Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 1047–1056 | Cite as

Credible Enforcement Policies Under Illegal Fishing: Does Individual Transferable Quotas Induce to Reduce the Gap Between Approved and Proposed Allowable Catches?

  • José María Da Rocha
  • Sebastián Villasante
  • Rafael Trelles González
Article

Abstract

In general, approved Total Allowable Catches (TACs) are higher than proposed TACs by the scientific assessment and reported landings approved are higher than approved TAC. We build a simple enforcement agency’s behavior model that generates—as a rational behavior—those two facts. The model has two ingredients. First, there exists illegal fishing generated by an imperfect enforcement technology; second, the enforcement agency cannot commit on announced penalties. We show that lack of commitment increases the potential benefits for national enforcement agency of deviating from proposal (scientific optimal) quotas. Although the enforcement agency wants to announce a low quota target to induce a low level of illegal harvest, it will find optimal to revise the quota announced in order to reduce penalties and improve fishermen welfare. Therefore, agencies find it optimal to approve higher quotas than that proposed by the scientific advice. Our main result is to show that when full compliance is not possible, and national agencies cannot commit, the introduction of Individual Transferable Quotas increases the potential benefits for agencies of deviating from the optimal proposed TAC by the scientific advised.

Keywords

Enforcement policies ITQs Modern fisheries management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge from anonymous reviewers for insightful comments. Financial aid from the European Commission (MYFISH, FP7-KBBE-2011-5, no. 289257), and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (ECO2009-14697-C02-02, ECO2012-39098-C06-00, ECO2012-39098-C06-01, and ECO2012-35820) are gratefully acknowledged. SV acknowledges the financial support from the Campus do Mar-International Campus of Excellence and the Norwegian Research Council (NRC).

Supplementary material

13280_2013_459_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 6989 kb)

