
APRIL 30, 2008
HIDDEN SUBSIDIES
The first commandment of ocean
fishingNational Standard #1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Actsays
that we shall conserve and manage our fisheries to produce the
optimum yield, defined as the greatest overall
benefit to the nation. The word overall is key
and inevitably the object of much conflict.
There are competing benefits,
often between the recreational and commercial fishing industries,
and sometimes within those industries. Because of the hard-to-quantify
social benefits attached to each, it isnt as simple as comparing
dollar values. In addition, the benefits of achieving certain
yields from fishing must also, according to law, be weighed against
the value of protecting marine ecosystems, an even
more difficult balance that requires comparing apples and oranges.
The considerable expense of managing
fisheriesadministration, regulation, research, data collection,
monitoring and enforcement is not a cost of doing business
for the fishing industry. It is, rather, the nations investment
in fisheries and the economic and social benefits (jobs, seafood,
recreation, etc.) they produce.
Yet these expenses are not accounted
for in the cost-benefit analyses that are part of the optimum
yield equation. Given the unrelenting demand for bigger budgets
to support increasingly complex regulations, expanded scientific
studies, and sophisticated, real-time at-sea monitoring, perhaps
it is time we factor them in.
More Trouble Than They're Worth?
A new study by the University
of British Columbia estimates that the worlds governments
subsidize ocean fisheries at $30-34 billion a year, with at least
$20 billion of that contributing to overcapacity and overfishing.
That, the study says, equals a quarter of the landed value of
the global fish catch. Add to that the resulting costs of controlling
overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks, and the value shrinks
even more.
The United States has gotten away
from direct subsidies to the fishing industry (although low-interest
loans still exist, as do good subsidies related to
safety and health). In 2007, Congress passed resolutions calling
on the U.S. to seek an international ban on government subsidies
that are supporting overfishing. Negotiations are underway at
the World Trade Organization, and the U.S. is among a group of
nations pushing for an agreement to eliminate harmful subsidies.
We applaud the nations leadership
on this issue. Such an agreement would, as the environmental group
Oceana points out, lessen incentives to fish beyond sustainable
levels, reduce overfishing and other destructive fishing practices
(most notably the highly-subsidized bottom trawl fleets), and
create a fairer playing field for U.S. fishermen who fish shared
stocks and/or compete in the same markets.
But we submit that when
management costs are so high as to cut deeply into a fisheries
economic benefits, it amounts to a form of subsidy. Achieving
the greatest overall benefit to the nation requires that we assess
and consider these hidden costs when deciding what fishing is
optimum. We might find that some fisheries or methods of fishing
are more trouble than their worth.