Why Taiwan, China's fishing industry has angered the EU: distant-water operators speak out
Last week, the Legislative Yuan reviewed the Distant Water Fisheries Act over two consecutive days, but controversial provisions, including penalties for major violations and fisheries resource user fees, were not resolved and were sent directly to party caucus negotiation. It has been 7 months since Taiwan, China was issued a yellow card by the European Union, and the legislative amendment is still stuck on disputes over how much illegal fishing should be fined and whether the penalties are too severe. Amid a wave of backlash from fishermen, one distant-water operator stepped forward and said: "I am not afraid of fines, I am only worried that the government will not be able to enforce them when the time comes." What exactly is the reason? NewsMarket conducted a special interview with this operator. The following is the operator's oral account, compiled and reported by NewsMarket reporters.
Once You Enter the High Seas, You Must Follow the Law; Vessel Seizure Losses Start in the Hundreds of Millions
We have been operating distant-water fisheries for 20 or 30 years. To be honest, I am not too worried about how the Council of Agriculture will penalize us later, because those of us in distant-water operations must abide by the relevant regulations when entering the high seas and the exclusive economic zones of cooperating countries. Otherwise, if a vessel is seized, each loss starts in the hundreds of millions of New Taiwan dollars. The price paid is too high, and we simply do not dare to break the law.
We operate squid jigging vessels, with a vessel tonnage of about 1000 tonnes, and one vessel costs 300 million to 500 million New Taiwan dollars to build. Taiwan, China has a cooperation agreement with the British Falkland Islands, and February 15 to June 15 each year is the period when squid fishing is open in that area. How much is caught each day must be reported to the Falklands, and the Falkland government also conducts resource surveys. If the catch that year is too large, it usually calls a halt on May 15.
This year, squid in the Falkland economic zone is not as abundant as in previous years, but it is impossible for us to run into the neighboring Argentine waters to fish, because Taiwan, China does not cooperate with Argentina. Taking the risk of encroaching would mean either being sunk by gunfire or being put on a wanted list.
For example, this year mainland China's distant-water fishing vessels repeatedly intruded into Argentine waters. In March, a Chinese fishing vessel named "Lu Yan Yuan Yu No. 10" was sunk, and another vessel, "Hua Li No. 8," although it was lucky enough not to be caught by Argentina, Argentina issued a global wanted notice, and in the end "Hua Li No. 8" was detained while passing through the Strait of Malacca. A vessel worth 400 or 500 million was gone, nearly ten million New Taiwan dollars worth of catch was confiscated, and the fishing license was also revoked. "It was all gone."
Taiwan, China's Long-Term False Catch Records Angered the EU
That is how it is with squid jigging vessels. It is even more difficult for purse seine vessels to fish illegally, because the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission stipulates that every purse seine vessel must carry a regional observer, so if a purse seiner breaks the law, the observer will issue a penalty first.
As for longline fishing, management varies from place to place, with some strict and some lax. For example, the Kaohsiung District Fishermen's Association came into contact with the international ocean commission very early, and the distant-water tuna longline vessels under the Kaohsiung District Fishermen's Association must report their catch every day, and even the fishing location must be filled in. By contrast, the Donggang District Fishermen's Association is loosely managed, almost turning a blind eye.
The EU has observed Taiwan, China for a long time. The reason it issued a yellow card this time is that Taiwan, China's long-term catch records are false, and the violation problem lies with small fishing vessels under 100 tonnes. The Council of Agriculture must see clearly where the crux of the problem is. These small fishing vessels originally operated in coastal fisheries. As coastal resources were depleted, the government opened things up so they could also go to distant waters, but it did not guide them on the need to report catch. It is like not having to do homework before, and now suddenly being required to hand in assignments every day. Fishermen did not have that habit in the past, so of course they are strongly pushing back now.
Besides Heavy Penalties, There Should Be a Graduated "Small Penalty" Support System and Step-by-Step Guidance
So I believe that in addition to heavy penalties, the government also needs a "small penalty" support system. For example, the proportion of false catch reporting can be tiered, with lighter cases receiving small penalties, gradually binding fishing vessels to obey the law. Otherwise, if heavy penalties are imposed all at once, like "sentencing someone to death," I do not think the enforcement agencies will really be able to impose them when the time comes. Taiwan, China's legislation has always had a situation where legislation is very strict and enforcement is very lenient. If the penalties in the Distant Water Fisheries Act do not have more detailed supporting measures, they may become empty talk when the time comes.
Moreover, creating a small-penalty support system can give vessel owners room to make a three-point agreement with captains and fishermen, because in many cases it is the vessel owner who demands no illegal fishing, but the captain may take the risk and break the law. In the end, the vessel is detained and the license revoked, and the vessel owner suffers the greatest loss. If there are small penalties, vessel owners can use contracts to restrain the behavior of captains and fishermen.
Penalties Should Not Be Divided by Tonnage; Everyone Must Follow International Rules
In addition, I think penalties for illegal fishing should not be divided by tonnage. Internationally, there is no distinction between large and small vessels. As long as the "act" is illegal, it is counted against Taiwan, China. Therefore, whether large or small vessels go out, they should all abide by international rules. Internationally, penalties are mostly set at 5 to 8 times the illegal gains from the catch, with no division by vessel tonnage.
This time, the Distant Water Fisheries Act plans to collect a "fisheries resource user fee" in the future. I think it can be collected, as long as the rules are fair and there is no favoritism. It is like how much fuel surcharge is added and how much is paid. Perhaps setting it based on catch volume would be a fairer method.
From the perspective of commercial interests, operators of large distant-water vessels like us also want sustainability! After all, shipbuilding costs hundreds of millions, so if we can go out to fish, of course we fish properly, hoping to earn over the long term. By contrast, small vessels may cost a few million to build, and after a few trips out they may have recovered the cost. This is the area the government needs to actively manage and guide.