References

  1. Antelo, M., D. Rodríguez, and S. Villasante. 2012. The Spanish fishing fleet and the economic value of Southern stock of European hake fishery (Merluccius merluccius). Ocean and Coastal Management 70: 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnason, R. 2002. A review of international experiences with ITQs: An annex to Future options for UK fish quota management. CEMARE Report No. 58, 64 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Arnason, R., 2006. Fisheries enforcement: Basic theory. In Proceedings from the IIFET Biennial Conference 2006, Portsmouth, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Banks, R., K. Stokes, and D. Dews. 2011. MSC assessment report for Spencer Gulf Prawn (Penaeus (Melicertus) latisulcatus) fishery, 221 pp. Sheffield, UK: MSC.Google Scholar
  5. Barret, S. 2007. Why cooperate? The incentive to supply global public goods. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bjørndal, T., and D.V. Gordon. 1993. The opportunity cost of capital and optimal vessel size in the Norwegian Fishing Fleet. Land Economics 69: 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Branch, T.A., R. Watson, E.A. Fulton, S. Jennings, C.R. McGilliard, G.T. Pablico, and D. Ricard. 2010. The trophic fingerprint of marine fisheries. Nature 468: 431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buck, E.H. 1995. Individual transferable quotas in fisheries management. Report for Congress by the Congressional Research Service. Washington, DC: The Committee for the National Institute for the Environment.Google Scholar
  9. Chavez, C., and H. Salgado. 2005. Individual transferable quota markets under illegal fishing. Environmental & Resource Economics 31: 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chavez, C., N. González, and H. Salgado. 2008. ITQs under illegal fishing: An application to the red shrimp fishery in Chile. Marine Policy 32: 570–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, C.W. 1990. Mathematical bioeconomics: The optimal management of renewable resources, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Costello, C., S.D. Gaines, and J. Lynham. 2008. Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science 321: 1678–1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Da Rocha, J.M., S. Cerviño, and S. Villasante. 2012a. The Common Fisheries Policy: An enforcement problem. Marine Policy 36: 1309–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Da Rocha, J.M., S. Villasante, and R. Trelles González. 2012b. Credible enforcement policies: The role of ITQs in marine social-ecological systems. Beijer Discussion Paper No. 332. Stockholm, Sweden: The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, P. 2009. Trust and cooperation among economic agents. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B 364: 3301–3309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dasgupta, P., and G. Heal. 1979. Economic theory and exhaustible resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Emery, T.J., B.S. Green, C. Gardner, and J. Tisdell. 2010. Are input controls required in individual transferable quota fisheries to address ecosystem based fisheries management objectives? Marine Policy 36: 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Einarsson, N. 2013. Private property rights, irreversibility and the potential for alternative governance in fishing: The case of ITQs in Iceland. In Taller Comunidades pesqueras, sociedad civil, estado y mundo científico del diálogo: identificando herramientas para una gobernanza del mar. Fundación Lonxanet, A Coruña, October 23rd 2013.Google Scholar
  19. Essington, T.E. 2010. Ecological indicators display reduced variation in North American catch share fisheries. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 754–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Essington, T.E., M. Melnychuk, T.A. Branch, S.S. Heppell, O.P. Jensen, J.S. Link, S.J.D. Martell, A.M. Parma, et al. 2012. Catch shares, fisheries, and ecological stewardship: A comparative analysis of resource responses to a rights-based policy instrument. Conservation Letters 5: 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. European Commission (EC). 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, Brussels, 13.7.2011 COM (2011) 417 final; 2011.Google Scholar
  22. Froese, R., and A. Proelss. 2011. Rebuilding fish stocks no later than 2015: Will Europe meet the deadline? Fish and Fisheries 11: 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Furness, R., P. Knapman, J. Nichols, and I. Scott. 2010. MSC assessment report for the Canadian Pacific sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) fishery (Version 3, Draft report). Derby, UK: Moody International, Moody Marine.Google Scholar
  24. Grafton, R.Q., and A. McIlgorm. 2009. Ex ante evaluation of the costs and benefits of individual transferable quotas: A case-study of seven Australian commonwealth fisheries. Marine Policy 33: 714–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grafton, R.Q., T. Kompas, and R. Hilborn. 2007. Economics of overexploitation revisited. Science 318: 1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutiérrez, N., R. Hilborn, and O. Defeo. 2011. Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470: 386–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hannesson, R. 2013. Norway’s experience with ITQs. Marine Policy 37: 264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hatcher, A. 2005. Non-compliance and the quota price in an ITQ fishery. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49: 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hilborn, R. 2004. Ecosystem-based fisheries management: The carrot or the stick. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274: 275–278.Google Scholar
  30. Jardine, S.J., and J.N. Sanchirico. 2012. Catch share programs in developing countries: A survey of the literature. Marine Policy 36: 1242–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Machal, P., P. Lallemand, K. Stokes, and O. Thébaud. 2009. A comparative review of the fisheries resource management systems in New Zealand and in the European Union. Aquatic Living Resources 22: 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Markus, T. 2010. Towards sustainable fisheries subsidies: Entering a new round of reform under the Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy 34: 1117–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Melnychuk, M.C., T.E. Essington, T.A. Branch, S.S. Heppell, O.P. Jensen, J.S. Link, S.J.D. Martell, A.M. Parma, et al. 2012. Can catch share fisheries better track management targets? Fish and Fisheries 13: 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Munro, G., R. Willmann, and A. Van Houtte. 2005. The conservation and management of shared fish stocks: Legal and economic aspects. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 465. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  35. Munro, G.R., B. Turris, C. Clark, U. Sumaila, and M. Bailey. 2009. Impacts of harvesting rights in Canadian Pacific fisheries. Statistics and Economic Analysis Series No. 1-3. Ottawa, Canada: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Economic Analysis and Statistics Branch.Google Scholar
  36. Nielander, W.J., and M.S. Sullivan. 2000. Enforcement and compliance of ITQs: New Zealand and the United States of America. In Use of property rights in fisheries management, ed. R. Shotton, pp. 415–427. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 404/2. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  37. Nøstbaken, L. 2008. Fisheries law enforcement—A survey of the economic literature. Marine Policy 32: 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nøstbaken, L. 2013. Formal and informal quota enforcement. Resource and Energy Economics 35: 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ostrom, E. 1991. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ostrom, E. 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14: 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostrom, E. 2006. The value-added of laboratory experiments for the study of institutions and common-pool resources. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 61: 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ostrom, E., J. Walker, and R. Gardner. 1992. Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review 86: 404–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parslow, J. 2010. Individual transferable quotas and the “tragedy of the commons”. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 67: 1889–1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pauly, D., T. Branch, and R. Hilborn. 2013. Does catches reflects abundance? Nature 494: 303–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strandlund, J.K., and K.K. Dhanda. 1999. Endogenous monitoring and enforcement of a transferable emission permit system. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38: 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sumaila, R. 2010. A cautionary note on individual transferable quotas. Ecology and Society 15: 36.Google Scholar
  47. Sumaila, R., W. Cheung, A. Dyck, K. Gueye, L. Huang, V. Lam, D. Pauly, T. Srinivasan, et al. 2012. Benefits of rebuilding global marine fisheries outweigh costs. PLoS ONE 7: e40542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Teraji, S. 2013. A theory of norm compliance: Punishment and reputation. The Journal of Socio-Economics 44: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Long, N., and S. McWhinnie. 2012. The tragedy of the commons in a fishery when relative performance matters. Ecological Economics 81: 140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vélez, M.A., J.K. Stranlund, and J.J. Murphy. 2012. Preferences for government enforcement of a common pool harvest quota: Theory and experimental evidence from fishing communities in Colombia. Ecological Economics 77: 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Villasante, S. 2010. Global assessment of the European Union fishing fleet: An update. Marine Policy 34: 663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Villasante, S., and R. Sumaila. 2010. Estimating the effects of technological efficiency on the European fleet. Marine Policy 34: 720–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Villasante, S., R. Sumaila, and M. Antelo. 2014. Why cooperation is better? The gains of cooperative management of the Argentine shortfin squid fishery in South America. In Environment and development economics: Essays in honour of Sir Partha Dasgupta, ed. S. Barret, K.-G. Mäler, and E. Maskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Walker, B., S. Barret, S. Polasky, V. Galaz, C. Folke, G. Engström, F. Ackerman, K. Arrow, et al. 2009. Looming global scale failures and missing institutions. Science 325: 1345–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • José María Da Rocha
    • 1
  • Sebastián Villasante
    • 2
    • 3
  • Rafael Trelles González
    • 1
  1. 1.Campus do Mar, International Campus of ExcellenceVigoSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  3. 3.Centro Nacional Patagónico (CENPAT)CONICETPuerto MadrynArgentina

Personalised recommendations