...
United States of America's and Canada's fisheries are highly subsidized for many years. Most of the subsidies are generated by the government and monopoly. The main aim of their subsidies is to develop their domestic fisheries. Apart from that, they have also used approximately US$3,000,000,000 on income maintenance for unemployed fishermen and fish plant workers and improving fisheries science. In 1990s, when people start to realize the problem of overfishing, both countries started to subsidize to develop technologies to reduce capacity, new fishing vessels, to alleviate the over-fishing pressure.(Schrank, 2003)
Norway, one of the largest cod-catching countries, grants loans to their fishing industries to support the export of their fishing marketprotect its domestic fish production. They also grant loans to vessel arrangements, price support, insurance subsidies, operating subsidies, minimum income guarantees, vacation support and unemployment insurance, bait subsidies, gear subisidies and damage compensation) (Schrank, 2003)
Some are harmful; some may help to solve the problem of overfishing. In view of this, WTO agreed World Trade Organization advised on restricting subsidies designed to promote export and establish controls over other form of subsidies. However, Canada,Japan, and other countries with large fishery industry, endorses the "no-need approach" in which no restriction of subsidies should be imposed as they dispute the casual link between subsidies and overexploitation of fish resources. They propose fisheries management regimes deal with catch controls (quotas), effort controls (restrictions on boat size, engine power and days at sea, etc.) and right-based structures (permits, individual transferable quotas, etc.). Therefore, in Japan's view, it would be unfair if these varying situations are ignored and certain fisheries subsidies automatically prohibited. (Benitah, 2004)
...