Harmful subsidy has long been a major concern on biodiversity devastation, as such subsidies encourage production activities and thus exploitation of nature resources. As people may have seen, most global fishery conservation community have the perception that China has been subsidizing its fishery fleet through fuel. Therefore, China has been long accused for its fishery subsidies, as this is believed to be one of the major reasons that promoted fishery and devastate ocean ecosystem. However, I have recently heard a true story. If all proofs can be collected, this might shake the foundation of these blames. After the story, let’s revisit the question: did China really subsidize its fishery, in the sense of global definition?
China started its fishery subsidy in 2006, reformed in 2015 and 2021.
There was no fuel subsidy before 2006. While cars and boats consume fuel, car owners need to pay a fixed amount annually to road administrations as these administrations need to maintain and build roads. Car owners felt it unfair because some drove less than others. After debates, a new policy was adopted – instead of charging car owners at a fixed amount, the road management fee was eliminated but all fuel price rose 1 CNY per liter. The major three petroleum companies (all state-owned) would transfer the additional 1 CNY to the government for road maintenance. This solution was perfect – cars that used roads more, pay more. Then the fishermen got angry, as their boats never use roads but still pay the additional 1 CNY / liter. As a result, the Chinese government announced its fishery subsidy programme in 2006 to give the money back to fishermen for this unfair additional charge.
Such refund looks exactly the same as a fishery subsidy according to the mainstream definition, since it lowers the fuel price for fleets, but with a completely different rationale. Therefore, it is very hard for the government to eliminate the chunk of money, as there must be something returning to fishermen on the basis of fuel consumption. After the subsidy reformed in 2021, the amount was still kept, but distributed in different criteria: those who follow the moratorium policies, fishing gear regulations, reporting requirements, etc., could receive an “allowance” (I use a different term other than “subsidy” on purpose). The reform is still underway, and we are all observing.
OK, so let’s revisit this questions, if China can provide proofs that 1) the three major petroleum companies pay the road maintenance fee to the government; 2) the annual investment of road maintenance and building fee is higher than that amount, and 3) the annual refund to fishermen (formerly subsidy and currently “allowance”) is lower than the appropriate proportion for the additional charging from the fuel for boats, shall we still say that China is subsidizing its fishery?
I know this is very hard to prove. Even the government may be unable to coordinate within the ministries and find the answer. Anyhow, as China has adopted the Fisheries Subsidy Agreement, and already started its reform, let’s stop accusing but seek solutions.
Another interesting question for thinking: putting boats fuel aside, how should EV car owners (who do not consume any fuel but only electricity) pay their share on road maintenance? Will this be seen as a kind of subsidy on EV cards, or a penalty for the fuel cars? 🙂