As Taiwan’s coastline has been opened up, sea fishing has become a popular leisure activity. Sea fishing can be divided into boat fishing and shore fishing. Shore fishing is done from an embankment, a beach or a reef.
Anglers have been calling for fishing and commercial ports to be opened to angling. On the government’s Public Policy Network Participation Platform, amendments to the Fishing Port Act (漁港法) have been suggested to fully open ports to angling.
The appeals are mainly to assign additional areas for sea fishing. However, shore fishing is not only about opening up ports, it also involves sea fishing management.
Whether commercial and fishing ports should be opened for sea fishing must be discussed on the basis of the ports’ statutory purpose and conflicts arising from multiple-use requirements.
The Commercial Port Act (商港法) and the Fishing Port Act specify the statutory function of commercial and fishing ports, that is, specifying those that can be used by merchant and fishing ships. Port facilities, including seawalls, are provided to meet the needs of these operations.
Only when these functions are unhindered can sea fishing, a secondary function, be considered.
This conflict between uses is common for public facilities, so there need to be regulations, much like pedestrian and scooter access to highways are restricted to help facilitate high-speed traffic flow.
The utilization of Taiwan’s six international commercial ports is high, so the space available for sea fishing is relatively limited. Each of the ports have designated areas for angling. However, there are more than 200 other fishing ports in Taiwan — most of them underused — but only 19 allow angling.
This has caused consternation among anglers. Indeed, to make the most of the public facilities, the Fisheries Agency should review the feasibility of opening unused port facilities for angling and other activities.
However, it is not entirely fair that anglers point their finger at the Fisheries Agency, because opening up ports to serve a secondary purpose is not its responsibility. Moreover, ports are only one option among many areas that could be used for fishing.
Another solution would be to set up fishing areas independent of commercial and fishing ports, so that safety can be ensured and multiple-use conflicts avoided.
However, this would require an authority in charge of recreational fishing, which is not clearly specified in the law.
The Ocean Conservation Administration’s ambitions to manage recreational angling can be seen in its organization of conferences and field studies of catch. It has also set up an online catch report system.
However, without sea-fishing regulations, it will not be possible to implement recreational sea-fishing management, such as setting up dedicated platforms, establishing catch data, limiting catch volumes and issuing licenses.
The Ocean Conservation Administration and the Ocean Affairs Council, which were established almost a year ago, might be the appropriate authorities for the integration of sea-fishing management, but without legislation there can be no such management. Formulating sea-fishing regulations must be the first priority.
Chen Chung-ling is a professor at National Cheng Kung University’s Institute of Ocean Technology and Marine Affairs.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry