3. Fisheries capacity management in APFIC countries

3.1 Have countries of the region identified fishing capacity issues that require management?

___________
¹ In addition, China has reported (this workshop) that it has identified fishing capacity issues and is managing them.

Source: Adapted from "Scientific evidence � status of resources and optimal capacity" by Derek Staples and presentation "Social implications of capacity reduction" presentation by Chandrika Sharma at the APFIC Regional consultative workshop on Managing Fishing Capacity and IUU Fishing, Phuket, June 2007.

In essence, therefore, the fishing capacity issues that countries have identified relate to the significant problems associated with moving from essentially open-access fisheries (which have been the most common form of fisheries in the region) to some type of limited or restricted entry. However, the first pre-requisites for effective limitation of entry and control of fishing capacity of (1) a method, such as a vessel registration and licensing system or vessel census data, for measuring fishing capacity in all fisheries with associated enforcement and (2) reliable catch and fishing effort information, have often not been met in many countries, particularly for small scale fisheries (see Table 3).

3.2 To what extent have national plans of action to address fishing capacity issues been developed?

Of the ten responses received, six countries have already developed NPOAs to address fishing capacity with a further three countries planning to develop these within the next five years (Table 1). Several of these NPOAs have been developed within the last few years (Table 2). Unfortunately, copies have not been provided to FAO, and casts some doubt on the accuracy of reporting on this item. It suggests that the questionnaire approach and differences in interpretation of what constitutes an NPOA may over state the extent to which NPOAs have actually been developed. An example of this is a country response to a questionnaire in 2003 that an NPOA had been developed, but a more recent response indicating that it now has no NPOA and has no plans to develop one.

Table 2 provides information, based on responses from the questionnaires, as to how activity in the development of NPOAs on fishing capacity has changed since 2002. In the current survey, 66 percent of countries stated that they had already developed an NPOA on fishing capacity, with a further 25 percent stating they were planning to develop one within the next five years. This is a marked improvement over the situation in 2002 where only 40 percent of countries stated that they would meet a 2005 deadline for having an NPOA on fishing capacity in place. Table 2 also

__________
² The measurement of fishing capacity in small-scale fisheries is a particular problem in Asia, given the large number of vessels and their wide distribution. The methods used to measure fishing capacity in such fisheries (for example, by regular census methods) may be quite different from that used to measure fishing capacity in industrial fisheries, such as robust and enforceable vessel licensing and registration systems.

Table 2: Reported progress in developing National Plans of Actions on fishing capacity and reducing fishing capacity

demonstrates that practical implementation of capacity reduction measures has been undertaken in 33 percent of small-scale fisheries (see Box 3 for a summary of small-scale fishers views on fishing capacity and IUU issues), compared with only 16 percent in 2002, although the proportion of large industrial fisheries that have been the subject of capacity reduction initiatives has remained about the same. In addition to the progress on NPOAs reported, China has also developed a NPOA on reducing fishing capacity through vessel buy-back schemes (Pitcher, Kalikoski and Ganapathiraju, 2006).

Conclusion: Significant progress has been made in the region since 2003 in developing national approaches to the management of fishing capacity. This has included actual implementation of capacity reduction programmes, particularly in small-scale fisheries. The effectiveness of these capacity reduction programmes will be further examined below. However, in some countries there remains the question of what has actually been done in support of implementation of the NPOA and whether such NPOAs are seen as just paper documents or are used to guide and initiate concrete actions to address fishing capacity.

3.3 For what proportion of fisheries (industrial, marine artisanal and inland) has fishing capacity been assessed?

3.4 What are the legislative and institutional barriers to addressing fishing capacity in the region?

__________
⁵ Although this is based on a limited sample of countries.

Table 3: A summary of tools available to address fishing capacity issues

(a) In the three largest industrial fisheries:

(b) In the three largest artisanal fisheries:

fisheries with management plans, there were no actual published regulations⁸. This would therefore suggest, at least in some instances, that management plans are being seen as policy statements of intent rather than management tools.

A further trend in the region seems to be the move towards clarification of national policy on fisheries management generally and limitation of fishing capacity in particular. Although implementation of such management policy is often carried out at regional or provincial level, there has been reported an improved coordination between national policy-setting agencies and local implementation agencies. Such trends enable greater consistency in the application of fisheries policy. Most countries (78 percent) reported that they had formal coordination mechanisms in place between national and regional authorities to implement fisheries regulations and provide monitoring, control and surveillance activities.

Conclusion: Most countries have reported or demonstrated that they have the legislative powers to limit fishing capacity. Management Plans for specific fisheries (which should provide guidance on capacity issues) are becoming more common in the region for industrial fisheries although they are still not commonly used for small-scale, artisanal fisheries. Appropriate legislative powers and supporting Management Plans for specific fisheries are critical in addressing fishing capacity and providing a strategic context for long-term management. Therefore, those countries that do not have the legislative powers or specific fisheries Management Plans should be encouraged to review their legislation and to develop Management Plans.

