Arch. Biol. Sci., Belgrade, 67(3), 909-920, 2015 DOI:10.2298/ABS140307052B

EXPLOITATION OF FISHING RESOURCES IN COUNTY: PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS (Rb/T) OF SPECIALIZED FARMS IN A MOUNTAINOUS REGION

Ionel Bostan1,*, Dorel Mates2, Elena Hlaciuc1, Veronica Grosu1, Marian Socoliuc1, Bogdan Andronic3, Marius Ciubotariu1, Anisoara Apetri1, Gheorghe Morosan1 and Camelia Mihalciuc1

1 Doctoral School of Economics, Stefan cel Mare University, Suceava, 2 Doctoral School of Economics, West University, Timișoara, Romania 3 Faculty of Economic Sciences, Danubius University, Galati, Romania

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract: Aquaculture is an economic sector that has rapidly grown in recent years, due to European programs and the support provided for this activity. Given this accelerated development and the attention this sector receives on an interna- tional level, this paper focuses on identifying the growth factors in the sector and highlighting certain general aspects of its development in Romania, followed by an analysis of the available data on the exploitation of fishing resources in in terms of performance.

Key words: aquaculture; fishing; environment/ecology; European policies/instruments; profitability; assets; investments.

Received March 7, 2014; Accepted July 1, 2014

INTRODUCTION healthy choices for EU citizens, as well as the fact that this is a dynamic sector whose development will cre- Fish farming and aquaculture in the European Union ate jobs and decent standards of living for fishermen is one of the food production sectors that has devel- (EC, 2013a). The efforts of the oped at a rapid pace, supplying almost half of the fish have targeted a radical change in this sector (Dam- and seafood quantities consumed worldwide (EC, anaki, 2014), encouraging EU member states to de- 2013a). On a European level, aquaculture accounts for velop multi-annual plans for promoting aquaculture almost 20% of fish production, standing out in terms through the exchange of best practices. of quality and sustainable development, as well as in terms of the strict safety standards imposed (Churchill As world population continues to rise in the fol- and Owen, 2010; OECD, 2013). European aquacul- lowing decades and the global standards of living are ture provides high quality products, complying with increasingly higher, fish demand will equally aug- environmental sustainability, animal health and con- ment. Since global harvests of wild fish are already sumer protection standards (EC, 2013b). However, being exploited to their maximum sustainable level, production in this sector has come to a standstill much of this demand will have to be provided for from lately, contrasting with the rapid development being aquaculture. The aquaculture sector of the EU plays recorded in other regions of the world. Under these a significant part, with a turnover of about € 3 bil- circumstances, the objectives of the European Com- lion, providing around 65000 jobs in 2005 (EC, 2009), mission for fish farming include the requirement that while in 2010, aquaculture production amounted to € both activities are sustainable from an environmental, 3.1 billion and the output level has remained constant economic and social standpoint and that they provide in the subsequent years. From a financial standpoint,

909 910 Bostan et al. the European Fisheries Fund (EC, 2013c) provides aid employment in the coastal and inland regions of the for the fishing industry and for coastal communities, union. A close relationship with the processing sector enabling them to adjust to the constantly changing would considerably improve the provision of new jobs circumstances and to consolidate their economic po- and competitiveness in both sectors. Aquaculture is sition and environmental sustainability. one of the EU strategy pillars in terms of “blue” (EC, 2012a) growth and its development could contribute The EFF has projected a budget of € 4.3 billion to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. for 2007-2013 (Table 1), available for all branches of this sector. Among these, aquaculture, fish processing and marketing, sea and inland fishing (for more eco- friendly production methods) and common interest MATERIALS AND METHODS measures (for improving product traceability and la- Based on the data/information provided by EU- beling) are being considered. At present, the fishing sector of the EU accounts for 25% of the fish market ROSTAT, INSSE, MEF, MARD, etc., we will try to of the European Union, while 65% comes from im- identify, as accurately as possible, the parameters ports and 10% is accounted for by the EU aquaculture of fishing exploitation in Romania, subsequently ex- sector (EC, 2011). The total possible consumption tending our investigation to the fishing sector in the of fishing and aquaculture products in the EU has Suceava County. The available research on this topic reached approximately 13.2 million tons (according is relatively scarce, whether it approaches the subject to the data published on EUROSTAT). Based on the directly or incidentally like Tahvonen (2009), Wilen current labor productivity, each percentage point of (2000), Holland (2003), Dasgupta and Heal (1979), the present total consumption in the EU is account- Eswaran et al. (1983), Haddon (2001), Walters (1969) ed for from the domestic production of aquaculture and Moxnes (2005). Clearly, as the title of the paper and would lead to the provision of about 3000-4000 suggests, we will mostly focus on the profitability ra- full-time jobs (CSTEP/STECF-OWP-12-03 (EC, tios of certain mountainous/sub-mountainous farms, 2013b)). This number confirms the fact that, even Suceava County. Since turnover (T) provides clues though aquaculture is a relatively small part of the on the economic performance of fishery farms, be- EU economy, it could stimulate economic growth and ing used as a criterion for classification, in our study

