Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daniel Skerritt, Affiliated Researcher, Fisheries Economics Research Unit, University of British Columbia

After nearly 25 years of negotiations, the World Trade Organization (WTO) finally has its first legally binding agreement to tackle government fisheries subsidies. After two-thirds of WTO members ratified the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, the deal has entered into force. It marks a long-overdue step toward addressing the role harmful fisheries subsidies play in overfishing.

Fisheries subsidies can cause harm by distorting markets and creating unequal competition — so-called “trade injuries.” In addition, they can cause ecological harm by increasing the capacity of fishing vessels and fleets. The result is overcapacity: too many boats chasing too few fish, which often leads to overfishing.

When WTO talks on fisheries subsidies began in 2001, fish populations were already in decline. Today, 38 per cent of fish stocks are overfished, and a further 50 per cent are fully exploited. That means most of the world’s fisheries are being fished at or beyond their biological limits.

For decades, government subsidies have helped industrial fishing fleets expand, often with little regard for sustainability. These subsidies have distorted access to fish and seafood, fuelled overfishing and harmed coastal communities — especially in low-income countries where fish are critical to food security and livelihoods.

This agreement is a major milestone, but it’s only the beginning. Here’s what the agreement covers, why it matters and what needs to happen next to protect ocean health and ensure an equitable ocean economy for coastal communities.

Read more:
We have a deal. Can we now talk about some not-so-harmful fisheries subsidies?

What the agreement covers and why it matters

WTO members first raised the issue of harmful fisheries subsidies at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha in 2001. For years, talks made little headway — until the adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015.

Target 14.6 of the SDGs explicitly called on the WTO to:

“Prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies.”

This helped re-energize negotiations, culminating in the adoption of the subsidies agreement at the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference in 2022.

The agreement includes three key prohibitions targeting the worst kinds of subsidies. First, ratifying WTO members must stop subsidizing illegal,
unreported and unregulated fishing (Article 3).

Second, they must end subsidies for vessels targeting overfished stocks unless they can demonstrate that effective management measures are in place to rebuild those stocks (Article 4). Third, subsidies for fishing on the unregulated high seas are banned (Article 5).

While these measures don’t address all subsidies that contribute to overcapacity, they target some of the most egregious forms of financial support.

Another critical part of the agreement is Article 8, which strengthens transparency and accountability. Members must now provide detailed information annually, including information on fish stocks, conservation and management measures, fleet capacity and the names of subsidized vessels.

Read more:
Illuminating dark seas: Why fisheries management must be more transparent

Historically, fisheries subsidies data has been patchy and incomplete. Better data will help identify who benefits from public financial support and whether it aligns with sustainability goals.

The agreement also introduces more equitable expectations for developing and least developed countries. These members are granted an extra two years before they must implement subsidy prohibitions and, crucially, can access the WTO Fish Fund — a funding mechanism that helps countries implement the agreement through technical assistance and partnerships.

While the agreement does not fully level the playing field, it establishes that major subsidizers must carry the greatest burden.

Challenges, Gaps and Next Steps

Despite its strengths on paper, the agreement only covers a fraction of the estimated $22 billion in harmful fisheries subsidies provided by governments each year. The most prevalent of all the harmful subsidies, fuel subsidies, remain largely untouched.

Another major limitation is that it only applies to countries that have ratified the agreement. As of now, some major subsidizers — including Indonesia and Thailand, two of the world’s top 10 subsidy providers — have yet to ratify.

In a 2021 report we wrote for ocean conservation group Oceana, we found that just 10 countries are responsible for 64 per cent of global harmful subsidies. Even with this agreement in force, without their participation, large gaps will remain.

Another challenge is ensuring transparency and data disclosure. While the agreement includes stronger notification requirements, it lacks detailed reporting guidelines. Much of the implementation will depend on self-reporting and peer accountability between members.

Without clear standards or enforcement mechanisms, many subsidy programs could remain opaque or under-reported. To have real impact, the WTO must develop robust and standardized reporting frameworks.

Whether this agreement will save fish, or merely save face, will come down to how it’s implemented. Success will hinge on whether WTO members hold each other accountable and whether industry, civil society and researchers can push their governments toward genuine compliance.

Importantly, the subsidies agreement was never meant to be the end of the conversation. Its entry into force triggers a four-year countdown to negotiate the next phase.

