 Okay, thanks very much so I'm very pleased to be here. I try to give the title of the presentation, a fishy title. Let's talk about fish taxes versus subsidies. I've called it a minnow and a wagham. At the moment, the way of being subsidies and the minnow are being fish taxes. I want to present how we can try and turn that around. This is an overview of the presentation. Mae'r DE Wochen have said that I will focus on fiscal policies that affect fisheries based on some work that I did some years ago, but now I was encouraged to update it in preparation for this presentation. In those of you who will know who are fishery economists andują who have worked in fisheries, they work about decreasing fishery effort. Taxes, as I've said, are currently a mirror because although fish taxes had a positive effect inoedd hyn ar gyth comebackau cyfan yn ei bnwysig. Felly mae'r bod yn gweithio ffordd yn agonol, maewr oes bod hyn yn gallu cacwys iawn rwy'n cael ar gweithio. Mae'r bod yn cyfeilio gweithio i gwneud ar unig yw gwneud, rwy'n gyfer am gylwgr y dyng ngydd ac mae'r bod yn cyfeilio'i bwysig. Mae'r bod yn gweithio i gwneud y cwylwgr yn gweithio i gwneud ar gyfer. Mae'r wael wedi cael ei wneud ar gyfer y cyfnod, a fe'n argynnu'r ddarparu'r cyfnod, a'r cyflodau'r lleidau'r cyflodau. Rwy'n rydyn ni'n rydyn ni'n rhaglen i'w gwybod, a rydyn ni'n rhan i'r gweithio i gwybod o'r cyflodau, a rydyn ni'n rhan i'r cyflodau hwn o'r cyflodau rydyn ni'n rhan i'r cyflodau. o gweithio'r byfferdig ac yw'r sultadus eu Llyfrgellio'r Ffysg. Felly o ffysg yw'r Llyfrgell, faint o'r wael o'r ffysgau penoglŷau ac o'r ysgores gwrsf Felly fy hunnwys i'w bwysig i'r cyffreithu, yn y bwysig i'w cael ei bwysig, oedd y dyfodol eich cyffreith yn ynnwys i'w gwneud o'r cyffreith oedd o'r ffysgau gweld y dynnod, a ydw i ddweud yn cael ei bwysig i'w gwneud, a'i wneud eich ffysgau gwneud o'r bwysig i'w gwneud o'r bwysig i'w gwneud o'r bwysig o'r ffysgau gweld yw gymryd. Hoe can you do that? The issue is you need to use fishery taxes to eat up the rent as exemplified in the diagram. By taxing the rent, you would use the effort and increase the revenues to the government and also actually increase the profits. Fishermen. Ffishing revenues are crucial for some of the least-developed countries and the smaller ones in the various states since who rely heavily on them. Fisheries examples are Pacific, Mauritania and Mozambique. Depending on the country, these can get up to a third of their government revenue from fisheries. There has been some progress in increasing taxes on these fisheries in the last decade or so. Just to give one quite positive example, there was a lot of work done in the Pacific that the very rich fishery tuna reserves of the Pacific was being overfished by foreign fishing fleets, partly because the fishery license fees were so low, but there has been a big push to increase these fishery license fees now by a factor of four by four-fold, and these fishery license fees have now reached $230 million in 2012. That's an example of how, despite being fairly low, fishery taxes have been increasing. However, the situation is even worse than the original diagram I showed because, in fact, because of subsidies, some fleets operate beyond the original equilibrium I showed to go even further down and even more effort. In many cases, these fisheries would actually be unprofitable were it not for the subsidy, and that's the case of many of the fleets of the EU as well as some other fleets. This is quite an interesting diagram showing the latest subsidy estimates from 2013, I think it is, of the main, most extreme examples. You see that the EU is the biggest, then Japan, then China, then US, then Russia and then, interestingly, Indonesia. These are the main examples of fishing subsidies. However, you have to distinguish between what are called beneficial subsidies, i.e. subsidies that actually help the fishery because they go into things like improving monitoring and enforcement and other things which actually improve the management of the fishery versus capacity enhancing or negative subsidies, which sometimes arise often in terms of fuel, the amount of boats coming into the fishery. Interestingly, the US, in fact, is primarily beneficial subsidies, so they're spending a lot of money on monitoring enforcement and looking after their fishery. When you deduct the beneficial subsidies, the capacity enhancing or the negative subsidy, in the case of the US, is actually quite small. In fact, fisheries is one example of whether the US is quite progressive in how they manage their resources. The EU, by contrast, along with Japan and to some extent China, most of their subsidies are capacity enhancing, so they're damaging the fishery with their subsidies, and then there are a few kinds of subsidies which are ambiguous. The subsidies are the way, as I said, because, as you saw from the numbers, these subsidies are still pretty enormous. The figures are the global capacity enhancing subsidies, particularly fuel subsidies, but for boats were $20 billion in 2009. However, there has been some progress because the globally beneficial subsidies, things like monitoring enforcement, as I've already said, have been going up, and together with ambiguous subsidies, these were about $15 billion. So you see the balance between the negative and the positive subsidies are getting closer. As you saw from the numbers, the EU, despite endless discussion within the EU about the common fishery policy and so on, still is the worst in terms of these capacity enhancing subsidies, and then Japan. The USA, as I've demonstrated, is much better, and there have been attempts over the last decade within the World Trade Organization to try and address these fishery subsidies, but the net result has essentially been zero. There's been exactly no progress. However, the one bright light on the horizon, as alluded to by Premier, is there is a target on fisheries, and in that target is actually an explicit mention, and I'll show you the text, to reduce fishery subsidies. So this is the SDG marine target 14 to conserve and sustain of the use in ocean seas and marine resources for sustainable development, and 14.6 is that by 2020 to prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies, which contradict road fishing, and to refrain from introducing new subsidies. So is quite a positive sign that despite the storm negotiations within the WTO, despite the fact that the common fisheries policy in the EU hasn't shown much improvement, there is going to be hopefully a new pressure through this SDG focus on marines and fishery subsidies. So, to conclude, and this is my final slide, and now as you've seen taken the minnow and blown it up and asked the question, when will the tax minnow be able to catch the whale subsidy? Thank you.