Fig. 1. Categories of fish aquaculture (MARD, 2013a). FISHING RESOURCES IN SUCEAVA COUNTY 911 we use the T indicator that accurately reflects the in- Table 1. Allocation of the EFF aid (2007-2013) (EC, 2012b). come/revenues from its activity in a period of time Non Convergence Total (at market prices). Member State convergence (€) (€) (€) Belgium 26261648 26261648 RESULTS Bulgaria 80009708 – 80009708 Czech republic 27106675 – 27106675 Exploitation of fishing resources in Romania Danemark – 133675169 133675169 Germany 96861240 59004169 155865417 At the national level, there is a strategy directed at the Estonia 84568039 – 84568039 fishing sector for the time span 2014-2020 (MARD, Ireland – 42266603 42266603 2013a), which is aligned with European policies and Greece 176836728 30995509 207832237 with the open dialogue process with the interested partners, as set out by the Ministry of European Spain 945692445 186198467 1131890912 Funds as coordinator of the programming of Europe- France 34250343 181802741 216053084 an funds granted during 2014-2020. The Work Group Italy 318281864 106060990 424342854 for Fishing and Aquaculture (WGFA, 2014) has been Cyprus – 19724418 19724418 created at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural De- Latvia 125015563 – 125015563 velopment (MARD) for a better coordination of this Lithuania 54713408 – 54713408 sector. WGFA includes important players in the fish- Hungary 34291357 559503 34850860 ing sector, local government structure representatives, Malta 8372329 – 8372329 fisheries associations, fishers and processors, as well Netherlandes – 48578417 48578417 as specific non-governmental organizations. Austria 187326 5071992 5259318 Poland 734092574 – 734092574 General presentation of the fishing sector from Portugal 223943059 22542190 246485249 a geographical, economic and social standpoint Romania 230714207 – 230714207 Slovenia 21640283 – 21640283 The sustainable and lasting development of fish- Slovakia 12681459 1007069 13688528 ing and aquaculture is an average-term social and economic need that entails the following objectives Finland – 39448827 39448827 (MARD, 2013a): Sweden – 54664803 54664803 United Kingdom 43150701 94677188 137827889 • promoting competitive fisheries and aquaculture, TOTAL 3252409308 1052539711 4304949019 supporting manufacturing organizations and fishing farms that are viable from an economic, • promoting the role of traditional fishing in fish- sustainable, social and environmental standpoint; ing farms as an activity that generates oppor- • p romoting policies that encourage the balanced tunities for the development of the local econ- inclusion and development of fishing areas, im- omy (the provision of jobs in rural areas, the proving sustainable management and exploita- capitalization of less productive land), as well tion of live aquatic resources; as environmental benefits or services (wet areas, biodiversity, microclimate). • encouraging the development and enforcement of EU integrated maritime policies, alongside the co- The hydrographical network of Romania covers hesion and common policies in the fishing sector; 843710 ha, accounting for 3.5% of the total surface of 912 Bostan et al. the country. Fishing and aquaculture, alongside fish and (in terms of GDP and Gross Added Value - GAV), fish-product processing and marketing, are activities its importance mainly lies with the social role it has developed throughout the country. There were about for coastline communities (the resulting financial re- 100025 fisheries in Romania in 2005 (WGFA, 2014), sources support a significant part of the population) structured as follows: 84500 fish farms (84%), 15500 fish in terms of the foodstuff resource potential. The ratio hatcheries (15%) and 25 ha of salmon farms (cca. 1%). of fishing and fish farming to the total GAV and GDP is presented in Table 2. The fish farming production in The statistical data of the National Agency for Romania during 2005-2010 has had a variable trend, Fishing and Aquaculture (NAFA, 2012) for 2011 showed that there were aquaculture licenses for a with 13352 tons recorded in 2005, reaching a maxi- surface of 98233 ha, of which 8618 ha were for fish mum of 17151 tons in 2009, being subsequently affect- hatcheries (9%) and 89 615 ha for farms (91%). The ed by the economic crisis and dropping to 15184 tons projects financed through the Operational Program in 2010 and 11593 tons in 2011. The data presented for Fishing during 2007-2013 have enabled the collec- in Table 3 enables us to see that, as a consequence of tion of funds for increasing the production capacity to the economic crisis that has also affected the fishing over 9200 tons (new and upgraded units). sector, 33 processing units closed down in 2009.

