...
Establishing a law that requires all fishing vessels to have a GPS tracking device on board will make the regulation of fishermen and fishing companies much simpler and more effective. It will allow regulating bodies to know which fleets are in the water and whether or not they are within legal boundaries. For fishermen, it is an simple way to determine which closed areas are in effect, and the device could keep a tally on the amount of fish caught by that particular vessel and how much of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) has been caught. For all fishing vessels currently in operation, the cost of the tracking devices can be subsidized.
Establishing a fish tax will put the cost of depleting fisheries on the consumer. Similar to gasoline tax and cigarette taxes, a fish tax will increase the cost of any fish products sold on the market. Currently there is a very high demand for fish, and if we are to keep a sustainable global fish population, we cannot catch the number of fish needed to meet this demand. An increase in fish prices will not only discourage consumers from buying more fish, thus lowering the demand, but it will make them aware of the crisis in our oceans today. Though this will make it so the lower class will have difficulty affording fish, in America and other developed countries, there are other protein options available, and fish prices will have little negative effect on public health.
Currently subsidies are costing the governments around the world billions of dollars and only harming the state of fisheries by increasing the fishing effort and making it easier for us to deplete the fishing stock. Money is directed to lower the costs of shipbuilding, to compensate fishermen, and to establish joint fishermen, among other things. Studies show that fishing subsidies for the Distant Water Fleets of developed nations are harming the economy and growth of developing nations. Fishing subsidies should be eliminated and the money should instead be directed to conservation programs.
Quotas are often used to limit the amount of fish that can be taken out of a fishery, but a side effect of implementing quotas is the amount of bycatch that results from fishermen trying to avoid the penalties of bringing in too much fish. Instead of penalizing fishermen, the regulation should just state that fishermen cannot profit from any fish they catch that is beyond their quota. This extra fish should be collected and sold, instead of being cast back into the sea as dead and decaying fish, and the proceeds should go towards a local fisheries council or the appropriate regional fishery body http://www.fao.org/fi/body/rfb/chooserfb.htm. Part of this money should fund a program that provides fishermen with representation in government, since a major obstacle in the way of a body that will give fishermen lobbying power is lack of funding. The fishermen will thus be motivated to not throw out their bycatch, but since they cannot make monetary profit off catching beyond the quota, there will be no incentive to overfish either.
Further research is undoubtably needed to effectively monitor and evaluate fisheries.
Developing nations often declare open access to their fisheries in order to attract foreign fishing companies, which try to minimize their costs by flag hopping to waters Developing nations often declare open access to their fisheries in order to attract foreign fishing companies, which try to minimize their costs by flag hopping to waters with the least regulation. Developing nations have little motivation to regulate their fisheries because doing so would only drive away business. Since their ultimate goal is economic growth and development, a solution would have to reach these goals more effectively than open access.
One such solution may be a tiered licensing system. (This can also be applied to developed nations, which also often grant foreign access to their fisheries.) Since a fishing vessel needs a license from a country to fish in its waters, the price of the license could vary depending on the vessel:
*Native fishermen who are not part of a large fishing company and who have limited technology and fish using basic methods should have the lowest license fee.
*Small fleet operators should be charged a moderate license fee.
*In order to discourage a monopoly, large fishing companies with advanced/disruptive fishing gear should be charged a percentage of their profits. *Fish tax vs. tariffs?
*what if countries aren't allowed to fish in each others waters at all? (make distant water fleets illegal) then the only way to get fish would be through imports and exports, which is easier to regulate than flaghoppingCurrently developed countries subsidize their Distant Water Fleets so the cost the foreign ships bear is only 1/3 what is offered for compensation to the host country, and this compensation can amount to as little as 1% of the fishing fleet's profits.
The more countries that follow this licensing system, the more each country gains from it, because it means there are fewer fisheries for large companies to exploit. This price discrimination brings in more money from foreign fleets and promotes the developing nation's own fishing industry, and while our goal is to reduce the amount of fish caught, urging countries to take control of their own fisheries instead of letting foreign fleets exploit their resources is the first step.
*set international standards for nitrates/phosphates (<-- algae)
...