, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 611–627 | Cite as

Managing Fleet Capacity Effectively Under Second-Hand Market Redistribution

  • Emmanuelle Quillérou
  • Nolwenn Roudaut
  • Olivier Guyader


Fishing capacity management policies have been traditionally implemented at national level with national targets for capacity reduction. More recently, capacity management policies have increasingly targeted specific fisheries. French fisheries spatially vary along the French coastline and are associated to specific regions. Capacity management policies, however, ignore the capital mobility associated with second-hand vessel trade between regions. This is not an issue for national policies but could limit the effectiveness of regional capacity management policies. A gravity model and a random-effect Poisson regression model are used to analyze the determinants and spatial extent of the second-hand market in France. This study is based on panel data from the French Atlantic Ocean between 1992 and 2009. The trade flows between trading partners is found to increase with their sizes and to be spatially concentrated. Despite the low trade flows between regions, a net impact analysis shows that fishing capacity is redistributed by the second-hand market to regions on the Channel and Aquitaine from central regions. National capacity management policies (constructions/destructions) have induced a net decrease in regional fleet capacity with varying magnitude across regions. Unless there is a change of policy instruments or their scale of implementation, the operation of the second-hand market decreases the effectiveness of regional capacity management policies in regions on the Channel and Aquitaine.


Gravity model Fishing vessels Second-hand markets Poisson French Atlantic 



The authors would like to acknowledge the very helpful comments and suggestions received from the Editor, the Associate Editor, and two anonymous reviewers. We would also like to thank Dr. Sylvain Barde (University of Kent) and Dr. Olivier Thébaud (CSIRO) for their insights and constructive suggestions. We are also very grateful for comments and suggestions received during a seminar presentation at the School of Economics of the University of Kent (UK) and at the 2012 Conference of the Natural Resource Modeling Association as part of a research visit funded by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decision (CEED) Australia. In addition, we would like to thank Dr. Fabienne Daurès for her insights into fishery policy, Samuel Le Blond, Mathilde Pitel and the Sextant team at Ifremer for greatly facilitating the building of the database, Christelle Le Grand and Damaris Phélippé. We would also like to thank Tatiana Jousselin (ESRI) and Dr. Hawthorne L. Beyer (Spatial Ecology LLC) for their help with ArcGIS 9.3.1 and Geospatial Modelling Environment.