If only 25 ha of salmon farms existed in 2005, SWOT analysis of the fishing sector their surface increased to about 70 ha in 2013. The fish species farmed in Romania before 2005 most- If one were to describe the domestic fishing sector, ly consisted of Cyprinidae, both local and Asian, we believe that a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, representing 85% of the total, while the remaining opportunities and threats) analysis would best char- 25% was comprised of trout, zander, pike, bass, cat- acterize the activity of this sector. The SWOT analysis fish and sturgeon. The structure of the major catego- (Table 4) confirms the current problems and the po- ries of fish aquaculture in 2011 is presented in Fig. 1. tential risks faced by the fishing sector. At the same Fisheries and fish farming have always been one of time, the strengths and the opportunities that Ro- the country’s main natural resources and have played mania can benefit from in this respect are also high- an important part among other economic sectors, ac- lighted. Taking advantage of the strengths and the counting for 0.0086 of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) opportunities should rank high among the perma- in 2008 (MARD, 2013a). Even though the fishing sec- nent objectives, by taking into account the European tor hasn’t contributed much to the national economy trends in the context of globalization.

Table 2. Fishing, fish farming ratio to total GAV and GDP (MARD, 2013a; WGFA, 2014)

Indicators 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Fishing and fish farming/GAV 0.0058 0.0061 0.0043 0.0049 0.0047 0.0080 Agriculture, hunting and forestry /GAV 16.21 15.15 12.151 14.97 12.75 13.02 Fishing and fish farming/GDP 0.0051 0.0054 0.0038 0.0043 0.0042 0.0071 Agriculture, hunting and forestry /GDP 14.38 13.34 11.07 13.37 11.42 11.56 Indicators 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Fishing and fish farming/GAV 0.0063 0.0062 0.0061 0.0043 0.0053 - Agriculture, hunting and forestry /GAV 13.89 9.58 15.15 12.69 14.97 - Fishing and fish farming/GDP 0.0056 0.0054 0.0046 0.0062 0.0086 - Agriculture, hunting and forestry /GDP 12.40 8.46 16.1 25.9 44.4 - FISHING RESOURCES IN SUCEAVA COUNTY 913

Analysis of the fishing sector of Suceava County situated in mountainous regions. The River in terms of profitability ratios of mountainous/ has the largest hydrographical basin whose influents sub-mountainous farms drain over 33% of the county’s surface. The second largest is the Bistrita River (30%) and the Suceava River. Still waters consist of small-sized natural and Geographical setting anthropic lakes, specifically designed for various Suceava County stretches over surface of 8553.3 km2 purposes: industrial and drinkable water, protection (accounting for 3.6% of the total surface of Roma- against floods, fish farming. nia), and is situated in the northeast of the country, in a natural landscape with central and northeast- Elements of the analysis ern European bioclimatic elements that create an interesting scenic harmony (SCC, 2013). As far as The objective of this analysis is to analyze the profitabil- the hydrographical network of Suceava County is ity of the fishing farms in the Suceava County, one of concerned, it stretches for a total of 3092 km, and its the relatively rich areas of Romania (Table 5) in terms of density is of 0.361 km river/km2 of territory, by far the type of resource that is the subject of our research. It exceeding that of other regions in the country. All is very important to trace the evolution of the economic the rivers in the county flow into the River, due and financial results of these farms for the past three to the landscape features. The highest quantities of years, alongside the economic context and the sustain- water flow in the rivers whose reception basins are ability of the existing resources in the area.

