But! But! But! The Economist Admits That Maybe Some Regulation Would Help Global Fisheries

[hatrack]

EXPECTATIONS ahead of the World Trade Organisation’s two-yearly ministerial conference, which concluded in Buenos Aires on December 13th, were rock-bottom. A comprehensive new deal to liberalise global commerce has eluded the WTO for more than two decades. This state of affairs looks unlikely to change soon. Optimists nevertheless held out hope for at least one small achievement to come out of Argentina. Surely its members could back an uncontroversial commitment to end subsidies for illicit fishing? Fat chance.

The failure is at once baffling and shameful. Baffling, because countries have already pledged to stop bankrolling illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing by 2020 as part of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The biggest fishing powers—including China, the European Union, America and Japan—appeared to be on board to eliminate subsidies to vessels caught trawling without the right paperwork or in excess of their quotas. And the failure is shameful, because it abdicates responsibility for a common good—global fish stocks—the plundering of which risks dire consequences.

A third of the world’s fisheries are over-exploited, up from one-tenth in the 1970s. Stocks of large fish have dwindled by 90%. Not all of this is the result of illicit activity, estimated to be worth $10bn-23bn a year; the $100bn of fish caught legally contributes to the problem. Even eliminating all subsidies, not just those which finance dodgy activities, will not on its own spare the oceanic commons from tragedy; to achieve that, other controls are necessary, such as more quotas or marine protected areas. But unregulated fishing, almost by definition, takes place where it shouldn’t: in waters already fished to their sustainable limit or, worse, beyond it.

It is hard to say how much of the $20bn a year governments spend on boosting the capacity of their fishing fleets ends up with wrongdoers. (The world’s 17 regional fisheries-management organisations maintain blacklists of vessels caught red-handed, but these are patchy.) If it reflects the illicit share of the global catch, the subsidy would total $1.8bn-3.7bn. By encouraging overcapacity, the handouts imperil the long-term health of national fish stocks, and with them the livelihoods of law-abiding fishermen, and the well-being of the 3bn people who rely on seafood for a fifth of their protein.

EDIT

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21732848-wtos-failure-reach-agreement-curbing-subsidies-illegal-fishing-baffling

[exboyfil]

1. Good lord there is actually a commons

I am shocked. I thought my sheep could graze forever.