AFAIK it cannot catch fish, but only process and freeze it. That doesn't make it less grim though.

BTW, it seems it's declared as an IUU (pirate) ship. Don't know whether it's still operating or is it possible to operate under these conditions.

That ship was renamed as Vladivostok 2000 and is currently moored in Russia.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:34...

And there is the problem you immediately point to this individual McHugh and others like him, and I'm not defending him, but the problem is that the corruption went right the whole way to the top of "democratic" system of Ireland. It was politically untenable for the Irish government to admit this vessel was breaking the rules and they should/did know it would but tried their damnedest to make it work, for whatever popular brownie points they'd get for it.

Perhaps confiscation of the cargo and immediate sale at well below market rate?

That would tank the market and hurt all fishermen. Thus all fishermen would have a vested interest in policing themselves.

Declare it piracy and sink-on-sight.

It's so tragic it's almost comical. The whole fishing industry is about £700 million industry and yet somehow is a huge dog whistle in politics.

Compare to the night time entertainment industry which is a £66 billion industry. When it was effectively shut down indefinitely by covid-19 the governments response was to tell them to go retrain as cyber experts.

I think so too... but the political fallout from the job loses is too great. It reminds me of the oil industry in America. It's clearly harmful, it and clearly needs to be reduced going forward, but no one wants to be the one to do it, so the can just gets kicked further down the road.

The costs of fishing are finding, catching and processing the fish. This boat might increase the efficiency of the last two and only marginally the first.

Increasing the stock of fish might reduce the costs of finding the fish.

Perhaps an exclusive lease of a fishing area would give boat owners an incentive to reduce fishing pressure, increase fish stocks and reduce the cost of finding the fish. Potentially outweighing the investment required to build a boat like this?

Let's not attribute to malice what is a result of dysfunctional government regulations with unintended consequences.

The seas are huge, but fisheries aren't. Seafood is actually getting pretty scarce, and fisheries don't scale link agriculture on land does. We have overfished the oceans and this is having dreadful ecological effects.

I agree I’d prefer 1-10 big ships for the whole region and then just put all your inspectors on those boats with the ability to impose heavy fines. The problem isn’t the ship is the tiny fines that are imposed for illegal activity

Thanks to the EU for setting that up

There is actually a very good reason why many people have already replaced fish consumption with algal farms: bioamplified and persistent environmental pollution, particularly mercury. The only unique nutritional value of fish is in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, which the fish get from algae. This is commonly marketed as "Algae EPA DHA" at very large markups (I pay about $20 for two months' supply at my local rich people organic food store).

We are on fire but won't put down the cigarette

>Nations can't properly coordinate these things.

Sure they can, at least in theory and sometimes in practice. The article describes several countries’ navies intercepting the Atlantic Dawn, arresting members of her crew, and convicting them of crimes. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines who can fish where. Many countries vigorously enforce this treaty.

Unfortunately, the ability to regulate overfishing does not imply a willingness to do so, and signatory status to UNCLOS does not imply a willingness to abide by its rules. For instance, the country with world’s largest navy is currently using its sea power to fish in other countries’ waters, in stark violation of the UNCLOS and good environmental sense:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56474847

>Two years ago, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte defended his non-confrontational approach to the maritime dispute with a quip about Chinese President Xi Jinping.

>"When Xi says 'I will fish' who can prevent him?" he said, quoted by the Associated Press. "If I send my marines to drive away the Chinese fishermen, I guarantee you not one of them will come home alive."

If China, the US, and the EU all agreed to enforce UNCLOS and help smaller countries regulate overfishing, they could do it. The technical capabilities exist. The legal frameworks are already in place. It’s a matter of political will.

I'd say the system for coordination is pretty good in Europe.

There is a specialist EU agency for fisheries inspection (The EFCA located in Vigo, Spain) A lot is being done there to ensure the rules are abided. Placing inspectors on board, tracking the behaviour of the boats, and so on. But of course the budgets of this agency are nowhere near that of the agency for medicine or chemistry, and cheating is easy when you're alone at sea (using hidden compartiments for example).

The European Commission has a Directorate-General for fisheries, which does research on how much fish there is, and negotiates treaties on fisheries quotas with other nations. I believe they have great intentions, but not every one cares about sustainability, and if money talks countries like China can outbid the EU.

Source: My dad was known as the Eliot Ness of fisheries.

There is a simple way to fix this.

1. Introduce tight quotas and enforce them strictly. 2. Only allow imports from nations that follow the same, or a stricter, protocol. 2.a Alternatively, enforce an import quota or prevent imports completely. 3. Measure the effect and adapt quotas if necessary.

Now I am not a marine biologist, but I presume that the areas where quotas are enforced are of utmost importance in that matter. So the difficult part is to get many nations on board and define meaningful areas of the high seas that are then protected.