They must address the most damaging subsidies of all, those that fund fishing by rich foreign fleets in the waters of other nations, and those that drive overcapacity, to achieve a comprehensive agreement. These policies have the greatest potential ecological and equity impact but are the hardest to reach consensus on.

Fortunately, we’re now closer to that goal. The entry into force of this agreement provides the ideal platform from which SDG Target 14.6 can be fully achieved. Putting an end to billions in fishing subsidies would restore fish stocks, support coastal communities, and improve ocean health for all. The job is not yet done.

Daniel Skerritt is Senior Manager of Oceana’s Transparent Oceans Initiative, affiliated with the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at the University of British Columbia, School of Natural & Environmental Sciences at Newcastle University, and an International Board Member of the Fisheries Transparency Initiative.

Rashid Sumaila receives funding from SSHRC, NSERC and the World Bank. He is affiliated with Oceana, Stockholm University, the University of Cape Coast, Pew Charitable Trusts, Tyler Prize Foundation as a board member.

– ref. What the WTO’s deal to curb fisheries subsidies means and what it could achieve – https://theconversation.com/what-the-wtos-deal-to-curb-fisheries-subsidies-means-and-what-it-could-achieve-265185

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ronald W. Pruessen, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Toronto

Explaining his move to rename the United States Department of Defense the Department of War, as it was known prior to 1949, President Donald Trump explained it had “a stronger sound.”

It offered better messaging too. “Defense is too defensive; we want to be offensive too,” he said.

The once and future Department of War would revive the spirit of the years when “we won everything.”

Trump’s language — and the logic behind it — demonstrates how little America’s current leaders have learned from the clear failures of their predecessors across 70 years.

American policies after the Second World War achieved great things: substantially aiding the reconstruction of devastated Europe and Japan, for instance, while spearheading the building of an integrated global economy that fostered unparalleled growth.

There were also grave flaws in American designs and actions, of course, though they rarely if ever stemmed from a lack of aggressive assertiveness and an appetite for winning. Trump’s failure to diagnose the real roots of real problems portends a worsening of already terrible costs and consequences.

Perpetual preparedness

A key source of Trump’s weaknesses is his shallow or distorted grasp of history. His failure here is understanding that the Department of Defense saw “offence” thoroughly embedded into its conception of defence.

Think “the best defence is a good offence” on steroids. George Kennan’s famous “containment policy,” for example, included calls for “unceasing pressure for penetration.”

The American military establishment created in the 1940s turbocharged earlier approaches to national security, moving limited spending and retrenchment between conflicts to proactive and perpetual preparedness. Because the world continued to be seen as a dangerous place even after 1945’s victories, expanding military power was prescribed to deter aggressors or to prevail over them if push came to war.

Emphasis on “the world” helps to explain the scale of power. Air power and other technological advances (in communications, for example) created the integrated international arena in which American leaders acted after the defeat of the Axis powers in the Second World War.

There was a rapid and dramatic growth in the policy agenda. For the new Department of Defense, this meant unparalleled budgets: US$997 billion by 2024 compared to China’s US$314 billion (greater than any other countries in the 1940s and ever since).

It also produced global reach greater than any empire in history: there are almost three million members of the U.S. armed forces today, based in 70 countries.

American power

Trump fails to grasp (or chooses to ignore) the fact that this vast power was used regularly and aggressively:

• There were large-scale interventions from Korea and Indochina to Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

• There were massive transfusions of equipment, training and personnel into NATO and other countries on every continent, including Israel, Pakistan, Brazil and Australia.

• There was Pentagon co-operation with other agencies engaged in all-of-government efforts — overt and covert operations that ranged from intelligence gathering (including espionage), destabilization and coups (for example in Iran, Guatemala, Chile) and assassinations (including repeated attempts on Cuban leader Fidel Castro and the frequently assumed association with the deaths of Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba, Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo and South Vietnam’s Ngô Đình Diệm.

“Defence” served both as the foundation and the justification for the evolution of many elements of this repertoire over the decades.

Failures

A cost accounting of aggressive/offensive defence in the past is disturbing. The tabulation of a 75-year record has filled countless volumes, but two striking examples attest to some major failures:

• A lack of “winning” in large-scale military operations: A “truce” in the Korean peninsula in 1953, giving way to failures in Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan. (Success in Kuwait in 1990-91 does not significantly alter this problematic balance.)

• Continued independence and resistance from states once thought weak enough to be managed, in particular Cuba and Iran.

Dubious results also had staggering price tags. There were 36,000 American deaths in Korea; 58,000 in Vietnam; 7,000 deaths and 53,000 wounded military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars were devoted to defence spending at the expense of economic and social programs on the home front.

