Effective July 20, 2026, India formally ratified the World Trade Organization (WTO) Fisheries Subsidy Agreement by depositing its instrument of acceptance with the WTO Director-General in Geneva, becoming the 123rd member to join the pact. The agreement aims to curb harmful fisheries subsidies that contribute to overfishing and depletion of marine resources. However, the ratification has sparked strong objections from fisherfolk groups in Kerala, who warn that its implementation could threaten the livelihoods of millions of traditional fishermen and impede India's fisheries development.
The Agreement and Its Provisions
The WTO Fisheries Subsidy Agreement seeks to prohibit certain forms of subsidies that are deemed harmful, particularly those contributing to overfishing and illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. According to the source, the agreement is designed to curb harmful subsidies, but fishing organisations fear its provisions could disproportionately affect developing countries where millions depend on government support for survival.
Who Is Affected
The agreement has direct implications for India's fisheries sector, which according to Charles George, president of the Kerala Fishermen Coordination Committee, supports around 4.4 million workers, operates more than 314,000 fishing vessels, and commercially harvests 665 fish species. Nearly 68 per cent of India's fishermen live below the poverty line, making continued government support essential. The Coastal Area Development Agency for Liberation (KADAL) urged the Centre to ensure that the interests of traditional fishermen are fully protected during implementation and in future WTO negotiations.
KADAL leaders Bishop James Annaparambil, Joseph Jude, and Celestine Puthanpurakkal highlighted that Kerala's fisheries sector is dominated by small-scale and traditional fishers who rely heavily on government assistance, including fuel subsidies, boat renovation grants, safety equipment, fishing harbour infrastructure, cold storage facilities, and social security schemes. They expressed concern that central schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana and state-level financial assistance could face restrictions if classified as prohibited subsidies under the WTO framework.
Compliance Obligations and Deadlines
While the agreement itself does not mandate immediate changes in domestic subsidies, India must now ensure that its subsidy programs are not classified as prohibited under the WTO framework. The organisation argued that India is only beginning to expand its presence in deep-sea fishing, tuna fishing and the blue economy, while developed countries have long dominated global fisheries through extensive state support. India has consistently argued at successive WTO ministerial conferences that developing countries should be allowed to continue fisheries subsidies for at least 25 years to safeguard livelihoods.
| Country/Group | Annual Subsidies (USD) | Subsidy Per Fisheries Worker (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Developed countries (aggregate) | $35.4 billion (total) | – |
| Developed countries (fleet mod., fuel, port) | $22.2 billion | – |
| OECD average | – | $5,722 |
| Belgium | – | $62,000 |
| Netherlands | – | $75,000 |
| India | – | $15 (per fishing family) |
Charles George alleged that developed countries provide about $35.4 billion in annual subsidies, including $22.2 billion for activities such as fleet modernization, fuel subsidies and port infrastructure. OECD countries provide an average subsidy of $5,722 per fisheries worker, with Belgium and the Netherlands extending around $62,000 and $75,000 respectively. In contrast, India provides only about $15 annually per fishing family, he said.
Penalties and Risks
The source does not specify penalties under the agreement. However, failure to comply with WTO subsidy disciplines could result in dispute settlement proceedings, leading to potential trade sanctions or required removal of prohibited subsidies. The fishing groups argue that subjecting India to the same subsidy restrictions as advanced economies would be inequitable, and they urged the government to ensure that assistance to small-scale and artisanal fisheries is not treated as “harmful subsidies.”
Industry and Regulatory Guidance
KADAL and the Kerala Fishermen Coordination Committee have called on the government to protect traditional fishermen's interests. Charles George alleged that current policies primarily benefit large exporters, corporate players, and intermediaries at the expense of traditional fishermen, instead of strengthening cooperatives and promoting value addition and entrepreneurship among fishing communities. Trade compliance officers should monitor how the Indian government adjusts its subsidy schemes to align with WTO obligations, particularly classifying which subsidies are prohibited, actionable, or exempt (e.g., for artisanal fisheries). Close attention to future WTO negotiations and India’s notification of subsidy programs will be essential.
Implications for Compliance Professionals
For trade compliance officers, the ratification of the Fisheries Subsidy Agreement introduces new obligations for entities involved in India’s fisheries sector that receive government subsidies. Companies benefiting from schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana need to monitor whether these subsidies become classified as prohibited, potentially affecting cost structures and export competitiveness. Customs brokers and legal counsel should review subsidy notifications to the WTO and any subsequent amendments to Indian domestic law. The debate underscores the need for businesses to engage with Indian trade authorities to ensure that legitimate livelihood support for traditional fishermen is preserved, while complying with multilateral trade rules.
Sources:
