When, Where and What to Fish? Fishermen's Behaviour When Choosing Optional Seasonal Profiles

Most fishermen are faced with several options in both long and short term planning of their activity. In this paper we study fishers short term decisions when different seasonal fishery options are available. This involves choices of spatial and temporal allocation of effort as well as use of varying fishing gears in order to obtain the planned target specie mix. In a heterogeneous fishing fleet the seasonal options may differ considerably from vessel to vessel, also depending on its home port. The paper presents a framework wherein the seasonal choices are understood on the basis of economically rational behaviour where expected marginal benefit of the different options are evaluated and the most profitable season chosen. A monthly model is developed to describe the marginal profitability of the various fishing opportunities based on Norwegian data. The impact management decisions may have on the chosen seasonal profile and the vessel profitability is then discussed on the basis of the presented seasonal model. In particular we study the impacts of different quota allocation regimes. A diverse fleet structure may be an efficient response on highly fluctuating and unpredictable fish resources, while fisheries regulations may have the effect of reducing the flexibility by which the fleet can respond to such changes

Capture-based aquaculture - sustainable value adding to capture fisheries?

Capture-based aquaculture (CBA) is an industry that utilizes wild-captured specimens as stocking animals for ongrowing or storage. This yields an intriguing direct link between capture fisheries and aquaculture of these resources. Examples of CBA are collection of early life stages of many crustaceans and adolescent tunas for grow-out in aquaculture systems. Cod CBA competes with capture fisheries and closed-cycle aquaculture. This paper discusses value adding properties of these in order to evaluate the relative costs and value positions according to the Hunt and Morgan (1995) competitiveness matrix. CBA on cod is found to be in a superior value position and at a cost disadvantage. Advantages primarily stem from a quantitatively high yield, ability to supply during the lean season and large fish for sale. Higher capture, farming and slaughter costs are negative factors. Capture of juveniles for CBA imposes an externality on the capture fishery. When evaluating potential or ongoing CBA operations, this has to be taken into account. For cod CBA, this is internalized as cod for stocking has to be caught within regular quotas. Attention from economics and resource management research is scarce, as we find only one study that calculates the economic benefits from alternative uses of juveniles. FAO have proposed strict criteria for CBA evaluation. Our findings indicate that CBA can be economically preferable, even if not satisfying these criteria

The more the merrier. Or...

In Norway, structuring of the fishing fleet has been an ongoing process since the start of the 1960'ies. Since then, both the number of vessels in Norwegian fisheries and fishers have been reduced by roughly 85 %. For decades, the fisheries industry has been considered a mean to employment and settlement in rural coastal areas. As a general rule, it was not until recently that it was opened for ITQ-fashioned merging of licenses on one vessels (2004). One vessel group, however, is exempted from such market based re-structuring measures: The smallest vessels in the coastal fleet - the most numerous vessels, both within pelagic and demersal fisheries. Their role has hithereto been found too important, as supplier of fish to local processors, and as recruiting arena and employment alternative - a role under pressure both within and outside the fisheries industry. In this paper we explore the development in this vessel group, over various dimensions (number of vessel, catch volume and value, regulatory measures, profitability, etc.) while highlighting findings against the development in other parts of the fleet. Findings are discussed, and implications for industry actors and management are underlined

Analysing uncertainties in socio-economic assessments of fisheries and aquaculture under climate change

Socio-economic analysis of seafood production is important for the conservation of aquatic ecosystems and the management of fisheries and aquaculture activities. Understanding how the livelihoods of people, dependent on the exploitation of aquatic resources, are affected by various changes is essential for decision making. The two main seafood production sectors, fisheries and aquaculture are fundamentally different. Whilst fishing is an extremely uncertain and complex system that operates in an ecological context where constant interactions between biology, ecology, climate, economics and sociology take place (FAO, 2017), aquaculture normally takes place in a considerably more controlled and contained production setting within the ecosystem. However, climate change will likely impact both sectors in various ways. This study presents how uncertainty is considered within the socio-economic assessments of two important economic activities in the Northeast Atlantic, one the salmon aquaculture operation in countries such as Norway, Scotland and the Faroe Islands and the pelagic fisheries in EU, Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic waters. A novel approach in our assessment is the consideration of the uncertainties of input factors as consequences of climate change, resource abundance, technology, operators’ behaviour, market conditions, harvesting efficiency, governance policy, and socio-economic status of communities. Data collected by individual surveys and secondary sources are described as statistic distributions that are used for Monte Carlo simulations. Our simulation models enable researchers to predict the likelihoods of occurrence of socio-economic outcomes, and the contributions and sensitiveness of input variables to the profitability of seafood production and the gross value added to the economy

