An annual reward of 800 million for a "voluntary fishing moratorium" proposal passes its first reading, accounting for 1/5 of the Fisheries Agency's annual budget, raising questions over whether it is a genuine moratorium or disguised subsidies?
In response to declining catches, the Fisheries Agency has carried out a "voluntary fishing moratorium" since ROC year 91. As long as a fishing boat goes to sea more than 90 days a year and observes a moratorium of more than 120 days, it can receive a subsidy ranging from 9,600 yuan to 308,000 yuan. However, because the application threshold is too low, it has been criticized as having no substantive moratorium significance. A Control Yuan investigation concluded that the effect is poor, that it does not help restore coastal and offshore fishery resources, and that it has become a disguised subsidy, and demanded that the Council of Agriculture review its effectiveness.
But recently legislators proposed further increasing the subsidy, sharply raising the minimum subsidy per fishing boat to 50,000 yuan, with additional subsidies based on tonnage. Taking a CT2 fishing boat (10-20 tons) as an example, under the current moratorium subsidy it can receive 21,500 yuan; if the legislation passes in the future, it could receive 70,000 yuan in subsidies a year. Even fishermen exclaim, "Really mao si a!" (Taiwanese Hokkien for "making a killing!")
The case was proposed in April this year and quickly passed its first reading. This Wednesday it will enter committee discussion. If formally legislated, according to Fisheries Agency estimates, 800 million in funding would need to be allocated to support it. At present, the Fisheries Agency's entire annual budget is only 3.8 billion, meaning 1/5 of the budget would be used for this subsidy. Can it truly achieve the goal of a fishing moratorium and let the ocean rest? Or is it a disguised subsidy that squeezes out other budgets? It has drawn attention from all sides.
Proposing legislator: Marine conservation must take fishermen's livelihoods into account
Since outside observers generally believe the voluntary reward policy has poor results for resource conservation, why did legislators propose increasing the reward amount? "Marine conservation is a high-level policy, but fishermen's livelihoods must be taken into account." Proposing legislator Yang Yao pointed out that in recent years Taiwan has designated no-fishing zones, no-fishing periods, and restrictions on fishing boats. Although these measures maintain marine resources, they also reduce fishermen's income. "Conservation must also come with corresponding reward measures for fishermen." Fishing boats hire fishing workers, "and you can't refuse to pay wages just because they don't go to sea for a certain period." Fishermen bear high costs, so appropriate subsidies must be given. "Current subsidies are small; for vessels under 126 tons, the maximum is only fifty or sixty thousand."
In response to outside criticism that the voluntary fishing moratorium policy has "poor results," Yang explained that marine conservation cannot achieve direct results through moratorium subsidies and should be limited through designating no-fishing zones, no-fishing periods, and fishing methods. The moratorium subsidy is meant to allow the fishery to develop sustainably, giving fishermen a certain subsidy when they cannot go to sea.
As for whether allocating nearly 800 million in budget each year for voluntary fishing moratorium rewards is too much, Yang believes that from the perspective of the central government's total budget, 800 million is not much. The fact that it accounts for nearly one-fifth of the Fisheries Agency's total budget is because Taiwan's overall budget invested in fisheries is too small.
Fisheries Agency: At least 120 days a year without going to sea can maintain marine resources
Regarding repeated outside claims that the voluntary fishing moratorium reward has poor results, Shih Chun-yi explained that actual results are hard to estimate, because whether fishermen's voluntary moratorium period happens to coincide with spawning season or growth period is not certain; but at least 120 days a year without going out to sea to fish can still maintain marine resources.
Taiwan has more than 20,000 fishing boats in total, and currently 10,000 fishing boats receive the voluntary fishing moratorium reward. Is the threshold too low? Shih responded that some fishing boats still cannot meet the threshold. As for whether the substantive moratorium goal is achieved, the time spent in port observing the moratorium is greater than the time spent at sea fishing. "This is to encourage them: during the real fishing season they can go out to fish, but ordinarily when it is not fish season they should not go out to fish, reducing the number of operating days."
