale Fisheries in the European Union

[18] G/SCM/N/343/IND; G/SCM/N/315/IND/Suppl.2; G/SCM/N/284/IND/Suppl.4

[19] https://www.wo-men.nl/kb-bestanden/1565265215.pdf

[20] https://www.wo-men.nl/kb-bestanden/1565265215.pdf

[21] Changing roles of Fisherwomen of India: Issues and Perspectives

[22] Expanding the horizons for women in fisheries and aquaculture

[23] Agreement On Fisheries Subsidies

[24] https://www.wo-men.nl/kb-bestanden/1565265215.pdf