Every week, the Lab selects a particularly interesting and relevant news item or initiative and presents it in a few lines. This week, the Lab presents a study by NEF (New Economics Foundation) titled " No Catch Investment ": what if the solution to improve the benefits related to fisheries was... to ban fishing? This is the demonstration made by NEF by calculating the costs and benefits of a temporary ban on catches in areas where fish stocks are declining. This 2012 study has a particular resonance as France has just surpassed, on May 30, its Fish Dependence Day.
Overfishing, a perfect illustration of the tragedy of the commons
Fishery resources are exemplary for illustrating the " tragedy of the commons " described by Hardin as early as 1968 [1]. This theory, largely verified in practice, explains that freely accessible natural resources are necessarily overexploited, as everyone tries to extract the maximum profit. Ultimately, resources are depleted, ecosystems degrade, and profits for all operators collapse.
Thus in the northeast Atlantic, 47% of fish stocks were considered overexploited in 2012. Beyond the environmental impact related to the disruption of ecosystem dynamics, the outcome is disastrous for fishermen: their catches represent only one-fifth of what they would be if stocks were healthy! Despite mechanization and increasing efficiency of boats, catches in EU waters (northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean) have been declining in volume since the late 1970s, and jobs in the sector follow this downward trend. Thus, 1.8 billion euros are lost due to overfishing in the EU every year [2]!
A total moratorium: an investment rather than a cost
How to adopt long-term sustainable management of fisheries, for the benefit of the economy, the environment, and fishermen? NEF proposes a radical alternative: the complete closure of overexploited fishing zones. If the costs of this moratorium are significant, they should rather be viewed as an investment. Assuming a complete halt to catches, this investment should be sufficient to at least compensate fishermen during the duration of the ban. This corresponds to the time needed for fish stocks to rebuild to a desirable population level for sustainable, long-term exploitation. It is also necessary to account for the non-coverage of fixed costs, the depreciation of boat values, etc. and allow for an evolution of fishing practices and capacities to avoid further overexploitation in the future [3].
NEF thus shows that this investment would be highly profitable: the approximately 10.6 billion euros required to finance a moratorium of nearly 10 years, necessary to restore fish stocks to a healthy state, would be fully reimbursed in less than 5 years after fishing resumes. Over 40 years, the benefits of this transition would exceed 138 billion euros.
Who finances the transition?
NEF also recommends that this investment be financed by private actors, who could be attracted by the excellent profitability of the operation and its quick return on investment. Public funds should be allocated to the necessary controls to ensure compliance with the moratorium, to scientific monitoring of stocks to collect valuable data for fisheries management, and to reducing fishing capacities to prevent any resumption of overexploitation once the moratorium ends.
Anticipating side effects
However, some questions remain unanswered: European fish processing industries would be significantly impacted by the complete halt of local fishing. Even assuming that imports could cover their needs to prevent the decline of these sectors in the EU, the high induced demand could lead to the overexploitation of stocks located in other parts of the world, a phenomenon already observed for tuna, for example [4].
Even if this scenario is not verified, global fish prices could rise sharply due to the sudden imbalance between supply and demand, at the expense of food security for the poorest communities and countries. Unless Europeans stop eating fish during the moratorium, risking the opening of new substitute markets (meat, for example) that may not be more sustainable but could persist even after fishing resumes, due to the path dependency effect.
This hypothesis is anyway unrealistic: NEF's calculation of Fish Dependence Day (fishing dependency day) shows that, this year, community fishing will no longer be able to ensure European self-sufficiency for fish starting from July 13, 2016. For France, the date has already passed: it was May 30. Beyond this date, any fish consumed corresponds to an import [5].
A radical... but revealing avenue
Nonetheless, this scenario is an interesting avenue, as the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) [6] has proven rather ineffective so far in combating the erosion of resources and the economic activities, territories, and communities that depend on them within the European Union.
Vertigo Lab wishes to update this NEF study, published in 2012, to incorporate more recent data and adapt it to the current context. Vertigo Lab is also interested in the effects of choosing such a public policy on the economy (rebound effects, changes in consumption habits, securing new markets for imports, vacant markets due to the moratorium, etc.).
Vertigo Lab is currently working on the cost-benefit analysis of several management scenarios for a natural park in the Coral Sea. This work should support New Caledonian managers in seeking a balance between the economic development of fisheries and the conservation of marine resources. To learn more about this mission, click here.
References
- [1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons, Sciences 162: 1243-1248.
- [2] http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/46c2fb127533c643de_rvm6b40rz.pdf NEF (2012). No Catch Investment.
- [3] http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0163:FIN:EN:PDF European Commission (2009). Green Paper: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.
- [4] http://www.lemonde.fr/biodiversite/article/2016/05/31/no-consensus-to-reduce-tropical-tuna-fishing-in-the-indian-ocean_4929759_1652692.html Le Monde (May 31, 2016). No consensus to reduce tropical tuna fishing in the Indian Ocean.
- [5] http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/fish-dependence-2016-update NEF (2016). Fish Dependence – 2016 update.
- [6] http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/index_en.htm European Commission (2015). Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