  1. Anderson, L.G. 1989. Conceptual constructs for practical ITQ management policies. Chapter V. Individual transferable quotas: Part two. In Rights Based Fishing, ed. P. Neher, R. Arnarson, and N. Mollett, vol. 169, 191–209. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L.G. 2008. The control of market power in ITQ fisheries. Marine Resource Economics 23: 25–35.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J.E. 2011. The gravity model. Annual Review of Economics 3: 133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, J.E., and E. van Wincoop. 2003. Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review 93: 170–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnason, R. 2009. Conflicting uses of marine resources: Can ITQs promote an efficient solution? Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 53: 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asche, F., H. Eggert, E. Gudmundsson, A. Hoff, and S. Pascoe. 2008. Fisher’s behaviour with individual vessel quotas—over-capacity and potential rent: Five case studies. Marine Policy 32: 920–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bastardie, F., J.R. Nielsen, B.S. Andersen, and O.R. Eigaard. 2010. Effects of fishing effort allocation scenarios on energy efficiency and profitability: An individual-based model applied to Danish fisheries. Fisheries Research 106: 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berthou, P., F. Daurès, O. Guyader, C. Merrien, and M. Jézéquel. 2002. Synthèse des pêcheries 2000—Flotte Mer du Nord-Manche Atlantique, Ifremer—RH, DEM, 122 pp. Accessed 25 June 2012.
  9. Beyer, H. L. 2001–2010. Geospatial modelling environment version: 0.3.4 Beta. Spatial Ecology LLC. Accessed 17 June 2010.
  10. Biseau, A., R. Bellail, M. Bertignac, G. Biais, J.-L. Bigot, L. Bouche, J. Bourjea, A. Caro, et al. 2011. State in 2011 of exploited resources by French fishing fleets (in French), Ifremer, 68 pp. Accessed 05 October 2012.
  11. Burger, M.J., F.G. van Oort, and G.-J.M. Linders. 2009. On the specification of the gravity model of trade: Zeros, excess zeros and zero-inflated estimation. Spatial Economic Analysis 4: 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cameron, A.C., and P.K. Trivedi. 1998. Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cappell, R., T. Huntington, and G. Macfadyen. 2010. FIFG 2000–2006 Shadow Evaluation. Final Report. Report to the Pew Environment Group. Windrush, Warborne Lane, Portmore, Lymington, Hampshire SO41 5RJ, UK: Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd., 50 pp + appendices. Accessed 10 May 2012.
  14. Clark, C.W., G.R. Munro, and U.R. Sumaila. 2005. Subsidies, buybacks, and sustainable fisheries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50: 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, C.W., G.R. Munro, and U.R. Sumaila. 2007. Buyback subsidies, the time consistency problem, and the ITQ alternative. Land Economics 83: 50–58.Google Scholar
  16. Commission of the European Communities. 2009. Green Paper Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels: European Commission, 28 pp. Accessed 18 May 2011.
  17. Curtis, R., and D. Squires. 2004. Fisheries buybacks. La Jolla, CA: Blackwell Publishing, 267 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Daurès, F., M. Planchot, S. Demanèche, S. Van Iseghem, P. Berthou, E. Leblond, and M. Jézéquel. 2007. Contribution et Dépendance des flottilles de pêche aux espèces commerciales majeures du Golfe de Gascogne. Ifremer, 66 pp. Accessed 28 June 2012.
  19. Del Valle Erkiaga, I., and K.A. Ikazuriaga. 2012. Assessing changes in capital and investment as a result of fishing capacity limitation programs. Environmental and Resource Economics. doi: 10.1007/s10640-012-9591-1
  20. Deporte, N., C. Ulrich, S. Mahévas, S. Demanèche, and F. Bastardie. 2012. Regional métier definition: A comparative investigation of statistical methods using a workflow applied to international otter trawl fisheries in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69: 331–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Esri. 2009. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 9.3.1.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. 2008. The common fisheries policy: A user’s guide. European Communities. Accessed 26 January 2011.
  23. European Commission. 2010. Commission decision of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011–2013 (notified under document C(2009) 10121) (2010/93/EU), Official Journal of the European Union 16.2.2010. L 41/8: 8–71.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. 2011. Reform of the common fisheries policy, communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions, 11 pp. Accessed 28 June 2012.
  25. Feenstra, R.C. 2004. Advanced international trade: Theory and evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Flaaten, O. 2010. Fisheries rent creation and distribution—the imaginary case of Codland. Marine Policy 34: 1268–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fulton, E.A., A.D.M. Smith, D.C. Smith, and I.E. Van Putten. 2011. Human behaviour: The key source of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries 12: 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guyader, O., P. Berthou, and F. Daurès. 2004. Decommissioning schemes and capacity adjustment: A preliminary analysis of the French experience. In Fisheries buybacks, ed. R. Curtis, and D. Squires, 105–132. La Jolla, CA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Guyader, O., F. Daurès, M. Jézequel, and O. Thébaud. 2006. Second hand market for fishing vessels and implicit price of fishing rights. International Workshop on Regulating Access to Marine Fisheries in the Coastal Zone. January 2006. Brest, France: AMURE Research Group.Google Scholar
  30. Guyader, O., P. Berthou, C. Koustikopoulos, F. Alban, S. Démanèche, M. Gaspar, R. Eschbaum, E. Fahy, et al. 2007. Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries in Europe. Final Report of the Contract No. FISH/2005/10. Plouzané Cedex: Ifremer (coord.), 447 pp. and Accessed 28 June 2012.
  31. Haveman, J., and D. Hummels. 2004. Alternative hypotheses and the volume of trade: The gravity equation and the extent of specialization. Canadian Journal of Economics 37: 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Head, K., and T. Mayer. 2011. Gravity, market potential and economic development. Journal of Economic Geography 11: 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holland, D.S., and G.E. Herrera. 2012. The impact of age structure, uncertainty, and asymmetric spatial dynamics on regulatory performance in a fishery metapopulation. Ecological Economics 77: 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ICES. 2003. Report of the Study Group for the Development of Fishery-based Forecasts. Boulogne, France, 18–21 February 2003. Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 37 pp. Accessed 05 October 2012.
