The recent hikes in oil prices have meant that many fishermen are finding the money they get for their catch will not cover costs. Some can not see the point in even taking their boats out and are demanding more subsidies on the fuel they use.
Over the past 50 years the nation’s marine resources have been depleted by over 80 percent. In the Taiwan Strait, fish stocks are now only 10 percent of what they once were. This huge change in our marine ecology has meant that fishermen cannot afford to throw back fish that are considered too young.
The government is thinking about how to make the fishing industry sustainable and every year the Council of Agriculture’s Fisheries Agency spends huge amounts of money on measures designed to reduce the size of the fishing fleet in an attempt to reduce the number of fish being caught. These efforts, however, are being frustrated by advances in fishing technology which ensure that fishing vessels return to port loaded with a full catch.
The press coverage every year at the start of the tuna season down in Pingtung, when the first fish of the year comes in, is full of comments about how humans have conquered the oceans and how honorable this is (or should that be ignorant?)
Any government policy made on fishing nowadays needs to take into account the protection of fish stocks and the government should not allow votes to dictate policy direction.
The majority of fishing vessels use diesel, which the government subsidizes by 14 percent. This subsidy, together with an additional subsidy for gasoline and commodity and business tax exemptions, means that fishermen pay considerably lower than the market price for fuel.
The government also offers incentives for fishermen willing to accept a self-imposed fishing moratorium — in other words, not taking their boats out to sea. Fishing vessels based in Taiwanese ports or harbors that go out to sea for more than 90 days in a year and which also dock in the port for the same amount of time, can apply to the local fishery association for a moratorium subsidy, the actual amount of which will depend on the size of the vessel.
However, if we are to promote a sustainable fishing industry in Taiwan, the government should not be increasing fuel subsidies for fishing vessels. Instead, it should be relaxing the criteria for qualifying for volunteer fishing moratorium subsidies to encourage fishermen to stay in port.
Many fishing vessels are still having to go out fishing in order to accumulate their 90 or more days’ fishing so that they can qualify for the subsidies. Why not change the annual requirement to 120 days in port and 60 days fishing? That would reduce the size of the annual catch for the majority of fishermen, while ensuring that they could still receive the government subsidy. Such a policy would be a win-win situation.
We are going to face even greater challenges in the way we exploit our marine resources. In addition to the problem of over-fishing, which we currently need to address, there are other pressing issues which are cause for concern:Rises in ocean temperature which cause fish to move territory or even go extinct and the acidification of ocean waters are all contributing to the further depletion of our marine resources.
A country like Taiwan that depends on its thriving fishing industry cannot just sit idly by as it goes down — with all hands on deck.
Nien Ching-ko is a commentator writing on ecological issues.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS