Fisheries Management

Theoretical Developments and Contemporary Applications

Geoffrey Waugh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429717086
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Among the problems of the modern fisheries industry is the persistent trend toward the severe depletion of fish stocks, resulting in low catch rates and poor economic returns, along with unnecessary accumulations of capital investments. Dr. Waugh argues that these problems call for effective management procedures based on bioeconomic modelling, which integrates the population dynamics of fish resources with the economic processes of harvesting and marketing. Assessing developments in bioeconomic theory, Dr. Waugh discusses why recent advances have not been fully translated into improvements in the management of marine fisheries. He cites the difficulties of reaching a consensus concerning suitable objectives for fisheries management, as well as the problems of designing a regulatory framework to improve the operation of the industry. To illustrate the utility of bioeconomic modelling, Dr. Waugh presents case studies of two Australian fisheries. A dynamic, stochastic, numeric model is developed for the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery to provide insights into the optimal exploitation of a yearly resource, where fluctuations in recruitment, natural mortality, and catchability are important. The study of the New South Wales Abalone Fishery highlights the difficulties of obtaining the necessary overview of a fishery and the problems in collecting the data required for modelling and management.

Part One
Evidence and Models

1
The Persistent Tendency Towards Depletion

The basic characteristic of world fisheries is a persistent tendency toward depletion of fish stocks accompanied by high levels of capital and labour devoted to fishing, comparatively low catches and poor economic returns. At times the trend to depletion in the fishery is slow. As grounds close to port are depleted and the catch declines fishermen move further afield working new areas; but in time the productivity of the new grounds is also reduced and fishermen move to still more isolated areas. Such a process cannot continue indefinitely and eventually total catch and overall catch per unit effort (effort being the inputs of factors of production) begin to fall. At other times the fall in catch is sudden as in the collapse of the Peruvian anchovy fishery;¹ the fishery may be exploited to its limit and perhaps a small environmental change has a large effect on population and total catch.

In this depletion process a reduction in the fish population is often accompanied by a reduction in the size of individual fish caught. A virgin or slightly worked fishery contains a significant proportion of older and larger fish. However, with the increased fishing pressure the population of larger fish is depleted and the proportion of smaller fish begins to increase. In some fisheries, such as whaling, there is a deliberate policy on the part of fishermen to make up the shortfall in catch due to depletion by switching attention to smaller species. The end result is that on fishing grounds both the numbers and the size of individuals decline.

The process of depletion is a natural consequence of fishing. In open-access fisheries, however, depletion may be taken beyond bounds that are desirable. Although the definition of a desirable level of fishing in each fishery is open to question and debate, the problem of severe depletion arises because of the arrangements concerning the property rights of fishing grounds. In open-access fisheries, where there is no individual ownership of fishing grounds and no regulations to control the level of fishing effort, individual fishermen can do little to protect the stock. Catch in future periods is strongly influenced, in many cases, by the current level of population, but competitive actions of all fishermen effectively prevent conservation of the stock by one fisherman. Management from society's viewpoint to prevent severe depletion requires, therefore, the cooperation of all concerned. Where there are many nations active in the fishery, or where enforcement is difficult, complex institutional arrangements need to be devised to overcome the problem of lack of ownership of fishing grounds.

The difficulties of obtaining agreement between conflicting interests has often meant that regulations to control fishing effort are not designed and implemented until the fishery has reached a crisis point, with catches falling to very low levels and a large number of vessels working the fishery. Decisions then have to be taken as to how best, in terms of both economics and equity considerations, to reduce the level of fishing.

In this chapter three different fisheries are studied, a multi-nation fishery, a two-nation fishery and a single-nation fishery, representing widely different examples, but all showing the same symptoms of depletion of fish stocks. These fisheries highlight the informational requirements of a successful management programme. There are three requirements which are emphasized in this chapter and developed throughout the study.

Firstly, the biological and economic processes of each fishery need to be unravelled. The biological processes revolve around the population dynamics of the particular species under examination and the way in which environmental parameters affect the reproduction, growth and natural mortality of that species. The economic processes are determined, to a large extent, by the particular methods of harvesting the resource in question, the inputs of capital and labour used, and the value of these inputs and the output in the rest of the economy.

Secondly, since depletion is often a necessary result of fishing, a theoretical framework needs to be devised, for each fishery, within which a desired level of depletion and a desired level of fishing effort can be defined and determined in terms of the expressed objectives of fisheries management. Such a theoretical framework requires the integration of the biological and economic processes.

And thirdly, since severe depletion is essentially a problem of lack of effective property rights, institutional and regulatory frameworks need to be designed and implemented to fill this gap and either facilitate or replace the operations of the free market. It is difficult to find a fishery where these three requirements have been successfully applied in a fishery management programme.

