You'd also need to include Norway, Iceland, Russia, and the North African countries.

The EU has experience in quota trading for milk, but for milk it does not really matter where the milk lake grows (or used to grow). Same for CO2 emissions trading, it does not really matter where CO2 is emitted.

It's different for fish, or ambient pollution.

The US style of fishing quotas has failed - at least along the New England shores. They are depleting everything and seem to be unable to enforce meaningful quotas.

Canada was in a different position along the Grand Banks. That too was fished out, but there was a difference. The local fishermen tried to prevent the overfishing, eventually the scientists joined in. It was the government that did it in. The difference was the presence of foreign (European) factory ships.

Looking at the history of other places - this provided someone to blame - a focus for who is at fault (Perhaps conveniently ignoring the rise in technology and size of Canadian catches.) Currently Canada has some meaningful quotas within the 200 mile limit - i.e. No Cod fishing at all. Outside the 200 mile limit, but within the Grand Banks, no such help is forthcoming from other countries from what I understand.

My mother reported back form a recent trip to Newfoundland - Cod is being served in some restaurants - so the locals are not following fishing quotas.

Your idea of compensation is a delicate balancing act. I wouldn't necessarily rule out politicians. As Canada has seen, it is possible to get them to act too - though in our case "after the horses have been stolen".

But what will Gylfason's proposition do? Place the market in the hands of those who can pay most, called here (in obedience with markety-market theory) the "most efficient", in fact the big fellows with the most capital. This means the elimination by the market of small fishermen, and the consecration of industrial fisheries. We are asked to suppose that control (and market) mechanisms would be sufficient to obtain respect of quotas.

But industrial fishing poses other problems. The destruction of the ecology of the seabed by trawler nets is an obvious one, interrupting the food chain and making it less likely than ever that stocks of many species may be reconstituted. Gylfason addresses the economy of fishing, but not the ecology.

Much stricter regulations on the size of boats and the types of nets need to be applied. That would go against Gylfason's vision of "efficient" "firms" with money, in other words against capitalisation. Let the small guys do the fishing, there'll be less harm done. Fish will be more expensive (and I'm an elitist once again)? Fish is going to be more expensive anyway.

on how long-term disaster is .. well forgot int erm of shor-term gain.

solutions? it all depends ont he kind of change you want. probably youc ould try to fix the present system by doing proper research and fixing the quota systems strongly.

the reality is that you would ahve to ban large fisehries so that small fisheries (employment intensive fisheries) woudl survive.

So, if you prefer cheap prices then this option is probablyt he best way to go.

if you look for employment, then you do not need to move to a Federal reserve Style board but reducing the captures and forbidding large ships...

This is one of thsoe situation where the rule of inflation and work are not both possible at the same time.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

The Spanish fishing sector has been warned long enough and quotas have been cut back, but they are loud and don´t want to change, so I´m closer to banning than wasting more time.  It is also a sector with a ´wild west´ attitude that breaks the rules because there is no enforcement and exploits immigrants.  

Turn industrial fishing boats into affordable housing, with solar panels/windmills, connected in patterns of planks to public transit on land...

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

1. The setting of fish quotas must be made independent of the industry's "economic needs" and based on scientifically established sustainable levels.

2. The Global fishing industry (outside 200 mile limits) needs to be regulated by UN Treaty because most  fish stock depletion takes place there.  This is where a system of tradeable fishing credits may be of value.

3. The allocation of quotas within territorial waters can be by market or political mechanisms - depending on local choice - as along as the total quota is set within 1. above.

4. Given that fishing capacity exceeds available supply of fish, capacity should be regulated by mandating the least destructive forms of fishing

5.  Enforcement of quotas in international waters needs to be made subject to international law and enforcement - e.g. UN mandated naval force

6. Enforcement within EU waters should be mandated and controlled at EU level.
   

No wonder this guy keeps deleting my comments!

 

Qui vit sans folie n'est pas si sage qu'il croit.