Africa must not miss the boat on the WTO fishing subsidies deal
Despite the high cost of illegal fishing, only a third of African countries have signed the landmark agreement that will soon take effect.
Published on 27 June 2025 in
ISS Today
By
Denys Reva
Researcher, Africa in the World, ISS Pretoria
The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies is on track to be adopted this year, with Ghana the latest African country to ratify. Nine more ratifications are needed to reach the total of 111, which activates the treaty. The landmark deal will come into force in what looks like a ‘super year’ for ocean governance.
Yet only around a third of African states have ratified it, raising questions about whether the agreement risks faltering where the benefits are most needed.
The Food and Agriculture Organization’s most recent State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture report says Africa’s fisheries are among the most vulnerable and highly impacted by overfishing and illicit, unreported and unregulated fishing. Little of Africa’s marine fish stocks are caught sustainably.
This presents the continent with a unique trifecta of challenges: subsidised foreign fleets, weak ocean governance, and climate change combine to undermine the sustainability of marine resources. Small pelagic stocks in West Africa have collapsed, East African coral reef fisheries run below sustainable yields, and coastal livelihoods and food security are under threat.
Current estimations suggest that at least US$11.2 billion in African revenue is lost annually due to illegal exploitation. In this context, the fisheries deal should be a major step in addressing unlawful fishing and harmful subsidies that contribute to overfishing.
Globally, 102 countries are officially recorded as having ratified the agreement. Several others, including Ghana, have completed domestic ratification, but aren’t yet reflected in the official count because they still need to conclude the formal procedure.
The agreement targets three areas contributing to the depletion of marine resources, with two implementation phases. First, it bans subsidies linked to exploiting overfished stocks, aiming to bolster conservation and awareness about weak regulatory oversight.
Second, it prohibits fishing subsidies in high seas areas beyond the purview of regional fisheries bodies, where enforcement gaps are common and migratory fish stocks are vulnerable. Finally, it bans subsidies to vessels involved in illegal fishing.
These measures respond to longstanding concerns about the role of subsidies in enabling overfishing and illegal fishing, especially by distant-water fleets.
Although the benefits for Africa are clear, reception seems lukewarm, with just 20 African countries having officially ratified the agreement. Most support has come from West Africa, where the Economic Community of West African States has urged its members to support the initiative.
|
African countries that have submitted their acceptance of the fisheries subsidies agreement to WTO
|
In East and Southern Africa, only four coastal states have ratified: Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles and South Africa. One likely reason is limited awareness and technical capacity since the agreement is essentially a trade instrument, not a conventional fisheries or environmental treaty. So understanding the deal’s implications requires coordination between national agencies responsible for fishing, environment, trade and foreign affairs.
The agreement is nevertheless on track to enter into force before year-end, underscoring the importance of Africa’s readiness to successfully implement it.
For one, implementation will likely come with financial and resource implications. The agreement requires all WTO members to create a national subsidy inventory documenting the nature, recipients and purpose of fisheries subsidies. This will require inter-agency coordination, political commitment, and new digital reporting systems, potentially adding costs for African states.
At the same time, a lack of capacity or political will to implement may see countries become a target for illegal fleets, since the agreement is only as strong as states’ ability to enforce it.
This is especially likely since the prohibition is not triggered automatically, but only once a relevant party determines a transgression has occurred. That party could be the coastal state against which a transgression has been committed, one whose flag is used by the vessel involved in illegal fishing, or a relevant regional fisheries management organisation/arrangement (RFMO/A).
The agreement is essentially a trade instrument, not a conventional fisheries or environmental treaty
However, RFMOs are not always well equipped to deal with illegal fishing, and their ability to respond depends on member states’ commitment and capacity. And flag states, especially those providing flags of convenience, are seldom willing to enforce rules that undermine their profits. This means the successful use of the agreement will depend on countries’ ability to detect illegal activity and collect evidence.
That doesn’t diminish the initiative’s utility, but highlights the challenges African countries could face as they prepare for implementation. To maximise the agreement’s benefits, governments should prioritise three actions.
First, they must use the WTO’s self-assessment tool to systematically align national policies with the agreement’s requirements. Identifying legislative, regulatory and institutional gaps may require technical assistance or capacity-building support.
Second, states should strengthen coordination among fisheries, trade and finance ministries to ensure coherent policy implementation and transparent reporting on subsidies and conservation measures, as mandated by the agreement.
Third, African countries are well positioned to leverage the WTO Fisheries Funding Mechanism, which provides resources for developing nations to upgrade fisheries management, enhance compliance and help small-scale fishers achieve sustainable practices. This support becomes available to member states on ratifying the agreement.
The successful use of the agreement will depend on countries’ ability to detect illegal activity and collect evidence
However, the deal alone is not a panacea. It is a useful addition to countries’ toolkit in their fight against illegal and unsustainable fishing – but its effectiveness will depend on the actions of African coastal and flag states.
Countries should use existing maritime mechanisms, such as the Djibouti and Yaoundé codes of conduct, as well as their regional maritime security strategies. The African Union (AU) and the AU Development Agency could provide technical support and capacity building, and raise awareness among member states as they have done before.
The absence of a robust WTO enforcement mechanism means African countries must simultaneously invest in strengthening their maritime security and implementing international accords like the Agreement on Port State Measures.
Enhanced surveillance, port inspections and regional collaboration are vital for intercepting illegal catches and deterring illicit operators. Without these complementary measures, the risks to Africa’s food security, economic stability and regional security will persist.
Exclusive rights to re-publish ISS Today articles have been given to Daily Maverick in South Africa and Premium Times in Nigeria. For media based outside South Africa and Nigeria that want to re-publish articles, or for queries about our re-publishing policy, email us.
