OECD Review of Fisheries 2025

Governments support their fisheries sectors with the aim of ensuring the sustainability of fish resources; maintaining competitiveness, incomes, regional employment and food security; and in response to major disruptions that threaten the sector (for example the COVID-19 pandemic). But while government support to fisheries can improve the health of fish stocks and ecosystems, increase fish stock productivity, and build resilience in the fisheries sector, it can also result in undesirable outcomes when it encourages the build-up of excess fishing capacity; overfishing; and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing (Martini and Innes, 2018[1]) and (OECD, 2022[2]). To ensure support benefits the fishers who need it and contributes to stated goals, governments need to understand how public money is being spent, where benefits are distributed and how it impacts all dimensions of the sector’s performance.

Transparency is essential to monitor the implementation of international commitments to avoid detrimental impacts of government support on biodiversity and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems. Key commitments in this respect include Target 14.6 of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14, which calls for the phasing out of harmful fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing, overcapacity and IUU fishing; and Target 18 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which invites to redirect, repurpose, reform or eliminate incentives harmful for biodiversity, in a just and equitable way.

A major step towards implementing those commitments was taken with the adoption, by World Trade Organization (WTO) members, of the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS) in June 2022. The agreement has three main prohibitions: it prohibits subsidising vessels or operators engaged in IUU fishing and fishing-related activities, subsidising fishing and fishing-related activities regarding an overfished stock if there are no measures to rebuild that stock and subsidising fishing or fishing-related activities outside of the jurisdiction of a coastal Member or a coastal non-Member and outside the competence of a relevant RFMO/A. The agreement will enter into force once two-thirds of WTO Members have deposited their instrument of acceptance of the Protocol of the WTO AFS (at the end of December 2024, 87 deposits were received and 24 more were needed for entry into force). In addition, since 2022, WTO members have continued discussions to achieve a comprehensive agreement on fisheries subsidies, including through further disciplines on certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. Up-to-date information on support policies is necessary to inform these negotiations but also as a basis for reform prioritisation and implementation.

Understanding support to fisheries is also highly relevant to the objective of “ending hunger and achieving food security by 2030” (as pledged in SDG 2) and achieving resilient food systems that minimise impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems and the climate. It is equally relevant to global discussions on the ocean-climate nexus, including on how to adapt ocean-based sectors to the impacts of climate change and how to support the energy transition of ocean-based sectors, for example through the financing of research on the development of low-carbon vessels. With the urgent need to reduce GHG emissions, which has led to the adoption of both national and international economy-wide emission reduction targets, commitments and strategies (notably under the Paris Agreement and the International Maritime Organization) there is growing focus on how to optimally allocate fisheries support. The key challenge lies in balancing socio-economic policy objectives with emissions reductions and determining how much public investment is needed to accelerate the decarbonisation of the sector.

This chapter provides unique evidence for all these important policy debates by measuring and analysing countries’ fisheries support policies building on the latest update of the OECD Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE) database. Chapter 7 analyses the potential impact these policies might have, notably on fish stock health, a major dimension of the sector’s sustainability and profitability.

This chapter explores trends in support to fisheries over the period 2010-22 for the 41 countries and territories covered by this edition of the Review of Fisheries, either at the level of ‘all countries and territories’, or at the level of ‘the OECD Members’ and ‘the non-Members’ among them.1 It makes use of the OECD FSE database (Box 6.1), reporting values in nominal USD. To reduce any influence of short-term fluctuations in government spending (which can be influenced by budget cycles), three-year rolling averages are used when discussing the data, and the periods 2010-12, 2015-17 and 2020-22 are used as reference periods when the level of detail is too high to present or discuss the entire time series.

This analysis starts with a discussion of the total level of support provided to the capture fisheries sector, along with how this has changed over the last decade. These headline values give an overview of the magnitude of government intervention in the sector and are contextualised by considering them relative to different measures of sector size. Considering support in relation to the value of the industry’s output (%), levels of employment (USD per fisher) and total fleet capacity (USD per gross tonnage [GT]) provides comparable measures of the intensity at which support is provided (Figure 6.2). The chapter then discusses in detail what this public money is being used to support, i.e. the policy mix. Chapter 7 explores and discusses the potential impact of this support on the sustainability of resources.

Total support to fisheries was USD 10.7 billion per year on average in 2020-22 for the 41 countries and territories covered in this edition (Table 6.1). It has fluctuated over the last decade, but slowly trended downwards: average total spending in 2020-22 was 3% lower than what it was in 2010-12 (USD 11.1 billion). Over the period considered, total support peaked in 2012-14 (at USD 12.9 billion) and was lowest in 2016-18 (at USD 9.0 billion) (Figure 6.1).

