Given competing goals:
1) Improving the economic lot of the fishermen
2) Improving the quality of the fish coming from them
3) Making sure the trade is sustainable
4) Stopping the use of illegal and destructive fishing methods.
As I see it, all of these goals *cost* money, which raises the cost of fish.
Previously, it has be argued that with improved efficiency (better catching and holding techniques leading to lowered mortality rates leading to more money) can lead to better incomes.
It has also been argued that a small amount of money offered as a premium for net-caught fish (say 10%) could allow these goals to occur.
The real question becomes: Can this actually occur and be economically viable?
I have my own thoughts. I'd like to hear yours.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
1) Improving the economic lot of the fishermen
2) Improving the quality of the fish coming from them
3) Making sure the trade is sustainable
4) Stopping the use of illegal and destructive fishing methods.
As I see it, all of these goals *cost* money, which raises the cost of fish.
Previously, it has be argued that with improved efficiency (better catching and holding techniques leading to lowered mortality rates leading to more money) can lead to better incomes.
It has also been argued that a small amount of money offered as a premium for net-caught fish (say 10%) could allow these goals to occur.
The real question becomes: Can this actually occur and be economically viable?
I have my own thoughts. I'd like to hear yours.
Regards.
Mike Kirda