Fig. 2. Evolution of net sales during 2010-2012 at the fishing farms in Suceava County.

Fig. 3. Evolution of total income during 2010-2012 at the fishing farms in Suceava County (Lei). 914 Bostan et al.

Table 3. Number of fish processing units in Romania (2008-2011) with projects amounting to more than € 600000 (EU (MARD, 2013a). funds accounting for half of the subsidy), while the other counties, Neamt and Botosani have 2 projects No. Year Number of processing units each. The last two counties on a regional level are Ba- 1 2008 76 cau and Vaslui, each benefiting from a single project. 2 2009 43 3 2010 44 There are six privately owned fishing farms in 4 2011 42 Suceava County, and the remaining 14 are still public- ly owned. Our financial analysis focuses on the profit- Even though the lakes stretch over large surfaces ability of privately-owned fishing farms, in order to in the county, with relatively small reed-covered ar- identify the causes and economic or social factors that eas, the activities developed on fishing farms have a lead to increased performance or, on the contrary, to serious anthropic impact, particularly in the Falticeni the liquidation and bankruptcy of these entities, fac- area. Some of the basins are drained in autumn in tors that may encourage or drive away investors in order to extract the fish, thus compromising the habi- this important sector of agriculture. tat of the bird population in the area. On the other Based on the data presented in the Profit and Loss hand, the other lakes under consideration have large account completed on December 31st for the period stretches of water with extended reed-covered sur- 2010-2012, we have analyzed the structure of the faces and a reduced anthropic impact. turnover (T), total income (Ti) and total expenses According to the data published by the National (Te), and of the net profit (Pr) or losses (l) arrived Authority for Fishing and Aquaculture in the registry at during each accounting period, all the while at- of aquaculture units in Suceava County, fishing farms tempting to calculate certain ratios that define the account for a total administered surface of 874.6 ha. relationship between various elements related to rev- As concerns the organization of aquaculture farms enues and expenses. in the hydrographical Siret basin in Suceava County, In order to protect the image and privacy of the all the units are private companies, there are no state- companies whose economic and financial data were owned units and the species being farmed are carp, used, they will be given the generic name of Fishery crucian carp and freshwater fish. 1, 2, etc. and the name of the place where they are In Suceava County, the European Fishing Fund is located, while the monetary value of the analyzed a complementary fund that finances the measures en- elements will be in lei, the national currency (men- suring the continuity of fishing activities and planned tion must be made that the conversion ratio Euro exploitation, as well as fishing resource protection, (€)/Lei (RON) is 1 EURO = 4.4749 Lei (RON) and development of viable business units in the fishing USD ($)/Lei (RON) is 1 USD = 3.2533 Lei (RON)), sector, development and improvement of the quality according to the data provided by the website of the of life in the areas that are highly dependent on fish- National Bank of Romania on 18 March 2014. Thus, ing activities. the structure of the elements described above and recorded by the companies under consideration in The North-East Development Region, that also our research can be summarized as follows (Table comprises Suceava County, was allocated more than 6). The table presents the value of net sales, an indi- € 3 million through the Regional Center for Payments cator measuring the financial results for each entity for Rural Development and Fishing. Out of all the and referring to the amount of earnings from their counties included in the region, Suceava benefits from own activities during a certain period of time and in 4 projects, amounting to almost € 1 million, half of agreement with market prices. The net sales actually which is European funding, followed by Iasi County stand for the total earnings from current commer- FISHING RESOURCES IN SUCEAVA COUNTY 915 cial activities. It allows one to ascertain a company’s have been companies that have had no NS records, as position on the market, provides information on they have only made losses. Thus, the fishing sector the activity dynamics, on the chances to expand the market sent a negative message to all those that may business or the importance of the enterprise within have been interested in investing or starting a busi- the sector (see the progress made by each company ness in this particular sector. under analysis in Figs. 2-5). An analysis of the total income – as its name sug- Since NS (net sales) measures the companies’ gests – measures all the revenues earned by a com- economic performance and is used as a criterion in pany in each quarter: revenues from current activi- their ranking according to economic importance, one ties, financial revenues (dividends, interest, positive exchange rate spread, etc.) or exceptional revenues can note that during 2010-2012, all fishing farms in (asset sales, subsidies, annulled provisions, etc.). Suceava recorded a significant decline in their NS as a result of the financial crisis that started in our country As can be noted, there is an inverse ratio of T and in 2008, accompanied by a decline in the purchas- total income for some of the fishing farms, meaning ing power of the population. As can be noted, there that if T was high in 2010 as compared to the other

