The Stock Concept Applicability for the Economic Evaluation of Marine Ecosystem Exploitation

Stock models, in which production is interpreted as if it were the population growth of a stock, have been the preferred tool for fishery economics since Clark and Munro (1975) introduced capital theory in these models. Ravn-Jonsen (2009c) applied capital theory to a model in which the production in the ecosystem is a consequence of predator–prey interaction and the somatic growth of the predator as a result of this interaction. By deducing the results of Clark and Munro anew, the assumptions of the stock model are clarified. Four different biomass measures are introduced in the ecosystem model as stocks. The optimum point found with the stock model approach is compared with the optimum point found in the ecosystem model with the capital value calculations of the occurring rent flow. A comparison shows that the stock model fails to generate the correct optimal point. The assumptions behind the use of stock models for species population models are discussed. The population stock model corresponds to a holistic community view, which has in fact failed to explain various phenomena. The production of the marine ecosystem cannot be reduced to a model as if the production were a consequence of the growth of a stock. The concept of a stock is rather an illusion, as is the concept of an optimal stock level. It is essential to liberate fishery economics from a simplified view of population and communities.

Ecosystem Management a Management View

The need for management of the marine ecosystem using a broad perspective has been recommended under a variety of names. This paper uses the term Ecosystem Management, which is seen as a convergence between the ecological idea of an organisational hierarchy and the idea of strategic planning with a planning hierarchy—with the ecosystem being the strategic planning level. Management planning requires, in order to establish a quantifiable means and ends chain, that the goals at the ecosystem level can be linked to operational levels; ecosystem properties must therefore be reducible to lower organisational levels. Emergence caused by constraints at both the component and system levels gives rise to phenomena that can create links between the ecosystem and operational levels. To create these links, the ecosystem’s functional elements must be grouped according to their functionality, ignoring any genetic relation. The population structure is below the ecosystem in terms of the planning level, and goals for the community’s genetic structure cannot be meaningful defined without setting strategic goals at the ecosystem level for functional groups.

Intertemporal Choice of Marine Ecosystem Exploitation

The term “Fishing Down Marine FoodWebs” describes the gradual transition in landing from marine ecosystems towards organisms lower in the food web. To address this issue and the need to manage the marine ecosystem in a broader perspective, Ecosystem Management is recommended. Ecosystem Management, however, requires models that can link the ecosystem level to the operation level, so this paper examines an ecosystem production model and shows that it is suitable for applying ground rent theory. This model is the simplest possible that incorporates the principles of size as the main determinant of the predator–prey interaction, the inclusion of mass balance in the predator–prey allocation, and mortality and somatic growth as consequences of the predator–prey allocation. The model needs to be parameterized for the specific ecosystem and the price and cost functions must be established empirically before drawing the conclusion that Fishing Down Marine Food Webs is economically detrimental can be established directly. Nevertheless, the model does reveal a need for intertemporal balance with respect to both fish size and harvest volume. These aspects are not addressed in any systematic way at the ecosystem level in the present management. Therefore, economic predictions for an ecosystem managed as a common pool resource must be that the exploitation probably are conducted at lower sized than optimum. In addition, given its population stock approach, the present management probably overlooks the ability of an ecosystem to sustain total volume of harvest. Given the two aspects of intertemporal choice revealed by the model, the conclusion must be that the Fishing Down Marine Food Webs is probably driven by the current management’s inability to conduct adequate intertemporal balancing; therefore, it is probably detrimental from an economic point of view. The marine ecosystem therefore requires an ecosystem management for economic reasons; in this context, models like the one presented here can serve as useful planning tools.

Ecosystem Management: A Management View

The need for management of the marine ecosystem using a broad perspective has been recommended under a variety of names. This paper uses the term Ecosystem Management, which is seen as a convergence between the ecological idea of an organisational hierarchy and the idea of strategic planning with a planning hierarchy - with the ecosystem being the strategic planning level. Management planning requires, in order to establish a quantifiable means and ends chain, that the goals at the ecosystem level can be linked to operational levels; ecosystem properties must therefore be reducible to lower organisational levels. Emergence caused by constraints at both the component and system levels gives rise to phenomena that can create links between the ecosystem and operational levels. To create these links, the ecosystem's functional elements must be grouped according to their functionality, ignoring any genetic relation. The population structure is below the ecosystem in terms of the planning level, and goals for the community's genetic structure cannot be meaningfully defined without setting strategic goals at the ecosystem level for functional groups

Harvest control rules in modern fisheries management

-Harvest control rules have become an important tool in modern fisheries management, and are increasingly adopted to provide continuity in management practices, to deal with uncertainty and ecosystem considerations, and to relieve management decisions from short-term political pressure. We provide the conceptual and institutional background for harvest control rules, a discussion of the structure of fisheries management, and brief introductions to harvest control rules in a selection of present day cases. The cases demonstrate that harvest control rules take different forms in different settings, yet cover only a subset of the full policy space. We conclude with views on harvest control rules in future fisheries management, both in terms of ideal and realistic developments. One major challenge for future fisheries management is closing the gap between ideas and practice