Source: OECD (2025), Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE).

Total support also decreased in relative terms. Total support averaged USD 552 per fisher per year in 2020-22, down from USD 612 in 2010-12 and equated to 10.6% of the value of landings in 2020-22, down by 2 percentage points from 12.6% in 2010-12, for the countries and territories covered in this report for which value of landings data was available (Table 6.1).2 While the reduction in the total value of support contributed to the fall in the share of total support relative to the value of landings, a proportionally larger increase in the value of landings was the main driver. The total value of landings increased from USD 77.7 billion in 2010-12 to USD 88.6 billion in 2020-22 (up 14%).

The OECD Members’ support totalled USD 5.5 billion per year, on average, in 2020-22. The total declined slightly in the first half of the period, to a low of USD 4.5 billion in 2015-17, but grew afterwards, resulting in an overall trend of increased spending over the last decade (Figure 6.1).

Support reported by the OECD Members equated to 15.2% of their value of landings in 2020-22, an increase of almost 3 percentage points compared to 2010-12 (at 12.6%). This increase is partly due to greater spending on support, but it was mainly the result of a continued decline in the value of landings in the OECD Members (which fell by 12%) over the period considered. On a per fisher basis, total FSE for the OECD Members equated to USD 5 722 per year in 2020-22, up from USD 4 707 in 2010-12 (Table 6.1). The growth was predominantly driven by the 13% reduction in employment over the same period.

Non-Members provided USD 5.2 billion in total support per year, on average, in 2020-22 (). Their level of support varied over the period but generally trended downwards (from USD 5.9 billion in 2010-12) and fell by a notable 33% compared to its peak in 2012-14 (USD 7.8 billion).

The intensity of support, with respect to both the value of landings and employment in the sector, has also fallen. In the non-Members for which the value of landings is also available, spending on support equated to 7.6% of landing value in 2020-22, down from 14.1% in 2011-13. A decrease in total support contributed to this trend, but the trend was primarily the result of a strong increase in the value of landings in these countries and territories (up 44% between 2010-12 and 2020-22). Support per fisher averaged USD 283 per year in 2020-22, also a notable reduction compared to its peak of USD 468 in 2012-14 (Table 6.1), the result of both reduced levels of support and increased levels of employment in the sector. Employment in this group grew by a total of 8% over the period, 90% of which occurred in India.

Six economies accounted for 85% of all support reported in the FSE in 2020-22, and the top four alone for 70% (China, 36.1%; Japan, 12.4%; the United States, 11.0%; Canada, 10.7%; EU Member States [combined], 8.0%; and Brazil, 6.4%). India, Korea and Norway each accounted for 2-4% of total reported support, while Denmark and Sweden (contributors to the EU figure) individually accounted for 1-2% (Figure 6.2). The remaining 14 countries in the FSE each accounted for less than 1% of the total. While the total level of support has varied over time, the six economies providing most support have remained unchanged over the entire data period (2010-22); the proportion of total support they account for has averaged 85% and been relatively stable (with a minimum of 81% and a maximum of 88%).

The six economies providing the greatest absolute levels of support are also all among the largest fishing nations in the world in terms of either fleet capacity, level of employment or value of landings. In 2020-22, China ranked highest for both fleet capacity and value of landings, and third for employment. Proportional to the size of their sectors, these six economies are not exceptional in their support intensity (Figure 6.2). However, the overall size of their fishing sector means that they are globally important, as is the mix of policies they use, and the management and enforcement environment under which their supported fisheries operate.3

When looking at support intensity, evaluated in proportion to the size of the sector, the group of highest providers of support in 2020-22 differs from the one seen when only absolute spending is considered; in addition, the composition of the group varies to some extent depending on the measure of fishery size being used (Figure 6.2). As a share of the value of landings, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, Poland, Bulgaria and Croatia provided the greatest intensities of support. Per fisher, support was greatest in Denmark, Sweden, Slovenia, New Zealand, Norway and Canada while per gross tonnage of fleet capacity, the highest levels of support were provided by Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, Brazil, Denmark and Poland. Any interpretation and cross-comparison of total support and intensity measures should however consider that figures are impacted both by different levels of data reporting completeness (e.g. only 12 countries and territories report support to fuel – see Figure 6.6) and by the domestic context (e.g. processes of fleet consolidation and sectoral transformation).

