New Tax Scheme!!!!!! Write-up below:
One of the greatest challenges presented by the current plight of worldwide fisheries is that of preventing overfishing. This prevention, if successful, will be the single greatest improvement over the current situation. How is this to be achieved? As long as there is a demand for fish, there will be motivation to fish and a risk of overfishing. The best possible solution to the problem of overfishing will therefore be the one which has the most probability of limiting catches to the maximum sustainable yield level.
The first step to limiting the catch to a level that can maintain the maximum sustainable yield is to define maximum sustainable yield, which can be found in our fisheries management section. The next step is to determine numerically what this level must be. Data collected through fish tracking, population surveys, and other methods and technology, some of which are in use today and some of which are new and are suggested in other parts of our report, will be used to estimate the total population and health of the oceanic ecosystems all over the global. The result will be location-specific information about the amount of fish that can be taken from any given area in the world to still maintain a sustainable fishery.
Next comes the tricky part. Once it is known at what level each fishery in the world can be fished in order to achieve the maximum sustainable yield, how do we make sure that fisheries are only fished up to that level and no more? There are two methods to control the taking of fish from a fishery: a quota, or a tax.
Many quotas have been implemented over the last few decades. These quotas vary in type and specific purpose, but they all aim to set a limit on how much fish can be removed from a given fishery in order to prevent overfishing. Quotas are discussed in detail in other sections of this report, and they are a useful tool that we intend to continue using in a limited capacity. Yet a quota-only system has failed to deliver the widespread halt to overfishing that must be achieved in order to save the fish. Therefore, a new, novel approach must be applied to the problem, which is where a global taxation scheme comes in.
As per the suggestions of Professor Bill Wheaton, economics professor as MIT, the premise of the tax we propose is straightforward. Based on data collected on populations through the methods stated above, the ecological health of fish populations around the world and the relative risk of these populations being overfished and becoming depleted could be assessed by an international group of biologists. These biologists would split up the global international ocean into a number, perhaps between twenty and thirty, of distinct regions (Wheaton, 2007). The biologists would analyze the data from each region and determine the overall danger to fish populations in each of the regions. These biologist would then apprise a group of economists of their findings. The economists would use this information to set a tax that is heavier for fish caught in regions containing more depleted stocks and lighter for fish caught in areas where the populations are less at risk of being overfished, i.e. the level of fishing that can happen and still remain below or equal to the maximum sustainable yield is higher.
Currently, data on fish populations is generally collected and reported every two years, meaning that this team of biologists and economists would reset the tax at least every two years to account for changing conditions, and perhaps more often based on preliminary data, estimates, or sizable environmental changes (such as natural disasters). Alterations to the taxes at intervals would be necessary to keep them relevant and useful, since a permanent and static tax would simply encourage individuals to fish in areas that are lightly taxed, leading to overfishing and populations crashes. After a time of altering the taxes to fit changing conditions, the fluctuation of populations will reach a minimum at which only small tweaking of the tax is required, contingent on catastrophic events such as natural disasters and famines.
A tax on fishermen will drive up the price of fish for consumers, which will in turn decrease demand for fish and incentive to fish. The fisherman still has freedom to fish wherever he wants (within other constraints), but the tax will encourage him to avoid fishing in areas that are in more danger of being overfished.
In the case of subsistence fishing, we feel that quotas are still a better tool for maintaining a ceiling on the amount of fish caught for this purpose. Oftentimes subsistence fishermen have almost no choice about the location in which they fish, and they should not be penalized for this. This should also not be a reason for taking an unreasonable amount of fish.
The tax would be administered internationally by the United Nations, provided for by the addition to the Law of the Sea Treaty that we propose. Only member countries would collect the tax, which eliminates the issue of taxation without representation. The revenue of the tax would then be redistributed internationally to these member countries to allow them to fund other aspects of our plan, like encouraging fishermen to switch to more environmentally sound methods of fishing. Countries who have signed the treaty are bound by it to fish sustainably in their own waters, and a tax is just another way for them to enforce this.
The results of the tax as we propose would significantly contribute to solving the overfishing problem. The tax is not only a revenue-generating device, but we can also consider the tax to be covering the ecological and societal cost of taking each fish out of the ocean.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: we're not using a consumer tax. where's our new tax plan?
When a tax is placed on fish, a group of people will be paying money to cover the social environmental costs of fishing that is not included on the market price for fish. Levying a tax on fish can serve additional purposes. Taxing fishermen can limit the amount they can catch before it becomes economically unprofitable, essentially serving the same purpose as a quota. Taxing will also help decrease the demand for fish, which in turn will reduce the amount of fish that needs to be caught.
Establishing a fish tax will put the cost of depleting fisheries on the consumer. Similar to gasoline tax and cigarette taxes, an excise tax on fish will increase the cost of any fish products sold on the market. Currently there is a very high demand for fish, and if we are to keep a sustainable global fish population, we cannot catch the number of fish needed to meet this demand. An increase in fish prices will not only discourage consumers from buying more fish, thus lowering the demand, but it will make them aware of the crisis in our oceans today. Though this will make it so the lower class will have difficulty affording fish, in America and other developed countries, there are other protein options available, and fish prices will have little negative effect on public health. This taxing scheme would not be applicable in developing nations.