In response to the Fisheries Agency's statement, Captain Wu said that for his own small boat, the waves on the west coast are especially large, and if the waves exceed one meter he does not go out to sea. At most he goes out 90 times a year. At other times, due to weather and other factors, he simply cannot go out to fish. More than 120 days a year when he cannot go to sea is already normal and has nothing to do with the moratorium reward.
Fisheries Agency: "Designated fishing moratoriums" have more substantive results, but cost more
Shih also pointed out that in terms of results, "a designated fishing moratorium will definitely be better than a voluntary one; this can be confirmed." But the problem is that designated moratoriums cost more, and the source of funding is the key issue.
Shih said that Taiwan has only one case of a designated fishing moratorium reward, for anchovy (whitebait) fry in the Fangliao area of Pingtung. From June to September each year, anchovy fry cannot be caught. In ROC year 96, 27 fishing boats participated, and 3,352,000 yuan was allocated; in ROC year 97, 19 fishing boats participated, and 2,432,000 yuan was allocated. But at that time the designated moratorium was carried out in the Fangliao area for only two years, and then stopped.
Shih explained that on the one hand this was due to funding problems; the calculated costs included the losses and expenses of fishing boats not operating. In addition, fishermen's willingness was low. "A designated fishing moratorium means I designate a certain period during which no one may go out to fish, and no matter how large or small the fishing boat's tonnage, it cannot go out. Otherwise, if some fishing boats go and some do not, the resource conservation goal cannot be achieved. Therefore, everyone must agree not to go out to sea." So the difficulty is high.
Even with funding difficulties and low willingness among fishermen to participate, Shih still believes that "designated fishing moratoriums are the main target to promote." By designating moratorium dates, during the period when resources are to be restored, including spawning season and growth period, fishermen are told not to fish, which is what truly helps resource sustainability. In the future, funding will also be sought to continue promoting it. "Right now trawlers are the more controversial ones. Next we also want to promote prohibiting departure from port during a specified period, giving amounts according to time and vessel tonnage."
How can "designated fishing moratoriums" be realized?
Outside observers generally believe that designated fishing moratorium subsidies are the direction to take in the future. Even proposing legislator Yang Yao believes that designated moratoriums are indeed more likely in principle to fulfill the purpose of a moratorium. The problem in practice is: "Migratory fish only come in winter, and squid (locker squid) only come in summer, so what period do you designate for the moratorium?" In addition, designated moratorium subsidies are high and require a certain source of funding. "In the amendment we originally wanted to write in designated moratoriums, but because of budget problems, we decided to handle voluntary moratoriums first, taking fishery sustainability and fishermen's livelihoods into consideration first." But he is not opposed to designated moratoriums; they just need to be promoted slowly and planned for the long term.
However, once voluntary fishing moratorium subsidies are written into law, a fixed budget will be allocated every year. How then should designated fishing moratorium rewards be carried out in the future? Yang responded that if there is a complete plan for designated moratoriums in the future, "the voluntary fishing moratorium reward system will be reviewed. After legislation, the law can still be amended. As long as marine conservation and fishery development can both be taken into account, we will support it."
Regarding legislators' proposal to increase the voluntary fishing moratorium reward, Lin Ai-lung, chief executive of the Sea Dragon Loves the Earth Association, pointed out that if legislators really want to help fishermen who "make a living from fishing," promote the upgrading of the fishing industry, and achieve the three wins of marine conservation at the same time, then a sum should be clearly set aside, for example an annual budget of 1 billion yuan, authorizing the Fisheries Agency to carry out appropriate mandatory moratorium subsidies based on marine resource conditions and annual policy priorities, especially designated moratoriums under the no-fishing periods announced pursuant to Article 44 of the Fisheries Act, with the moratorium lasting 30 consecutive days or more, to help mother fish spawn and small fish grow, so that fishermen who truly live off the sea can earn more money. "Otherwise, it is just wasting the people's tax money and does not help fishery development."