In addition to a general decline in the total level of support being provided, the mix of policies used to deliver that support has changed over time (Figure 6.3). Support to fuel, once the predominant form of support provided to the industry, accounted for 12% of total support in 2020-22, down from a high of 46% in 2012-14 (falling from USD 5.9 billion to USD 1.3 billion in the same period). Of the countries that report support to fuel, almost all have substantially reduced absolute levels of spending on fuel. However, the lack of information on support to fuel that is granted to fisheries alongside other sectors (sometimes referred to as “non-specific” support) means the true scale of fuel support and how it is changing over time remain uncertain are not completely understood (see below, the detailed discussion of trends in spending on fuel support).

Support to MMCS, in contrast, increased in both in absolute terms (from USD 2.7 billion in 2010-12 to USD 3.1 billion in 2020-22), and in relative terms (as it accounted for 29% of total support in 2020-22, more than at any point in the last decade). The increase in MMCS was driven by the OECD Members, as support in this area by non‑Members actually decreased between 2010-12 and 2020-22 (Figure 6.3c).

The proportion of support allocated to infrastructure was relatively stable over the period, while income support declined initially before doubling by the end of the period. These trends, and what underlies them, are discussed in more detail below.

When the policy mix in the OECD Members is compared with that in non-Members, some pronounced differences in how support is delivered can be observed (Figure 6.3). In the OECD Members, overall, the level and composition of support has been relatively stable over the last decade (Figure 6.3b). MMCS has consistently been the main form of support provided and accounted for 49% of total support in 2020-22, having increased slightly over the last decade (from USD 2.3 billion to USD 2.7 billion between 2010-12 and 2020-22).

Second to this are support to infrastructure and to income (both at 16% in 2020-22). Support to income showed the greatest proportional change, almost doubling over the data period (from USD 0.5 billion to USD 0.9 billion), with most of the increase occurring during and after 2020, as governments used support policies to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on fishers. As the direct impacts of the COVID‑19 pandemic appear to have now passed, it is uncertain how trends in support to income will develop going forward. Further, as climate drives shifts in resources and changes in abundance (Chapter 4), supporting adaptation by affected communities could increasingly start to influence the support policy mix – for example, increased income support and education and training for fishers changing gears or leaving the sector. Faced with climate change, governments will need to find ways to do more with existing forms of support (e.g. management, income, training) and with greater flexibility.

Reported support to fuel accounted for 3% of the OECD mix in the 2020-22 period, having fallen by 55% since 2010-12 (from USD 371.9  million to USD 166.9  million).

In non-Members, overall, the policy support mix has changed significantly since 2010-12 (Figure 6.3c). In 2020-22, support to income (36%) was the largest form of support provided, followed by support to fuel (21%), support to MMCS (8%) and support to infrastructure (7%). In addition to a major decline in support to fuel, which has been occurring for most of the time period, support to income began to increase from 2017-19, and in 2019-21 overtook fuel to become the main form of support in this group. Contrary to what was seen in the OECD, the driving force in this case appears to not have been COVID-related income support, but support provided to assist Chinese fishers through fishery closures in China.

Policy mixes also vary across individual countries and territories, with large differences seen in some cases in the 2020-22 period (Figure 6.4). Looking at the absolute levels of support provided in 2020-22 highlights how the choice of policy mix in the largest fisheries supporters can influence the overall composition of support to fisheries (Figure 6.4). For example, while most non-Members increased spending on MMCS between 2010-12 and 2020-22, the trend in this group has fallen due to reductions in spending by China and Brazil. The size of China’s fisheries, and the support they receive, strongly influence the totals and trends of any aggregate of which it is part.

Support to MMCS – composed of support to management, monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), and stock assessment research – has been increasing, accounting for close to half of all support in the OECD in 2020-22, compared to less than 10% of support in non-member countries on average. Overall, between 2020 and 2022, an annual average of USD 3.1 billion was spent on MMCS, the majority of which was used for fisheries management (USD 2.38 billion). The remainder contributed to the MCS of fishing activities (USD 0.53 billion). In addition, an average of USD 181.1  million annually was spent on stock assessment research. With respect to fleet size, USD 87 was spent on MMCS per gross tonnage (GT) (management accounting for USD 66/GT and MCS for USD 21/GT).

Overall, spending on MMCS has increased in recent years, with over two-thirds of the countries in the FSE database spending more in absolute terms and with respect to their fleet size in 2020-22 than in 2010-12 (when total spending was of USD 2.7 billion). However, the allocation of spending in that category also varied. While spending on management increased by a third between 2010-12 and 2020-22, spending on MCS fell by a comparable proportion (-30%). The overall increase in total MMCS (+14%) was due to the larger initial size of spending on management.

