There are however some cases where government needs to come in such as in cases of environmental protection. Where there are no controls put in place, people tend to harvest natural resources without thinking about the future, environment, and the like.
This is the case in fisheries where we need to put in place time and spatial closures to ensure that the fish stock as provided an opportunity to spawn and regenerate succeeding young ones, where we put in capacity limits to ensure that we do not over harvest and gear restrictions so that we do not catch non-target species. In order to do that, we put in a police force, so to speak, to ensure compliance. Hence, we need a monitoring, control and surveillance systems to ensure compliance.
That costs money but what price do you put on the loss of species, especially those that we usually harvest for food.
In this case, markets are altered due to government regulations. Without it, we might end up in a situation where the sardines were lost in the case of one North American country in their Pacific coast.
Then my perennial friendly co-debater in the UPSE alumni ygroups, Mike Alunan, suggested the following.
We are only starting to develop aquaculture and mariculture fishing systems, which include sea ranching, sea farming, floating cage fish production, etc.
But you may possibly tax demersal fish like lapu-lapu, as it penalizes the wealthier consumers, who can afford anyway...
tax specific fish catch as they are unloaded on fishports or at fish markets. There are basically two types of fish: 1) “Demersal fish,” like “Lapu-Lapu” which are more expensive and caught near shores mostly by small fishermen; 2) “Pelagic Fish” or those “schools of fish” like galung-gong that are caught by deep-sea fish operators.
In short, the fish eaten by the poor like galunggong are caught by the richer fish operators, while the more expensive fish like “Lapu-lapu” are caught normally by small fishermen, whose numbers and operations in near shore fish sanctuaries are putting pressures on fishery resources. It is more likely that the small to medium fishermen are the ones involved in illegal fishing methods like dynamite fishing that damage coral reefs and fish sanctuaries.
Taxes may not be slapped on galunggong so as to keep down prices of cheaper fish bought and consumed by the poor. But you may possibly tax demersal fish like lapu-lapu, as it penalizes the wealthier consumers, who can afford anyway. If it increases prices of lapu-lapu further, it is alright as the poor is not affected anyway as they do not really buy this type of fish. But for the wealthier consumers, they may not care much about the price as they are even willing to pay premium prices and dine at high-end fine-dining restaurants.
Fishery Resource Exploitation Excise (FREE) tax, which will be a fee which means it is not really free ironically. Being a tax, Nonoy may likely oppose this again.
This taxation system on fishery resources will in the end be a “market-oriented” fiscal policy to regulate this resource through a pricing system that is induced by a proposed taxation system, that is also intended to generate the necessary fund to bankroll credit for ice cold storage facilities, dryers and other processing equipment for fishing communities.
Tax Cut 12: Removing Taxes on Foreign Airlines, April 02, 2012
Tax Cut 13: Remove the Excise Tax on Oil Products, July 04, 2012
Tax Cut 14: APTU Meeting in Bangkok, March 1-2, January 22, 2013
Tax Cut 15: Some Resistance to Reducing Personal Income Tax, May 04, 2013