3.5 Do countries of the region have the necessary tools in place to assess and manage fishing capacity and are those tools appropriate to the region?

To develop appropriate policy and to implement, where necessary, capacity management or capacity reduction programmes, there is a range of tools that are necessary. For policy formulation and implementation on fishing capacity within any fishery, these tools are essentially (a) robust data on current production and capacity measurement within the fishery (b) clear capacity targets and an understanding, usually from research programmes, of the biological, economic and social impacts of those targets (c) a data collection system that allows the collection of relevant data on the fishery so that the progress and impact of capacity changes can be measured and monitored over time (d) an effective monitoring, control and surveillance capability to ensure the policy rules are followed and (e) political and administrative support to carry the implementation through to completion.

Ten respondents to date have provided information on to what extent these policy tools are available within the region and Table 3 provides a summary of this information.

As noted above, there has been significant progress in the development of management plans for industrial and artisanal fisheries of the region, although there remains a question of whether such plans are actually being used in all countries as a management tool to guide long-term strategic directions for fisheries management. In two countries, capacity management was legislatively extremely difficult because national legislation did not allow the limitation of fishing licenses.

Although some type of vessel and fisher registration system is reported to be in place and fishing effort statistics were being collected for most of these major fisheries, the accuracy of some of these statistics must be questioned because a number of countries reported that up to 80 percent of vessels and the fishers that were fishing were unregistered. The ineffectiveness of licensing systems (and data collection on landings and fishing capacity) was most acute in small-scale fisheries, which are the fisheries where most capacity reduction programmes have been implemented in recent years

__________
⁸ Although in one instance, it was reported that regulations were in the process of being developed, based on the Management Plan.

(see below). Boxes 4 and 5 provide an assessment of the policy tools that have been shown to work in addressing fishing capacity and those that do not.

Conclusion: While there has been progress in the region since 2002 in developing appropriate policy instruments (mainly fisheries-specific Management Plans) for long-term strategic management of fishing capacity, there appears to be a major issue within the region of a lack of appropriate tools for policy implementation. The tools that are lacking include methods, such as regular census or

Source:Adapted from "Management tools _ what does not work and what does" presentation by Rebecca Metzner at the APFIC Regional consultative workshop on Managing Fishing Capacity and IUU Fishing, Phuket, June 2007.

registration and licensing systems, to effectively measure fishing capacity as well as policy tools that have been shown to be effective in reducing or managing fishing capacity. Without these tools, capacity measurement, management and reduction initiatives will be difficult. Data collection systems to measure catch and fishing effort are reported to be widespread among the largest industrial and artisanal fisheries although, given the commonly reported ineffectiveness of vessel

Source:Adapted from "Management tools � what does not work and what does" presentation by Rebecca Metzner at the APFIC Regional consultative workshop on Managing Fishing Capacity and IUU Fishing, Phuket, June 2007.

Of the ten respondents, seven have reported that they have actually undertaken capacity reduction programmes in their fisheries, with most of these occurring within the last five years. In addition, China has also undertaken significant reduction capacity reduction programmes while India has ceased issuing licences in a number of industrial fisheries⁹.

The ten respondents reported on a total of 42 fisheries, of which 18 were industrial scale and 24 small-scale (Table 3). Within these fisheries, 33.3 percent of industrial fisheries and 29 percent of artisanal fisheries had been the subject of capacity reduction programmes. The most common tools used to reduce capacity varied, as would be expected, between the two types of fisheries and these are summarized in Table 4. Boat and gear restrictions were common for both types while, as expected, social support measures as an incentive to leave a fishery were restricted to small-scale fisheries. However, the tools that have been shown to be effective in addressing fishing capacity issues (see Box 4) have been little used in the region while the most commonly used tools, such as boat and gear restrictions, are the tools that have been proven to be least effective (see Box 5).

It is also interesting to note from Table 4 that, although there were no small-scale fisheries reported where capacity reduction programmes actually targeted a reduction in fisher numbers, all of these small-scale fisheries were provided with some sort of social support programme. Social support measures for small-scale fishers, if well designed and targeted, can provide income support for fishers who are required to leave a fishery because of a capacity reduction programme but there are not, in themselves, a method that can achieve capacity reduction. Rather, if they are implemented in isolation, they can act to increase fishing capacity by effectively subsidizing the costs of fishing. It is therefore of some concern that these programmes are being reported as being implemented without parallel programmes to achieve real fishing capacity reduction.

Another significant aspect of Table 4 is the lack of use of buy-back schemes to reduce fishing capacity¹¹. This rather surprising result may be because of the significant costs of such programmes but is worthy of further investigation, particularly since such schemes, when well designed, remove capacity permanently rather than re-allocate capacity to other fisheries (see Box 4). It is also interesting to note that eight of the ten respondents intend to implement capacity reduction programmes over the next five years (see below), and, of those that are implementing such programmes, two are intending to use buy-back schemes¹² while none intend using the mandatory scrapping of vessels.