Across the OECD Members, spending on MMCS accounted for 49% of the total FSE in the period 2020-22. Support for management was USD 2.0 billion, a 24% increase compared to 2010-12. While spending increased in most OECD Members, the overall growth observed was primarily due to increased spending by Canada and the United States.4 On other hand, support for MCS fell by 2% across the OECD Members. Substantial reductions in spending on MCS by Australia, Ireland, Norway and Türkiye were offset by increased spending in most other countries. The largest absolute increases in spending on MCS occurred in Sweden, Chile and the United States, while the greatest proportional increases took place in Latvia, Sweden, Lithuania and Iceland. The intensity of spending in the OECD Members followed the same trends as absolute spending, increasing to USD 179/GT for management (up 25%), and remaining at USD 70/GT for MCS (unchanged, due to a concurrent 8% reduction in OECD GT). Reductions in MCS can be driven by changes in threats or circumstances. Investment in MCS remains a priority for many OECD members.

In non-Members, spending on MMCS accounted for 8% of the total FSE in 2020-22. Support for management was USD 0.35 billion in 2020-22, twice the level reported for 2010-12, driven by a 702% increase in China (from USD 28.2  million to USD 226.4  million between 2010‑12 and 2020-22). Management spending increased in all but three of the non-Members covered in this report (Brazil, Peru, and Viet Nam). At the same time, support for MCS in non-Members fell by 81% over the decade, mostly due to China reducing support to MCS (from USD 258.1  million to USD 0.5  million). However, support to MCS also fell in Brazil (by 94%) and Viet Nam (with no value identified for 2020-22). Intensities of spending followed the same trends, reflecting these changes, and in 2020-22 were USD 24/GT for management (up by 129%) and USD 2.7/GT for MCS (down 89%).

The observed increases in spending on management are encouraging, but the intensity of spending on management remains well below the overall average in all but one of the non-Members. Moreover, in the absence of additional information, reductions in support for MCS may signal challenges for sustainable fisheries management in these countries. This is especially the case for China, where the value of support for MCS in 2020-22 was by far the lowest in terms of intensity (USD 0.05/GT, which is less than 1% of the OECD Members’ average) (Figure 6.5).

MMCS are all key elements of ensuring sustainable and profitable fisheries. What constitutes an adequate level of spending on either management or MCS is context-specific and beyond the scope of this report, but where the intensity of spending is low compared to the majority of other countries, there could be limited and low-quality stock assessments (Chapter 5), which may be undermining fisheries management, resulting in overfishing, and suboptimal outcomes in terms of food production, fisheries profitability, the sector’s ability to generate tax income for the government. The sector’s ability to generate tax revenue relates to the sometimes-overlooked fact that the fish resource is a national capital resource that should be managed to be sustainable and productive for society as a whole. It should be noted, however, that the values of support reported for MMCS and stock assessment are potentially underestimates in some cases. Funding for these activities can be provided by multiple agencies, or agencies tasked with broad sets of responsibilities. Sufficiently detailed records of how budgets are ultimately dispersed are not always available, sometimes making identifying exact numbers difficult. The amount spent on stock assessment research could also be underestimated due to the additional difficulty of identifying this specific component in the overall amounts reported on MMCS.

Of the 41 countries and territories covered in this review, six did not report any values for support to management for the years 2020-22 (three OECD Members and three non-Members) and seven did not report any support to MCS (five OECD Members and two non-Members). Given that all countries perform at least some level of MMCS, and these activities are rarely directly and entirely funded by the industry, no expenditure in these areas is unlikely.5

In addition to possible reporting difficulties, there are some situations where elements of services such as MMCS or stock assessment may be at least partially funded directly by the industry itself. Any such private transactions should not be reported to the FSE and could represent a further complication for determining the true extent of spending on services such as MMCS. However, in most cases, it is expected that MMCS is largely funded by the government in the first place, with recovery of costs though payments by the sector, that would appear as such in the FSE, counterbalancing spending on MMCS when computing net total support.

Of the 41 countries and territories covered in the FSE, 15 reported having polices that supported fuel consumption at some point between 2010-12 and 2020-22. In 2020-22, 12 countries and territories reported providing fuel support, totalling an average of USD 1.3 billion per year (12% of the total FSE); eight of these were OECD Members (with a total of USD 0.17 billion from Costa Rica, Denmark, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and Türkiye); four were non-Members (with a total of USD 1.1 billion from China, Croatia, India and Chinese Taipei).

The intensity of fuel support is the highest in the OECD Members, which together provided a combined average of USD 174 per fisher in fuel support in 2020-22 (down from USD 337 per fisher in 2010-12). In non-Members, fuel support per fisher averaged USD 54 (down from USD 208 in 2010-12).

