Cefas contract report C7372 A review of international fisheries management regimes Authors: Stuart A. Reeves, James B. Bell, Giulia Cambiè, Sarah L. Davie, Paul Dolder, Kieran Hyder, Hugo Pontalier, Zachary Radford & Duncan Vaughan Issue date: 02/08/2018 Cefas Document Control Title: A Review of International Fisheries Management Submitted to: Georgina Karlsson/Charlotte Wicker Date submitted: 02/08/18 Project Manager: Stuart A. Reeves Report compiled by: SAR Quality control by: Defra various & Kieran Hyder Approved by & Kieran Hyder, 8/1/2018 date: Version: 3.5a Version Control History Author Date Comment Version SAR et al. 20/06/17 Compiled from individual 2 chapters SAR et al. 19/07/17 Working version for comment 2.1 SAR et al. 1/09/17 Complete draft for comment 2.2 SAR et al. 21/11/17 Revised to take account of 3.1 comments SAR et al. 12/12/2017 Further revisions in response to 3.2 comments SAR et al. 12/12/2017 Revised structure inc. MRF 3.3 chapter SAR et al. 24/1/2018 Further corrections & enhanced 3.4 exec summary. SAR et al. 26/2/2018 Minor corrections 3.4a SAR et al. 27/7/18 Pre-publication corrections & 3.5 formatting SAR et al. 02/08/18 Fixing minor typos & formatting 3.5a A review of international fisheries management regimes Page i A review of international fisheries management regimes Page ii An international review of fisheries management regimes Authors: Stuart A. Reeves, James B. Bell, Giulia Cambiè, Sarah L. Davie, Paul Dolder, Kieran Hyder, Hugo Pontalier, Zachary Radford and Duncan Vaughan1 Issue date: 02/08/2018 Head office Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK Tel +44 (0) 1502 56 2244 Fax +44 (0) 1502 51 3865 www.cefas.defra.gov.uk Cefas is an executive agency of Defra 1 Contact Address: c/o Natural England, Suite D, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough, PE1 1NG. All other authors c/o Cefas. A review of international fisheries management regimes Page iii Executive Summary 1. This report summarises a review of international fisheries management regimes. The review summarises the available information on specified topics related to fisheries management in a number of specified study countries. The topics were a) Fisheries management; b) Quota allocation and trading; c) Enforcement; d) Science; e) Data collection; f) Access arrangements; g) International investment in the fishery; h) The role of industry; i) Discard policy; j) the ecosystem- based approach to fisheries management, and k) Marine recreational fisheries. The management regimes under review were those of Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada. 2. Of the study countries, Iceland and the Faroes stand-out in terms of their high dependence on fisheries for both employment and the national economy. This reflects their status as small, remote island nations surrounded by productive fishing grounds. Some key indicators related to fisheries are summarised in the table below. EEZ area Fleet Size Employment in fisheries Landings % of Volume Value Value (% ‘000 km2 No. vessels Harvest Processing workforce ('000t) (million $) of GDP) Iceland 763 1,394 4,900 4,200 4.27% 1,427 1,262 9.72% Norway 2,022 6,211 12,048 10,927 0.79% 2,008 2,332 0.81% Faroes 264 1,240 3,700 n/a 13% 487 n/a 45% Australia 8,990 318 7,047 n/a > 0.05% 159 1,351 0.14% New Zealand 4,105 1,417 1432 5,790 0.22% 284 410 0.25% USA 8,610 27,000 n/a 37,436 > 0.02% 3,473 4,938 0.03% Canada 5,770 18,740 43,250 33,034 0.32% 800 2,116 0.14% 3. Fisheries for demersal species such as cod, haddock and saithe are important in terms of both volume and value for all of the North-east Atlantic States considered here, as are fisheries for small pelagic species, primarily mackerel and herring. In comparison with the more northerly countries however, the UK also has high value fisheries for shellfish such as scallops and Norway lobster. This situation is also similar to the North-Eastern USA where fisheries for scallops and lobster are among the most important in terms of both volume and value. 4. In relation to fisheries management, most of the study countries have broadly stated objectives for their fisheries related to biological sustainability and ensuring social and economic benefits. In practice, the sustainability objectives are closely linked to achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and the socio-economic objectives are less clearly defined. Only Australia has a primary management objective specified in terms of Maximum Economic Yield (MEY), rather than MSY, A review of international fisheries management regimes Page iv but technical difficulties associated with estimating MEY mean that the practical management targets are usually derived from MSY. 5. Some strengths and weaknesses of the approaches