The economic implications of changing regulations for deep sea fishing under the European Common Fisheries Policy: UK case study.

Economic impact assessment methodology was applied to UK fisheries data to better understand the implications of European Commission proposal for regulations to fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic (EC COM 371 Final 2012) under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The aim was to inform the on-going debate to develop the EC proposal, and to assist the UK fishing industry and Government in evaluating the most effective options to manage deep sea fish stocks. Results indicate that enforcing the EC proposal as originally drafted results in a number of implications for the UK fleet. Because of the proposed changes to the list of species defined as being deep sea species, and a new definition of what constitutes a vessel targeting deep sea species, a total of 695 active UK fishing vessels would need a permit to fish for deep sea species. However, due to existing and capped capacity limits many vessels would potentially not be able to obtain such a permit. The economic impact of these changes from the status quo reveals that in the short term, landings would decrease by 6540 tonnes, reducing gross value added by £3.3 million. Alternative options were also assessed that provide mitigation measures to offset the impacts of the proposed regulations whilst at the same time providing more effective protection of deep sea Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs). The options include setting a 400m depth rule that identifies a depth beyond which vessels would potentially be classified as fishing for deep sea species and designating 'core areas' for deep sea fishing at depths>400m to minimise the risk of further impacts of bottom fishing gear on deep sea habitats. Applying a 400m depth limit and 'core fishing' area approach deeper than 400m, the impact of the EC proposal would essentially be reduced to zero, that is, on average no vessels (using the status quo capacity baseline) would be impacted by the proposal.

A thematic cost-benefit analysis of a marine protected area.

The implementation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is ultimately a social endeavour to sustain or improve human well-being via the conservation of marine ecosystems. The degree to which ecological gains are realised can depend upon how economic, ecological and social costs (negative impacts) and benefits (positive impacts) are included in the designation and management process. Without the support of key stakeholder groups whose user rights have been affected by the creation of an MPA, human impacts cannot be reduced. This study analyses a three year dataset to understand the themes associated with the economic, environmental and social costs and benefits of an MPA in Lyme Bay, United Kingdom (UK) following its establishment in 2008. Methodologically, the paper presents an ecosystem based management framework for analysing costs and benefits. Two hundred and forty one individuals were interviewed via questionnaire between 2008 and 2010 to determine perceptions and the level of support towards the MPA. Results reveal that despite the contentious manner in which this MPA was established, support for the MPA is strong amongst the majority of stakeholder groups. The level of support and the reasons given for support vary between stakeholder groups. Overall, the stakeholders perceive the social, economic and environmental benefits of the MPA to outweigh the perceived costs. There have been clear social costs of the MPA policy and these have been borne by mobile and static gear fishermen and charter boat operators. Local support for this MPA bodes well for the development of a network of MPAs around the UK coast under the United Kingdom Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. However, this initial optimism is at risk if stakeholder expectation is not managed and the management vacuum is not filled.

Assessing the impacts of establishing MPAs on fishermen and fish merchants: the case of Lyme Bay, UK.

Shortly after the implementation of a marine protected area (MPA) in Lyme Bay in 2008, inside which scallop dredging and bottom trawling is prohibited, a socio-economic impact assessment was initiated. This article presents the initial findings from this study. The aim was to understand the costs and benefits to fishermen and fish merchants of establishing the MPA. These were assessed using a combination of primary and secondary data. The results indicate that the impacts of the closure differ according to the gear type and the fishing location used by the fishermen. Static gear fishermen who fish inside the closed area have seen changes in terms of increased fishing effort, mostly because they have been able to increase the number of crab and whelk pots they deploy. The effects of the closure on static gear fishermen who fish outside the closed area has been reported in terms of increased conflicts with towed gear fishermen who now fish regularly in their traditional grounds. Fishermen using towed gear on the other hand have been impacted through displacement effects as they have been forced to look for other fishing grounds outside the closed area. Most fish merchants and processors initially claimed that they were heavily impacted by the closure but when they were interviewed 1 year after the closure they suggested a more stable picture. Preliminary analyses of landings data indicate that the introduction of the MPA has so far had minimal impacts on the average incomes and financial profits of fishermen and fish merchants. This conclusion, however, reflects a short-term view as the impacts of the closure of Lyme Bay are likely to be felt for a long time to come.

Valuing recreational benefits of coral reefs: the case of Mombasa Marine National Park and Reserve, Kenya.

A contingent valuation study was conducted with adult Kenyan citizens and foreign tourists to estimate the value of recreational benefits arising from coral reefs at Mombasa Marine National Park and Reserve (MMNPR), and to assess the implications for local reef management. Citizen and foreign visitors to MMNPR were willing to pay an extra $2.2 (median = $1.6) and $8 (median = $6.7) per visit respectively, in addition to current park entrance fees, to support reef quality improvements. By aggregating visitors' willingness to pay bids over the number of visitors to MMNPR in 2006-2007 the value of benefits was estimated at $346,733, which was more than twice the total annual operational expenditure of $152,383 for MMNPR. The findings indicate that annual revenues from citizen and foreign visitors may be increased by 60% to $261,932 through the implementation of proposed higher park fees of $3.10 for citizens and $15 for foreign visitors. However, any fee increase would serve to intensify concerns among citizens that only relatively affluent Kenyans can afford to visit MMNPR. Park managers need to demonstrate that the extra revenue would be used to fund the proposed conservation activities. This valuation study demonstrates that visitors are prepared to pay higher user fees for access to the marine protected area revealing considerable untapped resource to finance reef quality improvements.

Financial comparisons of fishing gear used in Kenya's coral reef lagoons.

The cost of fishing and the income earned by fishers using small and large traps, gill nets, beach seines, hand lines, and spearguns were assessed in the multigear fishery of southern Kenya to establish a financial rationale for fishing gear use. Direct observations and key-informant interviews with fish leaders and boat captains were used to gather data on fish catch, cost of fishing gear, boats, and the price of fish. Among the fishing gear used, spearguns had the lowest monthly cost (USD 1 mo(-1)) while big traps had the highest (USD 13 mo(-1)). Income was highest among capital cost beach seine fishers (USD 183 mo(-1)) and lowest among noncapital cost beach seine fishers (USD 20 mo(-1)). There was a direct positive correlation between income earned and profitability of gear. Correlation of the financial measure for each gear to four categories of damage to fish and habitats showed that low cost fishing gear were associated with the highest environmental damage indicating a trade-off between cost of gear and environmental health.