Support to fuel fell by 71% between 2010-12 and 2020-22. The vast majority (96%) of the fall in fuel support comes from an almost USD 4.5 billion reduction in China’s support to fuel (from annual spending of USD 5.50 billion in 2012-14 to USD 1.04 billion in 2020-22). However, despite this substantial reduction, Chinese support to fuel still accounted for 81% of the combined support to fuel consumption from all countries and territories in 2020-22, and for 10% of the total FSE. Over a decade, the magnitude of fuel support policies in China has thus driven the levels and trends in fuel support seen for all countries and territories.

The value of support to fuel also fell in all but three of the countries and territories that reported it between 2010-12 and 2020-22. The only substantial increase occurred in India, where the absolute level of support to fuel more than doubled over the period (from USD 24.9 million to USD 60.8 million).

While support to fuel can help maintain fishers’ profitability in the short term by reducing one of their major costs, it can be problematic. For example, reducing the cost of fuel reduces the incentive to use it more efficiently, with potential adverse effects on the sector’s productivity and investment in emission-reducing technologies. Most countries have made commitments at the national and international levels to reduce CO₂ emissions and move towards a carbon-neutral future. Reducing the cost of consuming fuel directly undermines these commitments. Support to fuel can also result in higher levels of fishing effort than would otherwise be the case, with potentially detrimental effects on fish stock health if fishing pressure is not well controlled (Chapter 5). Support that lowers the cost of fuel has also been shown to be inequitable, by disproportionately benefiting fuel-intensive operations, thereby reducing the competitiveness of smaller scale fishers and making them worse off (Martini and Innes, 2018[1]). The overall fall in support to fuel specifically benefiting fisheries is thus positive news.

However, support to fuel is inconsistently recorded in the FSE database and country-level data and caution should be taken when making comparisons. Fishing sectors often also benefit from fuel-related policies not solely directed at fisheries (often referred to as non-specific support). These non-specific policies can benefit a range of economic sectors in addition to fisheries, such as forestry, shipping and off‑road vehicles, often by providing tax exemptions or rebates of excise duties. A review of the OECD Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels found at least one non-specific policy that benefited the fisheries sector for most of the countries covered in this report, suggesting they are a common form of support to fisheries (OECD, 2024[3]). Recording the support provided by non-specific policies to the FSE is recommended, but not mandatory, and in many cases, it is not reported, in part due to methodological difficulties related to quantifying the value of fuel tax concessions in comparable ways across countries, sectors and time. If non-specific support to fuel was reported by all the countries and territories that provide it, Figure 6.6 would look considerably different.

When considering only countries reporting fuel support to the FSE for 2020-22 (Figure 6.6), the intensity of fuel support was USD 95 per fisher. For the OECD Members reporting fuel support, the intensity was USD 2 542 per fisher; that for non-Members reporting fuel support was USD 83 per fisher.

Support for the buyback of vessels and licenses, typically used to reduce overall capacity was, at different times between 2010-12 and 2020-22, used by more than half the countries in the FSE database. The number of countries reporting support for the buyback of vessels and licenses has, however, more than halved since 2010-12.

In 2020-22, only eight countries and territories continued to use such policies: Australia, China, Germany, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy and Chinese Taipei. In the most recent period, altogether, they spent USD 912.5  million on vessel and license buybacks, with the vast majority of spending originating outside the OECD (USD 817.4  million by the non-Members vs. USD 95.2  million by the OECD Members).

However, total spending has increased by 231% compared to 2010-12, notably in recent years, and largely due to increased spending on vessel buyback in China (close to 90% of total vessel or licence buybacks in 2020-22), as well as, to a lesser extent, in Germany, Korea and Latvia. Changing policy priorities in China, oriented towards improving sustainability in domestic waters, resulted in an increase in policies providing support for capacity reduction through the buyback of vessels or licenses, most notably from 2016 onwards. Such policies peaked in 2020 with the Yangtze River Fishing Ban, a policy prohibiting fishing in key parts of the Yangtze River Basin, that provided funding for decommissioning over the period 2018-20, peaking at USD 1.7 billion in 2020.

In 2020-22, support for the construction and modernisation of vessels was USD 389  million, a small increase compared to 2010-12 (USD 347.9  million) but a substantial reduction from its peak of USD 782  million in 2015-17. In the FSE database, vessel-related support is categorised as either support for vessel construction and purchase or support for vessel modernisation and the purchase of gear. In general, the majority of the countries in the database have provided some level of support for vessel modernisation and the purchase of gear, presumably at least in part due to the constant and ongoing need for vessels to be repaired or improved. While improvements may be to increase performance (such as energy efficiency), this support may also help fishers meet safety requirements and ensure a satisfactory level of safety. Fewer countries provide support for vessel construction and purchase and, in general, when they do it is more sporadic, potentially due to the recognised risk that this type of support can more directly contribute to overcapacity.

