It is clear that a reduction of the amount of fishing, particularly for the northern stocks of hake would be very beneficial. It would lead to some increase in total catch and could be accompanied by a substantial decrease in the costs of fishing; the opportunities for very much greater net returns from the fishery are obvious. While countries may well agree in principle on such a reduction, much needs to be decided if a real reduction is to be achieved in practice. Decisions are required on the magnitude of the reduction; whether the reduction will be on an equal, pro rata basis on all sections of the fishery or whether some fleets will be expected to reduce their effort more than others; how the amount of fishing will be measured, and the limit on effort set; and how the limit can be enforced and seen, by all participants, to be enforced.
The report of the hake working group gives estimates of the reduction in effort which, on the data available, would be expected to give the greatest yield. For the northern stocks it was estimated that a fishing effort 70 percent below that at present would give the greatest sustained yield. It is doubtful whether a reduction of this magnitude would be easy to implement in a single step in practice and that a phased reduction, perhaps of 20 percent every two or three years, would be more acceptable to the fishery. This would allow the stock to build up after each reduction so that at no time, except for a short period after the first step, need the total catch fall below the present level.
There are other reasons for preferring a gradual approach to the optimum level of fishing effort. First the data available to the working group were not as good or as extensive as might be hoped. Hence their estimates are not very precise. While the evidence is clear enough that some reduction is needed, particularly for the northern stocks, the true level giving the greatest yield (or yield per recruit) may be somewhat different than that estimated. Secondly, the level giving the greatest catch is an upper limit to a desirable level of the amount of fishing. In virtually any circumstances it would be desirable to fish a little less intensively, so as to gain the benefits of reduced costs with very little reduction in total catch. Economics and social analyses would be needed to determine what the optimum level would be.
Finally, the desirable level of the amount of fishing depends inter alia on the mesh size used. A reduction in the amount of fishing and an increase in mesh size are both needed because many hake and sea bream are being caught before they have had time to grow to a good size. If a larger mesh size is used, thus releasing the very small fish, there will be somewhat less need to reduce the amount of fishing - though it is unlikely that in the foreseeable future it will be practicable to enforce the use of so large a mesh size as to eliminate the need for some reduction in effort. Taking all these factors together makes an initial target of reducing the amount of fishing by perhaps 10-20 percent seem reasonable.
Different reductions in effort by various sections of the fishery can be justified on several grounds. Where fishing is done by the coastal state and by non-local vessels the clear implication of the draft articles of the new Law of the Sea is that the latter are entitled mainly to the “surplus”, after the coastal state has taken what it can. That is, if reduction in the total amount of fishing is needed, any reduction should be made only by the non-local vessels.
There can also be biological reasons for differential reductions. When the fisheries differ in the composition of their catches - particularly in the sizes of fish caught - a reduction in effort will have different effects, depending on the fleet to which it is applied. Since the main benefits in reducing fishing effort comes from allowing small fish to live longer and grow, these benefits will be greater when the reduction in effort occurs in that part of the fishery directed onto small fish.
In the case of the northern hake stocks, at least, these two considerations act in opposite directions. The Moroccan fishery appears to take much smaller fish than the Spanish fishery - though the data are not very good, and more studies of the sizes actually caught by different vessels are needed. Thus, there would be greater benefits from reducing the Moroccan rather than the Spanish effort. Indeed the Moroccan fleet apparently catches so few hake as big as, or bigger than, those caught by the Spanish that, if the Spanish effort were reduced, then, other things being equal, there might be insufficient fishing on the large fish (which should increase as a result) to result in much benefit.
For the present it may be difficult to determine, for the northern stock, to which extent the fleets should reduce their efforts differentially. To do this, it would be desirable (a) to have scientific analyses made of the effects on the total catch, and on catches of individual fleets, of various differential patterns of reduction, in addition to the study of a uniform reduction of total effort, and (b) operational studies, to determine to what extent the Moroccan fishery could shift its attention from small to larger fish.