Table 4. SWOT analysis of the fishing sector (MARD, 2013b).

Strengths Weaknesses Production capacity; Insufficient equipment; Water sources for aquaculture; Decreased management capacity; Available land for building new fisheries; Low competitiveness in the field; Providing the necessary feed for carp farming form domestic Relatively low added value of the fishing products; resources; Inadequate specific infrastructure; Exploitable fishing resources; Reduced diversity of fishing products; Available workforce, with an acceptable level of education Reduced research funding; Valuable species from autochthonous fish fauna; Lack of market studies. The possibility to extent farming species to aquaculture; Significant water surfaces; Research organizations in the field; Tradition in this sector; Diversity of aquatic ecosystems. Opportunities Risks/ Threats Domestic market with a high absorption potential; Overexploitation of the resources; Financial support; Fierce EU market competition with specific products; Introduction of new species in fish farms; Consumer preference for other products; Increased standard of living in economically disadvantaged areas; Increased production costs; Potential for ecotourism and other related activities; Limited access to bank loans and difficult fund accessing Protection of fishing resources; procedures; Protected natural areas for fish breeding and feeding; Excessive bureaucracy; Potential for the development of ecological aquaculture; Environment pollution; Sustainability of semi-intensive and extensive aquaculture; Lack of interest for the processing of autochthonous products; Development of the intensive systems of fish farming (salmon Migration of the population towards more economically farming, sturgeon farming); developed areas; Introduction of new species in Romanian aquaculture; Abusive enforcement of environment related regulations; Market niches; Uncertain legal status of the land where fishing farms are located; Specialised higher education; Administrative and legislative instability in the fishing sector; Environment friendly fish farming technologies. Lack of continuity in promoting fishing policies; Insufficient personnel and equipment in the monitoring and control systems in the fishing sector. 916 Bostan et al. years (2011 and 2012), the total income that has had To analyze the expenses related to total income, lower values in 2010 was boosted in 2012. Moreover, one can use the total expense rate. The formula that it is worth mentioning the case of the companies that, shows the efficiency ratio of total expenses (expenses even though their T amounted to 0 in 2010, 2011 and to 1000 lei total income) is: 2012, recorded revenues in 2011 and 2012, but note that these revenues were not generated by the opera- × cg C = ∑ ii 1000/ tions of the company. 1000/ Vt t 100 (1) However, in order to analyze the profit, one should also look at the total expenses of the com- where Ct is total expenses, Vt – total income, gi = panies under consideration, since these costs have ratio of company income for each of the three cat- actually diminished the financial benefits recorded egories (operational, financial or non-recurring) and throughout the accounting periods, as decreases in c the value of assets or increased liabilities, thus result- i 1000/ = level of expenses for 1000 lei income of each ing in a decline of the shareholders’ equity (as com- of the three categories (operational, financial or non- pared to the distribution of this equity to shareholders recurring), or efficiency ratio of the expenses for each or partners). of the three categories.

Fig. 4. Evolution of total expenses during 2010-2012 at the fishing farms in Suceava County (Lei).