Trump seems to believe that, with the Department of War, he’s replacing post-1945 defence policies rather than doubling down on them, meaning he is intensifying the offensive/aggressive approaches without grappling with their flaws. In particular, he has no apparent grasp of what bedevilled the post-1945 American drive for global domination.

American arrogance

Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright famously critiqued the “arrogance of power” in the 1960s, countering the U.S. presumption of a right to impose values on distant corners of the world like Southeast Asia.

Other critics of the Vietnam War further questioned whether the U.S. had sufficient manpower and intellectual or economic resources to achieve its goals. Wasn’t the world too large and complex, with too many rival players and independent allies, and too many ever-evolving challenges, for one country to imagine holding global management capacities in its hands?

In recent years, former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden began to apply a pragmatic calculus to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if their core vision continued to exhibit historic “Manifest Destiny” concepts. One example is Obama’s attempt to determine an effective troop level in Iraq while simultaneously retaining his faith in American “exceptionalism.”

Trump’s determination to go on the offensive threatens to reverse even tentative adjustments to American aspirations of global domination. He is reviving attitudes like those of former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice early in the Afghanistan war, when she chided cautious generals by saying “I’m an American. Nothing is impossible.”

Read more:
Out of Afghanistan: Joe Biden and the future of America’s foreign policy

Trump’s threats

The magnitude of Trump’s ego (his “I alone” mentality) risks intensifying such a revival — with potentially serious consequences.

Attacks on Venezuelan boats said to be carrying drugs, a failure to rein in Israel’s expanding campaigns in Gaza and the deployment of National Guard forces to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and Memphis are strong hints of what may be coming.

Recalling Trump’s speculations about military operations against Greenland and Canada just months ago makes it impossible to dismiss anxiety about his intentions.

Ronald W. Pruessen has received past research grants from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. ‘We want to be offensive too’ — Trump’s Department of War move shows his flimsy grasp of history – https://theconversation.com/we-want-to-be-offensive-too-trumps-department-of-war-move-shows-his-flimsy-grasp-of-history-265334

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jamaica Cass, Director, Queen’s-Weeneebayko Health Education Partnership, Queen’s University, Ontario

If Canada is serious about reconciliation, it must change how it trains health professionals. Right now, too few Indigenous doctors, nurses and other providers are working in communities that need them most. And too often, students learn about Indigenous health in ways that are optional, inconsistent or not led by Indigenous educators.

That’s where Indigenous-led health education comes in. When Indigenous communities shape how health professionals are trained, it supports a path toward trust, equity and a health system that finally reflects the people it serves.

Read more:
Indigenous community research partnerships can help address health inequities

As an Indigenous physician and medical educator practising in Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, I know firsthand the challenges and the possibilities of this work. I am the first Indigenous woman in Canada to pursue both medicine and a PhD, a journey shaped as much by systemic barriers as by the support of my family and community.

Today, I practise primary care in my home community while helping to shape health education nationally, including via a new Queen’s University partnership program in Western James Bay, Ontario — the Queen’s–Weeneebayko Health Education Program on the traditional territory of the Moose Cree First Nation (Treaty 9).

Seeing the gaps in care in my own clinic, and working with students eager to change the system, informs my commitment to Indigenous-led education as the most direct path to reconciliation in health.

10 years after the TRC: promises vs. reality

It has been a decade since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) released its Final Report. The Assembly of First Nations reports that of the 94 Calls to Action, only 14 have been fully implemented.

Two of them, No. 23 and No. 24, speak directly to health care: train and retain more Indigenous health professionals, and make sure all students learn about Indigenous health and the legacy of residential schools.

These aren’t symbolic. They are practical steps that would improve care and save lives. But progress has been slow. Indigenous professionals remain underrepresented, and cultural safety training is too often patchy or optional.

Indigenous-focused health education

A new national report from the Conference Board of Canada confirms what Indigenous leaders have been saying: reconciliation won’t happen unless Indigenous Peoples lead — in education, governance and workforce planning. Token gestures aren’t enough.

The report, Answering the Call: Strategies to Increase the Number of Indigenous Physicians in Canada, notes that “Indigenous students, especially in rural and remote areas, often lack career guidance and a culturally relevant curriculum, leading to lower graduation rates and fewer pathways to medical education.”