The development and depletion of fisheries: some case studies

The history of the baleen whale fishery in the Antarctic shows clearly the inevitable consequences of open-access, lucrative fisheries in terms of depletion and the difficulties in obtaining agreement to control fishing effort. Depletion of whale stocks led to the establishment of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1946 with the purpose of regulating all whaling to protect the stock.² Meaningful management in these terms took a further thirty years of bitter debate between nations, and in the meantime the IWC presided over the collapse of the whaling industry. Successful management in economic terms has never been an objective of the Commission.

The Antarctic fishery has centered on the three largest species of baleen whales, namely the blue whale (Balaenoptera musaulus), the fin whale (B. physatis) and the sei whale (B. borelis): the blue whale is the largest, growing to a length of approximately 30 metres while the fin and the sei grow to around 25 and 20 metres respectively. Rapid expansion of the catch rates began in 1925 with the introduction of factory ships with slipways at the stern and by 1930/31 there were 41 factory ships and 200 catcher vessels in operation.³

Effort was initially directed toward the large blue whales and catches rose rapidly to a maximum of 29,410 in the 1930/31 season (see Figure 1.1): only moderate attention was paid to the smaller fin whale and the still smaller sei whale was virtually unharvested. In the 1930s the record catches of blue whales had seriously depleted the stocks and the consequent economic difficulties of the industry were temporarily overcome by increasing catches of the smaller fin whales; catches of this species rose sharply from 4,366 in 1924/25 to 18,694 in 1939/40. At this latter date the catch of blue whales had fallen to 11,480, a factor which stimulated interest in the formation of an international body to regulate whaling.

In the 1920s and 1930s there had been several unsuccessful attempts to regulate the industry. The League of Nations had made unsuccessful attempts to control whaling in 1924 and 1927. At Geneva in

Figure 1.1 Antarctic Whale Catch Source: International Whaling Statistics, various years.

1931, a tentative step was taken with the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling by 21 countries: this convention provided for limited regulation including the protection of right whales and undersize whales, but did not provide the required protection for the Antarctic whale stocks. The International Agreement for the Regulation of Whales was signed by some, but not all, whaling nations in 1937. The agreement was signed by Argentina, Australia, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom and the USA. The conference itself was attended by all nations engaged in whaling with the exceptions of Japan and Panama. The 1937 agreement contained substantial regulations concerning minimum sizes for whales (including blue and fin whales), the protection of females attended by calves, and established rules for the full use of whales caught and the collection of statistical data. Nevertheless, no agreement was reached on the need to reduce the level of catch or the level of fishing effort.⁴

However, after World War II, a series of conferences were held and these culminated in the signing of the 'International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling' in 1946. This convention established the International Whaling Commission which since 1948 has regulated whaling. The Commission is independent of the United Nations and regulations can only be successful to the extent that member nations (and non-member nations) agree to abide by its decisions. However, decisions are not binding on member nations who may enter an objection to any amendment to a regulation within a specified time period; such an objection exempts that nation from the amendment. Further, although the IWC has powers to amend regulations, it has no powers to enforce them.

The most important aspect of this convention was the restriction on the number of whales to be taken from the Antarctic; a limit of 16,000 blue whale units was set, one blue whale unit equalling one blue whale, or two fin whales or six sei whales. Two major criticisms have been levelled at this regulation. In the first instance, the use of a blue whale unit gives no protection to individual species: thus in theory the quota could be made up by taking all blue whales regardless of the level of catch the population can sustain.⁵ Further, the level of 16,000 was probably too high. It is thought that the combined maximum sustainable yield of blue, fin, sei and humpback whales was about 9,000 units, and since it is now thought that the fishery was already operating beyond this point the maximum limit should have been no higher than that level.⁶

That the 16,000 unit quota was too high was belatedly recognized and the quota was gradually

Figure 1.2 Antarctic Whaling Catch and Quotas. Source: Report of the International Committee on Whaling, various years.

reduced after the 1952/53 season. In that season the blue whale catch fell to 3,870 while the catch of fin whales rose to 22,867: for the first time the catch in blue whale units fell below the quota. In 1953/54 the quota was reduced to 15,500 units and was still further reduced in subsequent years. Figure 1.2 shows the catch and the quota in each year; for the period 1959 to 1962 no agreement could be reached and no quota was set.

The pattern of the 19 50s was that the blue whales w...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• About the Book and Author
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• PART ONE EVIDENCE AND MODELS
• PART TWO MANAGEMENT
• PART THREE EMPIRICAL STUDIES
• Bibliography
• Index