Fig. 5. Evolution of expense efficiency during 2010-2012 at the fishing farms in Suceava County. FISHING RESOURCES IN SUCEAVA COUNTY 917

However, since the structure of the total income As can be seen from Fig. 6, it is difficult to ascer- reported by means of the profit and loss account or tain any expense efficiency in almost all fishing farms the amount of total expenses are not available to the in Suceava County. Only three entities are approach- public, analysis of the efficiency rate of the expenses ing a recovery of the expended costs and investments, for each category was not possible. However, the mea- while the cost inefficiency in the other three entities surement and analysis of the efficiency of the total is obvious. Therefore, the shareholders or partners in expenses for 100 lei total income is possible, which these entities will not only risk not receiving any kind is an important indicator in measuring the efficiency of dividends or other financial benefits, but will also run the risk of not recovering their invested capital. At of investments, expended costs or the depreciation in the end of this analysis, it is very important to high- value of the various assets of fishing farms. light the main measures to be taken in order to reduce the total expenses and to increase revenues, with di- * Ect = Ct/Vt 100 (2) rect effects on an increased level of net sales and total profit. Thus, one of the following would be necessary: where Ect = efficiency of the total expenses for 100 lei gained income, Ct = value of the total expenses and • sale prices and the amounts required for the Vt = value of the total income. products provided by fishing farms or for the

Fig. 6. Evolution of the gross financial result during 2010-2012 at the fishing farms in Suceava County (Lei).

Fig. 7. Evolution of the return on sales during 2010-2012 at the fishing farms in Suceava County. 918 Bostan et al.

services supplied should cover the expenses and suring the profit; as can be noted, all the companies, ensure the acquisition of a good profit; except for one that made a profit throughout the en- tire period, had serious losses in at least one account- • adjustment of optimum funding means for the ing period, if not in all 3 years. business inputs; Either this decline in the financial benefits re- • high capitalization of fixed assets and the timely corded throughout the period under analysis is meeting of obligations to customers and to the caused by the disposal or depreciation of assets or state budget. to increased liabilities which, in turn, result in de- Starting from the identified total income and creased equity capital other than the equity distrib- total expenses, we will subsequently focus on the fi- uted to shareholders or partners. These expenses are nancial result of each fishing farm and the related recognized at the same time as increased liabilities or profitability rate. decreased assets (for instance, accrued salaries or the amortization of fixed assets). The formula used to calculate the financial result, which can be either profit or loss, either gross or at High-quality company management is confirmed its book value, is: by the appreciation of their products on the market, a condition that is best reflected by their turnover. The Gross financial result ratio between the financial result and the turnover is = Total income - Total expenses the return on sales rate.

The assessment of company performance entails Rc = Rb/T*100 (4) the analysis of two categories of indicators, i.e. ex- penses and revenues. In our case, revenues and ex- where Rc = return on sales, Rb = gross result (gross penses are elements that are directly related to mea- profit or losses) and T = Turnover.

Table 5. Fish farming capacity in Suceava County (2009) (CARHF, 2012).

Name of fishing Farms Trout farms Exploitations Structure per No. farm (ha) (ha) (ha) species 1 Mountain lakes - - - - 2 Crujana - - - - 3 Mountain rivers - - - - 4 V. Putnei - 2.4 - 2-year-old trout 5 - 2.1 - 1-year-old trout 6 Toplite 3.7 - - 4-year-old hatchers Total 3.7 4.5 -

Table 6. Value of the turnover during 2010-2012 of the fishing farms in Suceava County (Lei).

Private fisheries 2010 2011 2012 Fishery 1 Suceava 2147696 1554045 147617 Fishery 2 618907 853210 391810 Fishery 3 185580 416118 2512033 Fishery 4 Suceava 376828 389633 296386 Fishery 5 Campulung Moldovenesc 24061 - - Fishery 6 Campulung Moldovenesc - - - FISHING RESOURCES IN SUCEAVA COUNTY 919