  35. Ifremer. 2010. Système d’Informations Halieutiques (SIH).
  36. Larabi, Z., O. Guyader, C. Macher, and F. Daurès. 2012. Gestion des quotas de pêche dans un contexte de non transferabilité des droits à produire: le cas de la France. AMURE Elecronic Publications Working Paper Series, Document D-32-2012, 23 pp. Accessed 22 November 2012.
  37. Le Floc’h, P., F. Daurès, M. Nourry, O. Thébaud, M. Travers, and S. Van Iseghem. 2011. The influence of fiscal regulations on investment in marine fisheries: A French case study. Fisheries Research 109: 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leblond, E., F. Daurès, P. Berthou, C. Merrien, M. Pitel-Roudaut, S. Bermell, C. Brigaudeau, M. Planchot, et al. 2007. Synthèse des flottilles de pêche 2006—Flotte Mer du Nord-Manche-Atlantique-Méditerranée. Ifremer, 223 pp. Accessed 22 June 2012.
  39. Leblond, E., F. Daurès, P. Berthou, C. Merrien, M. Pitel-Roudaut, C. Macher, C. Le Grand, S. Demanèche, et al. 2011. Synthèse des flottilles de pêche 2009—Flotte Mer du Nord-Manche-Atlantique-Méditerranée. Ifremer, 244 pp. Accessed 22 June 2012.
  40. Lindebo, E. 2005. Role of subsidies in EU fleet capacity management. Marine Resource Economics 20: 445–466.Google Scholar
  41. Marchal, P. 2008. A comparative analysis of métiers and catch profiles for some French demersal and pelagic fleets. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65: 674–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Microsoft Corporation. 1992–2001. Microsoft Access 2002: Computer Program.Google Scholar
  43. MRAG, IFM, CEFAS, AZTI Tecnalia, and PolEM. 2009. An Analysis of Existing Rights Based Management (RBM) Instruments in Member States and on Setting Up Best Practices in the EU. Final Report. European Commission Studies and Pilot Projects for Carrying Out the Common Fisheries Policy No. FISH/2007/03. London: MRAG Ltd., 117 pp. Accessed 29 June 2012.
  44. Opaluch, J.J., and N.E. Bockstael. 1984. Behavioral modeling and fisheries management. Marine Resource Economics 1: 105–115.Google Scholar
  45. Pascoe, S., L. Coglan, A.E. Punt, and C.M. Dichmont. 2012. Impacts of vessel capacity reduction programmes on efficiency in fisheries: The case of Australia’s multispecies northern prawn fishery. Journal of Agricultural Economics 63: 425–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Péreau, J.C., L. Doyen, L.R. Little, and O. Thébaud. 2012. The triple bottom line: Meeting ecological, economic and social goals with individual transferable quotas. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63: 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pinkerton, E., and D.N. Edwards. 2009. The elephant in the room: The hidden costs of leasing individual transferable fishing quotas. Marine Policy 33: 707–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Quillérou, E., and O. Guyader. 2012. What is behind fleet evolution: A framework for flow analysis and application to the French Atlantic fleet. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69: 1069–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Quillérou, E., O. Guyader, F. Daurès, M. Jézéquel, E. Leblond, S. Le Blond, and M. Merzéréaud. 2011. Analyse statistique du fonctionnement du marché des navires d’occasion et de la dynamique associée des flottilles. Évolution des prix sur le marché des navires d’occasion de 1992 à 2008. Rapport de la convention PPDR DPMA-IFREMER—Article 4.3, 32 pp.
  50. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  51. Santos Silva, J.M.C., and S. Tenreyro. 2006. The log of gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics 88: 641–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sextant. 2010. Port français et internationaux (version SIH 2010). Ifremer - Système d’Informations Halieutiques. Accessed 17 June 2010.
  53. Squires, D., Y. Jeon, R.Q. Grafton, and J. Kirkley. 2010. Controlling excess capacity in common-pool resource industries: The transition from input to output controls. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 54: 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. StataCorp. 2007. Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  55. Townsend, R.E. 2010. Transactions costs as an obstacle to fisheries self-governance in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 54: 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Iseghem, S., E. Quillérou, C. Brigaudeau, C. Macher, O. Guyader, and F. Daurès. 2011. Ensuring representative economic data: Survey data-collection methods in France for implementing the Common Fisheries Policy. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68: 1792–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Putten, I.E., K.G. Hamon, and C. Gardner. 2011a. Network analysis of a rock lobster quota lease market. Fisheries Research 107: 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Putten, I.E., S. Kulmala, O. Thébaud, N. Dowling, K.G. Hamon, T. Hutton, and S. Pascoe. 2011b. Theories and behavioural drivers underlying fleet dynamics models. Fish and Fisheries 13: 216–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Putten, I.E., E. Quillérou, and O. Guyader. 2012. How constrained? Entry into the French Atlantic fishery through second-hand vessel purchase. Ocean and Coastal Management 69: 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Villasante, S. 2010. Global assessment of the European Union fishing fleet: An update. Marine Policy 34: 663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Villasante, S., and U.R. Sumaila. 2010. Estimating the effects of technological efficiency on the European fishing fleet. Marine Policy 34: 720–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Westerlund, J., and F. Wilhelmsson. 2009. Estimating the gravity model without gravity using panel data. Applied Economics 43: 641–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Whitmarsh, D.J. 1998. The fisheries treadmill. Land Economics 74: 422–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wooldridge, J.M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuelle Quillérou
    • 1
  • Nolwenn Roudaut
    • 2
  • Olivier Guyader
    • 3
  1. 1.United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH)United Nations UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.IREAUniversité de Bretagne SudVannesFrance
  3. 3.Ifremer, UMR AMURE, Unité d’Économie MaritimeTechnopole de Brest-IroisePlouzané CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations