Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 25–59 | Cite as

Endogenous Fishery Management in a Stochastic Model: Why Do Fishery Agencies Use TACs Along with Fishing Periods?

  • José María Da Rocha
  • María José Gutiérrez
Article

Abstract

This paper seeks to explain the circumstances under which using total allowable catch (TAC) as an instrument to manage a fishery along with fishing periods may be of interest from a regulatory point of view. The deterministic analysis by Homans and Wilen (J Environ Econ Manag 32:1–21, 1997) and Anderson (Ann Oper Res 94:231–257, 2000) is thus extended to a stochastic scenario where the resource cannot be measured accurately. The resulting model is solved numerically to find the optimal control rules in the Iberian sardine stock. Three relevant conclusions can be highlighted from simulations: first, the greater the uncertainty regarding the state of the stock, the lower the probability of the fishery being closed before the end of the fishing period. Second, the use of TACs as a management instrument in fisheries that are already regulated by fishing periods leads to: (i) an increase in the optimal season length and harvests, especially for medium and high numbers of licences; (ii) improved biological and economic variables when the fleet is large; and (iii) extinction risk for the resource being eliminated. Third, the regulator would rather select the number of licences than restrict the season length.

Keywords

Endogenous optimization fisheries models Fishery management under uncertainty 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

91B76 92D25 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson LG (2000) Open access fisheries utilization with an endogenous regulatory structure: an expanded analysis. Ann Oper Res 94: 231–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnason R (2000) Endogenous optimization fisheries models. Ann Oper Res 94: 219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjørndal T, Brasão A (2006) The East Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries: stock collapse or recovery?. Marine Res Econ 21: 193–210Google Scholar
  4. Bjørndal T, Gordon D, Kaitala V, Lindroos M (2004a) International management strategies for a straddling fish stock: a bio-economic simulation model of the Norwegian spring-spawning herring fishery. Environ Res Econ 29: 435–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjørndal T, Ussif A, Sumaila R (2004b) A bioeconomic analysis of the Norwegian spring spawning herring (NSSH) stock. Marine Resour Econ 19: 353–365Google Scholar
  6. Clark GW, Kirkwood GP (1986) On uncertain renewable resource stocks: optimal harvest policies and the value of stock surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 13(3): 235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Council Regulation (EC) No 1288/2009 of 27 November 2009 Establishing Transitional Technical Measures from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011Google Scholar
  8. Da Rocha JM, Gutiérrez MJ, Cerviño S (2010) An endogenous bio-economic optimization algorithm to evaluate recovery plans: an application to southern hake. ICES J Marine Sci 67(9): 1957–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Da Rocha JM, Gutiérrez MJ (2011) Lessons from the northern hake long-term management plan: could the economic assessment have accepted it. ICES J Mar Sci 68(9): 1937–1941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danielsson A (2002) Efficiency of catch and effort quotas in the presence of risk. J Environ Econ Manag 43: 20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diekert FK, Hjermann DO, Naevdal E (2010) Spare the young fish: optimal harvesting policies for North-East Arctic cod. Environ Res Econ 47: 455–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hannesson R, Steinshamn S (1991) How to set catch quotas: constant effort or constant catch. J Environ Econ Manag 20: 71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Homans FR, Wilen JE (1997) A model of regulated open access resource use. J Environ Econ Manag 32: 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ICES (2007) Report of the working group on the assessment of Mackerel, Horse Mackerel, Sardine and Anchovy (WGMHSA), 4–13 September 2007, ICES Headquarters. ICES CM 2007/ACFM:31. 712 pGoogle Scholar
  15. IPHC (2009) Annual Report. ISSN: 0074-7238. http://www.iphc.washington.edu/publications/annual/ar2009.pdf
  16. Kirkley CJ, Morrison P, Cunningham S, Catanzano J (2004) Embodied and disembodied technical change in fisheries: an analysis of the Sète trawl fishery, 1985–1999. Environ Res Econ 29(2): 191–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kompas T, Tuong NC, Quentin R (2008) Fisheries instrument choice under uncertainty. Land Econ 84(4): 652–666Google Scholar
  18. Lazkano I (2008) Cost structure and capacity utilization in multi-product industries: an application to the Basque trawl industry. Environ Res Econ 41(2): 189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Quiggin J (1992) How to set catch quotas: a note on the superiority of constant effort rules. J Environ Econ Manag 22(2): 199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reed WJ (1979) Optimal escapement levels in stochastic and deterministic harvesting models. J Environ Econ Manag 6: 350–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sethi G, Costello C, Fisher A, Hanemann M, Karp L (2005) Fishery management under multiple uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 50: 300–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suris J (1993) Regulation of the iberoatlantic sardine fishery. Environ Res Econ 3(5): 457–470Google Scholar
  23. Tahvonen O (2009) Economics of harvesting age-structured fish populations. J Environ Econ Manag 58: 281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weitzman ML (2002) Landing fees vs harvest quotas with uncertain fish stocks. J Environ Econ Manag 43(2): 325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • José María Da Rocha
    • 1
    • 2
  • María José Gutiérrez
    • 3
  1. 1.Universitat Autónoma de BarcelonaBellaterra, Cerdanyola del VallésSpain
  2. 2.RGEA-Universidade de VigoVigoSpain
  3. 3.FAEII and MacLabUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)BilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations