...
The U.S. and Canadian governments have also provided subsidies to promote domestic fishery development for many years. In addition, they have also used approximately $3 billion on income maintenance for unemployed fishermen and fish plant workers and to improve fishery science. Starting in 1960s, most subsidies are intended for expansionary purpose. Subsidy programssubsidies were intended to expand the fishing industry by, for example, aid for fishermen to obtain fishing vessels and to sell their catches in a lower price, are intended to stimulate their economies and to protect their domestic fish industries helping fishermen buy boats and sell their catches at lower prices. Nevertheless, in the 1990s, when people started to realize the problem of overfishing, both countries began to subsidize the fisheries industry in the form of buy-back programs to reduce the number of fishing fleet, for example, the "New England groundfish fleet" and "Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fleet" financed by the federal Government. These subsidies are introduced in response to the increasing environmental problem caused by over-fishing. However, the main constituents of subsidies in both countries are still subsidies that are intended for expansionary purpose fishing industry with buyback programs to reduce the size of their fishing fleets. Although these subsidies were introduced in response to the problem of overfishing, most subsidies in both countries are intended to expand the fishing industry (Schrank, 2003).
Norway, one of the largest cod-catching countries, grants loans to its fishing industry to protect its domestic fish production. It also provides price support, insurance subsidies, operating subsidies, minimum income guarantees, vacation support and unemployment insurance, bait subsidies, gear subsidies and damage compensation (Schrank, 2003).
In view of the harmful nature of some subsidies, the World Trade Organization advised its members on restricting to restrict subsidies designed to promote exports (namely those promote the buying of fishing vessels and intend to lower the selling price of catches) and established controls over all other form of subsidies. However, Japan and the United States, which are the main decision-makers of the World Trade Organization, endorse the "no-need approach" in which they propose no restriction of subsidies as they dispute the causal link between subsidies and over-exploitation of fish resources. They suggest that poor fisheries management, instead of subsidies, is the main cause of over-fishing. Therefore, they propose that regimes deal with catch controls (quotas), effort controls (restrictions on boat size, engine power and days at sea, etc.) and right-based structures (permits, individual transferable quotas, etc.) should be implemented indeed to improve the international fisheries management. Therefore, difficulties in restricting subsidies internationally exist (Benitah, 2004).
...