Among the OECD Members, at least 90% of total spending on vessels has been consistently allocated to vessel modernisation and gear purchase. In 2020-22, support for modernisation and gear purchase was USD 68.4  million per year on average (USD 71.1 per fisher or USD 8.9/GT), whereas support for construction and vessel purchase was USD 3.9  million per year (USD 4.1 per fisher or USD 0.7/GT). Most of the support for vessel purchase was directed towards assisting young fishers to enter the industry.

Non-Members also allocated most vessel support for modernisation and gear purchase at the beginning of the period (2010-14), but this was overtaken by support to construction and purchase in the middle of the time series, as China introduced a programme funding primarily the construction of new vessels for its distant water fisheries (which, at its peak in 2015-17, allocated more than USD 500  million per year). In 2020-22, non-Members allocated a total of USD 145.1  million for vessel construction and purchase (USD 7.1 per fisher, or USD 12/GT) and USD 171.6  million for modernisation and purchase of gear (USD 8.4 per fisher, or USD 14.1/GT).

Climate change mitigation and decarbonisation objectives are potential motivators for increased future spending on vessel modernisation and gear purchase. A number of countries have policies to support the purchase of more fuel-efficient gears and engines or other fuel-saving technology. Of the 84 policies that provided support for modernisation in the period 2020-22, 25 explicitly mention climate change. Prior to 2016, no modernisation and gear policies referred to climate change. The growth in the number of policies that explicitly consider climate change is a potentially positive development and an area to follow as it is not risk-free in terms of the incentives it can create for increasing total fishing effort. Support directed at technical innovation to reduce fuel consumption also has the potential to reduce fishing costs, and must be carefully implemented as, without effective management controls, increased harvesting efficiency can result in overfishing and overcapacity (Box 6.2).

In 2020-22, support to fisher income totalled USD 2.7 billion. In the OECD Members, spending on income support totalled USD 0.88 billion, while non-Members together spent USD 1.89 billion. Income support has doubled in magnitude in both groups since 2010-12, with the strongest period of growth occurring over the second half of the decade.

The overall intensity of income support, measured in relation to the number of fishers, was ten times higher for OECD group (USD 912 per fisher) than that of non-Members (USD 91 per fisher) in 2020-22 (Figure 6.7). This is predominantly a reflection of higher levels of employment in non-Members (India alone accounted for more than 50% of all fishers in the 41 countries and territories covered in this report in 2020‑22). However, this gap in income support intensity may also partly reflect general differences in budget constraints, average living costs and minimum wages between the two groups. Country-level variation in the intensity of income support is also high within the OECD Members (Figure 6.7).

Income support is provided to the fishing sector in a diverse manner of ways and may be open-ended in duration, such as to compensate fishers in the event of intermittent but ongoing incidents of catch depredation, or fixed, in response to specific events, such as fleet restructuring or disaster relief. Examples of recurrent income support include the “Defeso” programme in Brazil, a support policy which compensates artisanal fishers for foregone revenue during the closed seasons, when fishing is forbidden for sustainable management purposes (FAO and UNDP, 2023[4]). Examples of disaster relief can be found in how governments responded to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and their attempts to mitigate the impacts this had on fisher incomes. In the OECD group, the year-on-year increase between the average for 2017-19 and 2018-20 was 2.5 times that seen between 2016-18 and 2017-19, as COVID-related policies were introduced in 2020.

Examples of these policies include commercial fisheries business fee waivers (Australia); a seafood disruption support scheme (United Kingdom); payments for the temporary cessation of fishing activities (Greece); and the CARES Act COVID-19 fisheries assistance (United States), which provided funds for direct or indirect fishery-related losses as well as subsistence, cultural or ceremonial impacts related to the COVID-19. Whether this support persists going forward remains to be seen and should be followed, as best practice advocates that support such as this should be time-bound in nature and does not become a permanent entitlement, which could result in increased fishing pressure and unfair competition (OECD, 2020[5]).

While income support may most commonly be thought of as direct payments to ensure a minimum level of income, such as through fixed payments, it is also seen to have been provided by less direct means. These include the waiver of management fees (in response to the COVID-19 pandemic), adjustment payments as a result of new management measures, or income and import tax concessions. China has used import tax concessions for the benefit of its distant water fisheries, where two polices alone provided USD 1.06 billion in support per year on average in 2020-22 (39% of all recorded income support in that period). Income support policies have also been seen to ensure the income of fishers involved in exploratory fishing, given the potentially uncertain returns associated with such activities.