European Seafood Production under Climate Change: Assessing Economic and Social Consequences

Climate change has been observed to have a significant impact on the distribution of aquatic species and productivity of aquaculture systems across the globe. This affects the level of food production, the livelihoods of communities that depend on fisheries and aquaculture, and the future sustainability of these sectors. As in all other parts of the world, climate change will have inequitable and diverse impacts on economic growth across Europe, creating winners and losers. The European H2020 project ClimeFish investigates the impacts of climate change in aquatic food production at the European and regional scale, for the three main production sectors: marine fisheries, lakes and ponds and marine aquaculture. ClimeFish has developed a process for conducting socio-economic impact assessment by first identifying the effect(s) of climate change on the biological properties of both fish and aquaculture species, and secondly assessing the socio-economic impacts based on these biological forecasts, collecting additional socio-economic data and feedback from relevant stakeholders. Here, we provide an overview of the methods and work conducted in seven different case studies will be provided, focusing on both opportunities and threats within the three sectors and geographical locations around Europe as well as a European wide analysis. Challenges related to the data collection and analysis, as well as potential ways of overcoming them, are discussed

H2020 Prime Fish Firm level competitiveness data Iceland Norway Newfoundland

The data set contains survey data from three Norwegian, one Icelandic, one Newfoundland fish processing firm. Data are collected as part of the EU H2020 project PrimeFish (grant no 635761). The survey asks several questions concerning the firm’s evaluation of several aspects of competitiveness, following a Porter framework. The questions posed to the respondents are stated along with scoring help. All data are numeric, and on a 1-7 scale. Data were collected from the World Economic Forum 2017 competitiveness report and surveys and hard data collected in 2017

Rural community quotas - intentions and impacts

In many fisheries, the harvesting pattern shows considerable intra-year variation. These fluctuations give challenges for downstream firms in value chains where predictability and continuity in the flow of production are important. Seasonal harvesting may well be rational from an economic perspective, as migration patterns can give huge variations in catch per unit effort. With limited quotas, profit can be maximized through fishing intensively in short periods. This strategy is particularly present in the Norwegian cod fisheries, where approx. 80 per cent is landed from January to April. During the lean season, fish-processing firms have low capacity utilization, and employees are often laid-off. In order to ease these problems, several schemes have been employed, all aiming at changing the harvesting pattern towards more landings of cod during the autumn. In 2006 and 2007, rural community quotas (RCQs) were re-introduced to improve supplies of raw material to particularly exposed communities in the lean season. An exclusive quota was allocated to an autumn fishery. This was allotted to vessels through a lottery among applicants. Quotas were to be delivered fresh to a specified geographical area. This paper describes and analyses the implementation and impacts of this quota system. The empirical findings reported focuses on the selection of vessels and communities and impact on harvesting pattern and processing

Floor Prices in the Cod Market: Market Implications

Bargaining power has in many fisheries shifted considerably from fish processors to fishermen with modern communications, higher fleet mobility and increased scarcity of the resources. In Norway, fishermen were to a large degree exploited by processors up until the early 20th century. A strong collaborative effort from the fishermens' union culminated with the introduction of the "Act on Raw Fish" in 1933. Here, first hand sales of fish were to take place through fishermen-owned sales organizations and subject to a floor price, to a very large degree defined by the same organizations. Needless to say, this represented a major shift in bargaining power, and these major parts of the act are still in force today. This even though the processing firms show poor profitability and the fleet has far better economic results. A considerable, but varying, part of the total first hand sales are made at the floor price, indicating that it is effective. Aside from distributional aspects, the floor price can have unintended detrimental effects. With supply of fish being highly seasonal in Norwegian fisheries, a floor price could exacerbate the seasonality through not exposing fishermen to the true costs of high supply. It can also increase incentives for not reporting the correct quantities landed. The aim of this study is to employ econometric models to estimate the effect of the floor price regime and to obtain estimates of prices without such a regime in force.Proceedings of the Eighteenth Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, held July 11-15, 2016 at Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Center (AECC), Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

Regulating multiple externalities:the case of Nordic fisheries

Open access is a well-known externality problem in fisheries causing excess capacity and overfishing. Due to global warming, externality problems from CO2 emissions have gained increased interest. With two externality problems, a first-best optimum can be achieved by using two regulatory instruments. However, solving the open-access externality problem also affects CO2 emissions. By using a bio-economic model covering Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Faroe Islands, it is shown that regulations of the open-access externality problem have a large effect on both economic performance and CO2 emissions, while an additional CO2 regulation only has minor effects. The second-best solution achieved by only regulating open access reduces emissions by approximately 50% compared to current fisheries, with the exception of Iceland, which already has a well-developed fisheries management system