While systemic challenges persist, there are powerful examples across Canada that share the common goal of making sure Indigenous students can succeed in health education, and ensuring communities benefit from culturally safe, long-term providers.

The Queen’s–Weeneebayko program I’m directing is building a new health sciences Campus in Moosonee, Ont. Students from the Hudson and James Bay region — including from Moosonee, Fort Albany, Attawapiskat, Moose Factory, Kashechewan and Peawanuck — will be recruited locally, trained in Moosonee and supported to stay serving their home communities.

This partnership, including the Weeneebayko Area Health Authority(WAHA), Queen’s University and the Mastercard Foundation, integrates local Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing (for example, through Cree language, land-based learning and cultural safety) alongside biomedical science.

Indigenous leadership is embedded at every level — from community knowledge keepers and local education and health-care champions guiding what is taught and how to WAHA operating governance and mentorship frameworks rooted in local culture. I am the inaugural director.

Fostering culturally safe health care

Other programs across the country share the common goal of making sure Indigenous students can succeed in health education, and ensuring communities benefit from culturally safe, long-term providers.

For example:

• At the University of British Columbia, the Northern and Rural MD Pathway is a distinct admissions stream designed to attract applicants with rural, remote northern or Indigenous community connections — or those passionate about serving such communities — by incorporating a rural and remote suitability Score (RRSS) and early rural placements to support rural and remote training and practice.

• The University of Manitoba’s Mahkwa omushki kiim: Pathway to Indigenous Nursing Education (PINE) supports First Nations, Inuit and Métis students from start to finish. By combining academic help with cultural programming and community connection, it has the goal of boosting retention as it prepares more Indigenous nurses for practice.

Programs like these are concerned with helping whole communities gain consistent, trusted health care. And when trust grows, so does the likelihood that people will seek care early — improving outcomes for everyone.

Beyond such programs, system-wide change is needed to ensure Indigenous learners are supported at every stage, and to support viable pathways to medical training in rural and remote areas.

System-wide changes needed

Indigenous students face:

• Financial challenges that place professional programs out of reach.

• A lack of affordable housing when they move to cities for education.

• Underfunded K–12 schools that leave them less prepared for competitive admissions.

• Racism and isolation once they enter professional programs.

Location also matters. Research shows that students trained in rural or remote areas are far more likely to practise there after graduation.

For Indigenous students, viable pathways to practising medicine are even stronger when training is grounded in community values and led by Indigenous educators.

Read more:
Want to decolonize education? Where classes are held matters

Why this is reconciliation in action

Reconciliation is not just about apologies or ceremonies. It’s about real, structural change. In health care, that means:

• Who delivers the care: building a stronger Indigenous health workforce.

• Whose knowledge counts: recognizing Indigenous knowledge alongside Western medicine.

• Who makes decisions: ensuring Indigenous voices lead the design and governance of health programs.

Indigenous-led health education tackles all three. It brings reconciliation down from the level of promises and into the day-to-day realities of patients, providers and communities.

The way forward

Ten years after the TRC, Canadians are right to ask whether reconciliation is real. The answer depends on whether we support Indigenous-led programs — not as small pilots, but as long-term, fully resourced commitments.

The initiatives described here show what’s possible. They are different in scope, but each demonstrates that Indigenous self-determination in health education is not only achievable, it’s already happening.

The next step is clear: supporting Indigenous-led education so that reconciliation moves from promise to practice in communities nationwide.

Jamaica Cass works for Queen’s University. She receives funding from the National Circle on Indigenous Medical Education, the CPFC and the CMA. She is a board member of the Indigenous Physicians’ Association of Canada and the Medical Council of Canada.

– ref. How Indigenous-led health education in remote communities can make reconciliation real – https://theconversation.com/how-indigenous-led-health-education-in-remote-communities-can-make-reconciliation-real-264562

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Douglas A. Stuart, Assistant Teaching Professor of Accounting, Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria

United States President Donald Trump is, once again, suggesting eliminating quarterly reporting for American public companies in favour of just two earnings reports per year. Trump made a similar proposal during his first presidential term in 2018.

Quarterly reporting is the practice by which publicly traded companies provide financial updates every three months. These reports are meant to give investors, regulators and other stakeholders information about a company’s financial performance.

In a social media post, Trump said such a move “will save money and allow managers to focus on properly running their companies.”

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is prioritizing Trump’s proposal. The SEC studied the issue in 2018 and held a roundtable but did not move forward with rule changes.

Canadian public companies also report quarterly, while other markets, including the European Union, have adopted a six-month reporting model.

