Dr. M. Krishnan
Dr. P. Krishnan
India’s decision to ratify Phase 1 of the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies marks an important and pragmatic step in global fisheries governance. By depositing its Instrument of Acceptance on July 20, 2026, India has aligned itself with the international effort to curb illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, while preserving its policy space on issues that directly affect small-scale and artisanal fishers.
The ratified phase focuses on IUU fishing, overfished stocks and unregulated fishing on the high seas. It does not cover the more difficult questions of overcapacity and overfishing, including subsidies for fuel, gear, ice, vessel construction and modernisation. Those issues belong to Phase 2, where India continues to seek fair and differentiated treatment for developing countries.
India’s position seems to be both principled and practical. It supports sustainability measures that target the most harmful forms of fishing, but it also insists that such rules must not reduce the development space needed by coastal communities that depend on marine fisheries for their livelihoods. For India, the challenge is not whether to support conservation, but how to ensure that conservation does not come at the cost of equity.
This distinction is particularly important for Bay of Bengal region countries and members of the Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-Governmental Organisation (BOBP-IGO). Across the region, fisheries are not merely an economic activity; they are a source of food security, employment and social stability for millions of small-scale fishers. Any multilateral discipline on subsidies must therefore recognise the realities of artisanal and coastal fisheries in developing countries, where support is often aimed at livelihood protection rather than industrial expansion.
India has also made clear that its ratification of Phase 1 does not weaken its demand for a longer transition period and more flexible treatment in Phase 2. The call for a 25-year transition period for developing countries within their exclusive economic zones remains part of the broader negotiating position. So too does India’s insistence that subsidy disciplines should be assessed using a per-fisher benchmark, rather than through comparisons that overlook vast differences in scale, capacity and state support.
“Balancing marine conservation with community livelihood security, India’s entry into Phase 1 of fisheries reform sets the stage for fairer, development-oriented debates in Phase 2.”
That distinction matters. In advanced fishing economies, subsidy levels are often large enough to influence capacity expansion and global competition. For instance, the annual subsidy per fisher in advanced industrial fleets of EU, US and China ranges from US$1000 to several thousands, while the government support for Indian small-scale and artisanal fishers is just US$15 per fisher. In India and the developing countries, the limited support for small-scale and artisanal fishers is generally directed toward subsistence, safety and livelihood security. Treating both as equivalent would distort the debate and undermine the developmental concerns of coastal states.
India’s ratification of Phase 1 also strengthens its credibility as a responsible maritime nation committed to marine conservation. It signals that India is prepared to support meaningful action against IUU fishing and unregulated exploitation of ocean resources. At the same time, it preserves India’s ability to negotiate forcefully in Phase 2 for rules that are fair, balanced and sensitive to the needs of developing countries.
For BOBP-IGO members and other countries in the Bay of Bengal region, this moment offers an opportunity to frame fisheries policy in a more nuanced way. The real task is to build a subsidy regime that protects marine ecosystems without weakening the communities that depend on them. Sustainability and livelihood security must be seen as complementary goals, not competing ones. India’s accession to Phase 1 is therefore best understood not as an end point, but as a carefully calibrated beginning. It reflects support for global fisheries discipline where it is most clearly needed, while leaving open the harder but more important debate on fairness, transition and development space in Phase 2.
(Dr. M. Krishnan is former Principal Scientist & Head, ICAR – Central Institute of Fisheries Education (CIFE), Mumbai 400061 and Dr. P. Krishnan Director, Bay of Bengal Programme Inter Governmental Organisation (BOBP-IGO), Chennai. Press Information Bureau-PIB Srinagar has mailed this article to “ Kashmir Horizon” for publication in this newspaper. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