Infrastructure plays an important role for capture fisheries, notably through specific ports, cooled storage and ice provision facilities. Government support can facilitate the use of such infrastructure by the fishing sector through two main types of policy support for the construction or modernisation of infrastructure and support for access to infrastructure. In 2020-22, the majority of countries reported support for the construction and modernisation of infrastructure (USD 1.22 billion), whereas only seven countries reported support for access to infrastructure (for a total of USD 25.9  million). Total support for infrastructure was USD 1.24 billion.

The OECD Members provided the greatest part of infrastructure funding in 2020-22, for a total of USD 0.88 billion, down slightly since 2010-12 (when it was USD 0.97 billion). The non-Members spent a total of USD 0.37 billion in the most recent time period, twice the amount reported in 2010-12 (USD 0.15 billion), resulting in a slight overall increase in support for infrastructure. Measured in relation to fleet size, the overall intensity of support for infrastructure was USD 64/GT in 2020-22, (USD 172/GT in the OECD Members and USD 24/GT in the non-Members covered in this report), a slight increase when compared to the USD 58/GT seen for 2010-12 (USD 175/GT in the OECD Members and USD 8/GT in the non-Members).

Japan uses support for infrastructure construction relatively more than other types of support; both its level and intensity of support to infrastructure construction have been consistently substantially higher than levels seen in other countries and territories in the database (USD 753/GT and total support of USD 0.67 billion in 2020-22). Canada and China are the two other countries that provide relatively high amounts of support for the construction of infrastructure (China at USD 206.9  million and Canada at USD 141.9  million in 2020-22).

In some of the countries and territories included in the database, foreign aid to infrastructure could be an additional area of government support, which is not within the scope of the FSE, but from which spending on fish landing and processing areas could be significant.

Support for access to foreign waters is currently only recorded in the FSE database for the European Union (EU) as a group, and for China, in the form of government-to-government payments for the right of access to fish resources in the exclusive economic zone of a third country (therefore not considered a subsidy at the WTO). Support for access to foreign waters, which can also consist in preferential finance granted to fishing companies for the purpose of paying for the right to access to fish resources in the EEZ of a third country, is, however, known to exist in other countries, highlighting the need for greater transparency on such payments.

The payments in China start in the period 2017-19, when they were an average of USD 15.6  million per annum. By 2020-22 they averaged USD 48.1  million per year. These government payments are provided to offset the fisheries access fees charged to their distant water fishing enterprises to fish in waters under the jurisdiction of other countries. These payments equate to less than 1% of China’s total FSE in the same period.

For the European Union, support for access to foreign waters averaged USD 163.9  million per year in 2020-22, a 15% reduction compared to the USD 192.9  million reported for 2010-12.6 Overall, they represented 19% of the sum of total support in the EU countries covered in 2020-22 (it was 18% in 2010-12).These payments however include both a financial compensation for access to resources in the exclusive economic zone of third countries (which accounted for about three-quarters of the payments on average) and a financial contribution to promote the sustainable management of fisheries in these countries, for example though the reinforcement of control and surveillance capacities, and support to local fishing communities. In addition, these payments, which are made under the EU Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements, are subject to a number of conditions. They notably aim to target the surplus of the total allowable catch (that is, the annual potential catch at sustainable levels, minus the potential catch of the national fleet according to its capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch). 7 Payments by the sector are reported by less than half of countries and territories, but sometimes have a significant impact on net FSE.

Knowing how much the fishing sector contributes to the cost of fisheries services, or to governments’ budgets more generally, is helpful to investigate the net cost of fisheries policies to the public budget. In certain rare cases, contributions by the sector are greater than support for the sector, making the sector a net contributor to public finances.

The FSE database records payments by the fisheries sector under three distinct categories: 1) payments for access to resources; 2) payments for access to government-owned infrastructure; and 3) other fisheries-specific payments. Only payments for fisheries-specific purposes are included, so general taxes levied across the economy are outside the scope of the FSE, as are fines and penalties related to IUU fishing practices.

The sector’s total reported payments were USD 389.9  million in 2020-22 (3.6% of total FSE), making the net total FSE USD 10.3 billion. Payments in the OECD Members were USD 355.4  million, or 6.5% of total FSE in the same period (net FSE USD 5.15 billion). They were USD 34.5  million, or 0.7% of total FSE (net FSE USD 5.19 billion) in the non-Members. These differences highlight that most recorded payments by fishers occurred in the OECD in 2020-22. Since 2010-12, the absolute value of payments by the sector has increased in the OECD and fallen in the non-Members. In both cases, the changes are in line with and of a similar magnitude to the overall changes in their total FSE.