Researchers have studied reporting frequency for decades, and the scientific evidence shows the thinking behind eliminating quarterly reports is not cut-and-dried.

Quarterly reporting as a monitoring tool

Quarterly reporting is expensive. Employees’ time, executive review, board oversight and investment in reporting systems add up. Cutting external quarterly reporting could free up a company’s internal resources and remove administrative red tape.

Even so, some companies report every three months without being required to. Preparation costs increase, but so does corporate accountability. In terms of agency theory, shareholders (the principals) can more closely monitor the behaviour of executives (the agents).

Executives are expected to represent shareholders, but their priorities do not always align. Corporate executives may, for example, reject profitable investments due to their risk tolerance or overspend on travel and leisure items.

With quarterly reporting gone, the potential for these “agency costs” may increase as misaligned managerial actions go unnoticed. Shareholders use accounting reports to check up on executive decisions and hold them accountable.

Importantly, even if semiannual reporting becomes the baseline for public companies, banks may still ask for more frequent results in loan agreements.

Quarterly reporting for investment decisions

If regulators drop quarterly reporting, investors and the public could lose out.

Many investors have a limited sense of how a business is performing. They may live half a globe away and never set foot in the company’s offices. Because of this, investors generally have access to less information than internal employees, managers and executives do. This is called “information asymmetry.”

Investors, regulators and the public depend on corporate financial reporting to fill in these information gaps. If quarterly reporting mandates were removed, they might be left in the dark. Investment decisions might be less informed, although news releases and disclosures online could still be found. Corporate transparency and accountability might be reduced.

On the other hand, quarterly reporting is not a cure-all. Analysts might under-react to earnings reports, leading to delays. Or they may overreact, causing unwarranted fluctuations in investment prices. Investors are human and are subject to shortcomings like overconfidence and the fear of missing out.

Short-term versus long-term decisions

While quarterly reporting can be seen as a compliance activity, like filing taxes or acquiring a business licence, it can also be framed as a structure for decision-making.

Quarterly reporting incentivizes executives to focus on short-term financial performance, potentially at the expense of long-term results. Researchers call this “short-termism.”

Researchers have found that short-termism is not limited to managers and might stem from investors looking for quick profits. Investors may, directly or indirectly, influence the kinds of projects managers invest in. Managers may get financial bonuses based on quarterly earnings to align their goals with shareholder aims.

Short-term decisions are frequently tactical rather than strategic, meaning they may prioritize current earnings over long-term corporate sustainability and resilience.

For example, managers might invest in carbon-intensive projects that pay back quickly, rejecting more sustainable projects with a longer return horizon, like energy efficiency. For this reason, some sustainability advocates support Trump’s initiative.

While some firms measure their performance along social and environmental lines, in addition to financial earnings, profits are often the focus of quarterly earnings calls.

Not one-size-fits-all

Quarterly reporting may affect small and large firms differently. Smaller firms may take a financial hit: on average, small firms in Singapore experienced a five per cent drop in market value when they were required to report quarterly in 2003.

However, larger firms may find that the benefits of prompt, high-quality information outweigh the costs of frequent reporting. Managers, executives and board members rely on accounting reports to show whether the firm is on track to meet its goals.

Furthermore, larger firms document industry conditions and future risks and opportunities in their accounting reports. Smaller firms in the same industry can look at this information for guidance. These are called “positive information spillovers.” Smaller firms may lose this information if larger firms file reports less often.

Information spillovers, however, can be a double-edged sword. Information may be taken out of context or applied to smaller firms incorrectly. At times, this may lead to temporarily poorly priced investments.

Treading carefully

We don’t know, yet, what the SEC will decide. If changes are to come, they should be made carefully and phased in. Pilot studies would give policymakers and researchers a chance to observe effects in real time.

Quarterly reporting mandates on the Vienna Stock Exchange were phased out between 2015 and 2019. Some companies continued to file quarterly financial results while others stopped. Firms used the increased flexibility to adjust the content of their reports, making them more relevant to their stakeholders.

Research shows corporate reporting frequency is a complicated topic. Switching from quarterly to semiannual reporting may have merit, but as with any decision affecting a wide range of stakeholders, a broader, global perspective highlights what some stand to lose and what others stand to gain.

Douglas A. Stuart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump renews push to end quarterly reporting — here’s what that would mean – https://theconversation.com/trump-renews-push-to-end-quarterly-reporting-heres-what-that-would-mean-265458