Who should Pay to Preserve the Marine Environment?(Thalassorama‪)‬

Why are many environmental policies incompletely implemented and weakly enforced when public sentiment for conserving marine resources and minimizing marine pollution is so strong (Panayotou 1993, Thorne-Miller and Catena 1991)? One important answer is that, when benefits are distributed broadly and the costs are concentrated, representative democratic governments often delay, dilute, or dispense with actions to maintain environmental quality. One useful tool for achieving higher levels of environmental qualities is to compensate those who suffer economic losses (Burtraw 1991). Compensation (providing cash or in-kind replacement of a lost resource) and mitigation (modifying actions so that the final outcome has a smaller impact) play important roles in conserving marine fisheries. Mitigation measures include development of alternative fisheries, construction of public infrastructure to entice new marine industries into fishing communities, and job training programs. Compensation measures include vessel reduction programs, which are also known as buyback, buydown, and scrapping programs. Although these programs have been judged harshly by narrow economic efficiency criteria, they help offset economic and social dislocation during times that fishing fleets must be downsized or diverted to other fisheries.