that the study countries use to set biological, economic and social management objectives are summarised in the following table: Feature Description Strength / Weaknesses / Opportunities Threats Biological Broad high-level Management goals for fish Broad objectives which Uncertain prioritisation. objectives stocks are general, e.g. allow flexibility. No clear success criteria. sustainable, efficient or Can be backed by based on the precautionary specific goals (e.g. FMSY) approach and international in individual stock commitments rather than plans. specific, e.g. legislating for a reference point (i.e. MSY, MEY) Specific legislated Legislated commitment to Clear, objective criteria objectives fish at or below MSY (e.g. for assessing success NZ) Promotes economic Technically difficult to Legislated to fish at or efficiency and reduced define & estimate below MEY (AU.) environmental impact (lower fishing effort) Legislative commitment to achieve optimum yield (US) Clearly established Not as clearly defined as requirement MSY Economic Maximise economic There is an explicit objective Clear focus on Generally larger efficiency to enact policies for measures to support vessels/companies more economic efficiency (IS) economic efficiency, efficient, which implies has been successful in consolidation of fleets. improving profitability and stock status Economic stability The objective of economic Seek to maintain Not clear what ‘economic stability used as a general income in rural stability’ means in guiding principle (NO) communities practice. Include market- Policies to deregulate Demonstrated added May lead to oriented action market and focus on export value through consolidation, reduce jobs oriented value (IS) specialisation. in supply chain (e.g. in Opportunity to processing) maximise income from landed catch Social Stable employment as Policy indicates stable Clear prioritisation of Stable employment has secondary objective employment an objective objectives (i.e. not been achieved in but below economic employment practice due to efficiency and stock status contingent on consolidation (declined (IS) economic efficiency) from ~ 8k in 1991 to ~ 4k in 2003), though stable since 2003 A review of international fisheries management regimes Page v Stable employment General objective for stable Provides equal weight No specific prioritisation and settlement broad employment and settlement to economic and social or goals set out. Not clear objective in relation to quota goals whether stable allocations – but no specific employment achieved. targets. (NO) 6. Most of the study countries use annual catch limits as their primary management measures. These are usually specified as Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and form part of fishery management plans which allow a long-term approach to be taken to management. The exception to this is the Faroes which currently uses a system of effort management and has not yet adopted any management plans. Some strengths and weaknesses of the different management measures used in the various study countries are summarised in the following table: Feature Description Strength / Weaknesses / Opportunities Threats Main instrument is Main approach to Limits total fishing May limit fishing output control (TACs) controlling fishing mortality if enforced opportunities for other exploitation through stocks when quota annual TACs with reached (‘choking’). discard ban (e.g. NO, IS) Flexibilities Ability to carry-over Allows for vessels to Over-quota and mixed uncaught quota the adapt when quotas do catches increase following year, inter- not match catch mix pressure on stocks species flexibility, mitigating ‘choke effect’ allowable over-quota landings (IS) Main instrument is input Fishing is controlled Removed incentives for Has not controlled controls (effort) through days-at-sea high-grading & over- fishing mortality in its regulations with no quota discards current implementation quotas (FO) Widespread use of Temporary spatial Adaptive management Requires effective spatio-temporal management measures measures to avoid system to identify management used extensively to unwanted catch closure areas. reduce catches of May be disruptive to juvenile and spawning normal fishing patterns fish (NO, IS, FO) Shellfish receive light Shellfish generally Low regulation Limits control over touch management managed by close Provides alternative exploitation – how to seasons, minimum sizes, fishery to quota species measure sustainability technical measures etc... for shellfish? rather than catch limits (NO, IS) 7. The processes by which fishing rights, usually in terms of quota shares, are allocated and traded can be important in incentivising the rationalisation of fishing fleets. This