As can be seen in Fig. 7, only three fishing farms REFERENCES in the county had a favorable operating profit margin, EC (2013a). European Commission. The New Common Fish- while the other three recorded losses either through- eries Policy: http//:ec.europa.eu/fisherie/cfp/aquaculture/ out the period under analysis or during a single year. index_ro.htm This indicator could not be analyzed. Churchill, R. and D. Owen (2010). The EC Common Fisheries Policy. University Press, Oxford EC Law Library, pp.571- The results of the research we have conducted in- 575. dicate that the situation of fishing farming in Suceava OECD (2013). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and County is not at all encouraging. Financial indicators Development. Review of Fisheries policies and summary have reached rather insignificant levels throughout statistics, pp. 213-215. EC (2013b). Communication of the European Commission to the the period under analysis. European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions However, in our opinion, things could get bet- - Strategic guidelines for the sustainable development of ter if new investments are made in the area we have EU aquaculture. European Commission, Brussels, Apr. 29. referred to. Damanaki, M. (2014). Reform in Europe is possible - The lesson of EU fisheries. Pan European Conference for EU reform, European Commission - Speech 14/26, Jan. 15, London. CONCLUSIONS EC (2009). European Commission - Common fisheries policy - user guidelines. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the If the wild fish captures are already being exploited at European Union. the most sustainable level, much of the fish demand EC (2013c). European Commission - Overview of the Euro- will have to be met by the aquaculture sector. This sit- pean Fishing Fund: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/eff/ index_en.htm uation is currently true both on a national and on an EC (2011). Impact assessment - Accompanying the document international/European Union level. Even though the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and European Fishing Fund (EFF) provides funding for of the Council on the common organisation of the markets aquaculture, fish processing and marketing, for the in fishery and aquaculture products. Brussels, July 13. common interest measures (improving the traceabil- EC (2012a). Communication of the European Commission to the ity or product labeling) etc., the human and financial European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions resources involved until now still do not ensure the - Blue Growth opportunities for marine and maritime development of the sector above an acceptable level. sustainable growth European Commission, Brussels. EC (2012b). European Fisheries Fund (Brief Introduction): http:// The economic development, both on a national ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/cfp_ and at county level, reveals the presence of consider- factsheets/european_fisheries_fund_en.pdf able resources that have yet to be explored. Moreover, Tahvonen, O. (2009). Optimal Harvesting of Age-structured Fish the situation has also been influenced by the financial Populations. Marine Res. Econ. 24(2):147-169: http://www. crisis that was mostly felt during 2009 to 2012, and bioone.org/doi/abs/10.5950/0738-1360-24.2.147 Wilen, J.E. (2000). Renewable Resource Economists and Policy: investors are just now trying to reorient themselves What Differences Have We Made? J. Environ. Econ. Man- towards this specific sector in Suceava County. agement. 39, 306-27. Holland, S.P (2003). Set-up costs and the existence of competitive Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the two re- equilibrium when extraction capacity is limited. J. Environ. viewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. Econ. Management. 46, 539-556. 920 Bostan et al.

Dasgupta, P.S. and G.M. Heal (1979). Economic theory and exhaust- NAFA (2012). National Agency for Fishing and Aquaculture, Stat- ible resources, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. istici/Programe, : http://www.anpa.ro/national- Eswaran, M., T.R. Lewis, and T. Heaps (1983). On the non-exis- control-action-programme/ tence of market equilibria in exhaustible resources with MARD (2013b). Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. decreasing costs. J. Pol. Econ. 91, 154-167. Analiza SWOT a sectorului pescaresc in Romania, Bucha- Haddon, M. (2001). Modelling and Quantitative Methods in Fish- eries. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. rest: http://old.madr.ro/pages/fep/programare/analiza- Walters, C.J. (1969). A Generalized Computer Simulation Model for socio-economica-a-sectorului-piscicol-detaliat.pdf Fish Population Studies. Transac. Am. Fish. Soc. 98, 505-12. SCC (2013). Suceava County Council. The economic and social Moxnes, E. (2005). Policy Sensitivity Analysis. Simple versus development strategy of the Suceava County for 2011-2020 Complex Fishery Models. Systems Dyn. Rev. 21(2), 123-45. (Project funded by the European social fund through the MARD (2013a). Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, operational programme for administrative capacity devel- The National strategy for the fishing sector 2014-2020, opment): http://www.cjsuceava.ro/index.php/en Bucharest. WGFA (2014). Work Group for Fishing and Aquaculture, Mate- CARHF (2012). County Agency for Recreational Hunting and riale support, Bucharest: http://www.madr.ro/ro/program- Fishing, Bucharest: http://www.cjsuceava.ro/documente- are-2014-2020-pop/documente-de-programare.html nou/strategie/Strategie%20interior.pdf