In 2020-22, payments for access to resources were the largest explicit form of payment (USD 143.3  million), followed by payments for access to infrastructure (USD 5.3  million). Other payments were largest overall (USD 241.3  million), and mostly relate to general fisheries management. For example, these include payments by fishers for the administration of commercial fishing licences, cost recovery for management, and research and enforcement. They also include payments for levies to finance the education and training of employees in the fisheries sector.

At the country level, payments by the sector as a proportion of total support in countries reporting these payments are much higher than the overall average, due to a large number of countries not reporting any payments by fishers. Countries that do not report any payment probably include a mix of countries where no payments are required, and countries where such payments are not recorded in the FSE database.

Where reported, payments by the fishing sector do in some cases make a substantial contribution to the cost of supporting the industry (Figure 6.8). For example, in Chile, payments by the industry accounted for 83% of total support in 2020-22 (net total support of USD 17.5  million) and were made up of a combination of auction payments for fixed duration rights (typically 10-20 years) to fish and then specific annual taxes levied against these. In Iceland, payments were more than double the value of support (net total support of USD 58.8  million), recovered via a general fishing fee. Thus, in addition to any associated tax on profits, these payments can make the fishing sector a net contributor to government finances in some cases.

Transparency on government support to fisheries is key to a productive, equitable and sustainable sector. To ensure support benefits the fishers who need it and contributes to stated goals, governments need to understand how public money is being spent, where benefits are distributed and how it impacts all dimensions of sector performance.

As climate change hits the fisheries sector, with shifts in resources and changes in fish stock abundance, government support will also be needed to ease the adaptation of adversely affected groups, such as through changes in management, but also potentially with income support, support for training and even for transitioning fishers to different species or sectors. At the same time, support is likely to also be allocated to the energy transition of the sector, to ensure that economy-wide objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are also met by fisheries. This will require existing forms of support to do more and with greater flexibility, calling for even greater scrutiny and effective allocation of public spending.

Effective evidence-based policy advice depends on data being comprehensive and correct. Incomplete reporting of time series results in data gaps and an incomplete and potentially unbalanced understanding of government support to fisheries. This calls for continued refinement of the FSE database, to ensure the data it contains is complete and sufficiently detailed to answer emerging policy questions (such as those concerning climate change). This also calls for the identification and use of other data sources to complement the FSE on the magnitude of transfers to fisheries originating from policies that are not specific to fisheries. Publicly available information on tax policies suggests substantial levels of fuel support are provided economy-wide or for several sectors, in many OECD Members and non-Members (OECD, 2022). Greater transparency on how such policies benefit fisheries would help provide a more complete picture of policy-driven incentives in the fisheries sector.

Further, the fact that aquaculture has become increasingly important to food systems raises questions on how government policies can support the sustainable development of the sector and how support to different food sectors can be best articulated. Addressing such policy questions requires a comprehensive understanding of government support to aquaculture. However, data on support to aquaculture are not readily available from any source in a way that would allow comparisons over time and across countries. As a first step towards potentially developing a database of Aquaculture Support Estimate, the OECD is initiating work exploring what a suitable framework to monitor support to aquaculture might look like (Box 6.3).

[9] Anderson, J. (1992), “Salmon Market Dynamics”, Marine Resource Economics, Vol. 7/1, pp. 87-88, https://doi.org/10.1086/mre.7.1.42629025.

[4] FAO and UNDP (2023), Evaluation of the impact of unemployment insurance on the socioeconomic conditions of small-scale fishers., https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3482en.

[8] Guillen, J. et al. (2019), “Aquaculture subsidies in the European Union: Evolution, impact and future potential for growth”, Marine Policy, Vol. 104, pp. 19-28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.045.

[10] Keithly, W. and P. Poudel (2008), “The Southeast U.S.A. Shrimp Industry: Issues Related to Trade and Antidumping Duties”, Marine Resource Economics, Vol. 23/4, pp. 459-483, https://doi.org/10.1086/mre.23.4.42629675.

[1] Martini, R. and J. Innes (2018), “Relative Effects of Fisheries Support Policies”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 115, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bd9b0dc3-en.

[3] OECD (2024), “Quantifying the role of state enterprises in industrial subsidies”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 282, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/49f39be1-en.

[2] OECD (2022), OECD Review of Fisheries 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9c3ad238-en.

[7] OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.

[5] OECD (2020), COVID-19 and International Trade: Issues and Actions, OECD, Paris, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=128_128542-3ijg8kfswh&title=COVID-19-and-international-trade-issues-and-actions.

[6] OECD/FAO (2023), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023-2032, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/08801ab7-en.

[11] Xie, J. and D. Zhang (2014), “Imperfect Competition and Structural Changes in the US Salmon Import Market”, Marine Resource Economics, Vol. 29/4, pp. 375-389, https://doi.org/10.1086/678929.