So far as the measurement of the fishing effort on the hake or sea bream stocks is concerned, this can be done in terms of the catch or the activities of fishing vessels. Both have objections. A given catch will represent a different real fishing effort depending on the abundance of the stock. Other things being equal, it can be expected that the catch quota required to achieve a certain reduction in effort will increase over the years as the stocks increase in response to the decrease in effort. In addition, the abundance can change from natural causes and there seem to have been significant fluctuations in the CECAF hake stocks. Until it is possible to monitor the year-to-year change in abundance with greater precision than at present, it will be difficult to determine what catch should be taken in order to achieve any predetermined level of effort. Therefore, for the present, it does not seem practicable to consider catch limits as a method of control, even though they have some obvious advantages - for example, the weight caught is a readily comparable and understandable measure of the amount of fishing.
Measuring the amount of fishing in terms of the activities of the fleet/number of vessels, number of days fishing, etc. can involve much greater problems of comparability.
The effective amount of fishing on hake or sea bream caused by a given vessel in a given period will be determined by its fishing power (the size of the vessel itself, and the characteristics of the gear used), and by the attention given to hake and/or sea bream during the period considered.
In the long run the former problems - changes in fishing power of individual vessels - can be serious, leading to substantial increases in the real amount of fishing as the efficiency of the vessels increase. In the short run the effects of efficiency changes can be minimized by taking into account the size/class of the vessels concerned.
In the CECAF area the more serious problem is that large quantities of hake and sea bream are taken by trawlers that can also fish for other demersal species or for pelagic fish. The actual effort exerted by these vessels depends on the extent to which they are deliberately fishing for hake or sea bream, rather than for, e.g., cephalopods or horse mackerel, and also on the magnitude of the incidental catches taken when fishing for the latter species.
In principle the question of incidental catches can be dealt with by determining, first, the magnitude of hake or sea bream catches which will be taken unavoidably by the vessels fishing for other species, and second, the amount of directed fishing that can be allowed, taking into account the incidental catches. This would still leave two problems -one scientific and one in relation to enforcement. The scientific problem is that we do not know enough at present about the unavoidable incidence of by-catches to set realistic limits to the proportion of incidental catch that should be allowable; probably it could be very low, particularly for sea breams, in the case of trawling for pelagic species (sardinella, mackerel, etc.), but might need to be substantial in the case of fishing for cephalopods or other bottom-living species. The enforcement problem is that if a certain percentage of incidental catch is allowed on a trip basis (i.e., checking is done when the catch is landed), there can be a temptation for fishermen, if the incidental catch is low, to do some additional directed fishing toward the end of the trip. This might be dealt with by a more detailed control, or keeping the incidental catch that is allowed down to a very low level.
The final problem that needs to be resolved concerns enforcement and the need for all those affected by regulations to be assured that the other fishermen are also following the rules. So far as stocks within a single jurisdiction are concerned, this is essentially a matter for the responsible government rather than for international discussion. However, even here, if fishing is also carried out under appropriate arrangements by non-local vessels, some international arrangements are desirable. The coastal state will impose whatever rules it deems appropriate to assure itself that the licensing or other arrangements for access are being followed. In addition it is desirable that the non-local fishermen and their governments should have some confidence that any rules, e.g., on minimum mesh size, applied to the coastal fishermen are in fact being followed. Such confidence will, in particular, make it more likely that the flag state of the non-local vessels will be active in ensuring that they comply with regulations.
Such mutual confidence in the compliance of regulations is much more important when a stock of fish occurs in two or more economic zones. The desirability of mutual observations by one country of the activities of fishermen of another country, in the fishing zone or ports of the second country, has already been mentioned in relation to control of mesh size. Similar considerations also apply in the case of agreements on limiting the number of vessels operating or the magnitude of the total catches taken. Without some degree of mutual assurance that agreements are being followed, measures to control the amount of fishing are likely very quickly to become ineffective.
In summary, control of the amount of fishing is highly desirable but presents numerous problems. It may, therefore, be optimistic to expect an immediate agreement to reduce, say, the amount of fishing on the northern hake stocks by 20 percent. What is more realistic to expect, and what in fact might have a greater chance of long-term effects, are decisions to tackle, as a matter of urgency, the various problems, so that within the near future concrete agreements can be reached on how a real reduction in effort (and in costs) can be achieved. The necessary activities include:
(i) a clearer policy decision of what magnitude of reduction should be aimed for in respect of different stocks;(ii) decisions on the extent that there should be differential reduction by different elements of the fisheries;
(iii) identification of the best measure (catch, vessel-days, etc.) to use in determining the fishing effort;
(iv) choice of methods of enforcing the limits on effort and making it be clearly seen that they are enforced.
M/N0276/E/5.79/1/150