Conclusions: Approximately 33 percent of fisheries that have been reported on have undergone some type of capacity reduction programme within the last five years. The most common tool used in industrial fisheries capacity reduction in the region has been boat and gear restrictions, followed by space/time restrictions. In small-scale fisheries, the most common tool used for capacity reduction has been gear restrictions and space/time restrictions followed by boat and boat building restrictions. As expected, social support schemes have also been important in trying to reduce fishing capacity in small-scale fisheries. Significantly, restrictions on the number of fishers have not often been used, which is probably a reflection of the significant social implications of reducing fishing capacity in the region. Also, somewhat surprisingly, boat buy-back schemes have been little used, despite their efficiency in permanently reducing fishing capacity, although China has used such schemes and Thailand is considering using buy-back schemes to reduce capacity in their industrial demersal trawl and push net fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand. This latter observation is in stark contrast with other areas of the world where buy-back schemes are the method of choice for reducing fishing capacity, particularly in industrial fisheries.

3.7 Have previous attempts at capacity reduction in specific fisheries been successful?

Of the six respondent countries that had undertaken capacity reduction programmes, only one country reported that the resources management, economic and social objectives of its previous capacity reduction programmes had been successful. Another two reported that the objectives had been partially met while none reported that the objectives of capacity reduction had not been met at all (no data were provided by another three respondents). These responses are not surprising since other data, presented in Table 5 below, show that fishing capacity in the region has continued to increase significantly across the region since 2002 and landings have fallen in most fisheries (see Box 6 for a summary of the status of the region's fish stocks).

Conclusion: Both the responses from countries that have undertaken capacity reduction programmes in recent years, and regional capacity and landings data for the major industrial and artisanal fisheries indicate that capacity reduction programmes in the region to date have not been successful in limiting or reducing fishing capacity. The reasons why the programmes have not been successful will be explored further below but some of the apparent causes, such as ineffective or inappropriate policy tools, inadequate MCS capabilities and, despite recent improvements, the still-general lack of management plans have already been identified.

Source:Adapted from "Scientific evidence _ status of resources and optimal capacity" presentation by Derek Staples at the APFIC Regional consultative workshop on Managing Fishing Capacity and IUU Fishing, Phuket, June 2007.

3.8 What progress has been made by countries of the region since 2002 in addressing fishing capacity?

While countries that have actually undertaken capacity reduction programmes in recent years in specific fisheries have reported mixed success (see Question 7 above), information gained from the questionnaires has also enabled comparisons with similar data from the FAO survey in 2003, which reported fisheries production and capacity data for most countries up to 2002 (De Young, 2006). This comparison was possible because the present questionnaire specifically asked questions about the same three largest large-scale industrial and the three largest small-scale artisanal fisheries in each country that were addressed in 2003. The results of this comparison (Table 5) are illuminating, given the reported increase in implementing capacity reduction programmes over the past few

years. In 2003, 71 percent of the respondents (which included the majority of APFIC member countries) reported that they had begun taking actions to measure fishing capacity in all marine capture fisheries as provided for in the FAO International Plan of Action (IPOA) for the Management of Fishing Capacity¹³ although actual assessment of fishing capacity in major fisheries had, generally, not been implemented (see Question 3 above). However, of those countries that reported they had not yet completed this process, 50 percent reported that they would not have this process completed by the 2005 target.

In 2003, countries reported that capacity reduction programmes had already been implemented in 31 percent of the largest industrial-scale fisheries while such programmes had been used in 16 percent of the largest small-scale artisanal fisheries. The most common method used to reduce fishing capacity in 2002 was reported to be the buy-out of fishing vessels and licenses from the fishery, which is in stark contrast to the responses received to the questionnaire where no respondent country now reported the use of buy-back of vessels as a capacity management tool (Table 4). The reason for this discrepancy is unclear but informal discussions indicate that few countries of the region have actually used buy-back schemes for capacity reduction.

By 2007, countries reported that capacity reduction programmes had been implemented in 28 percent of the largest industrial fisheries and 25 percent of the largest artisanal fisheries (Table 4) although these data are incomplete. Therefore, like the measurement of fishing capacity, there does not seem to have been any progress in implementing capacity reduction programmes in additional industrial fisheries although the proportion of small-scale fisheries in which these programmes have been implemented has apparently increased.

Interestingly, fishing capacity (measured as the number of vessels) has increased during the period 2002-2005 in almost all industrial and artisanal fisheries that have been reported on, with an average increase in capacity during this period of 9.7 percent in industrial, large-scale fisheries and 14.4 percent in small-scale, artisanal fisheries. These increases, however, have been accompanied by a decrease in production in 73 percent of industrial fisheries and in all small-scale fisheries for which data was provided.

Conclusions: There has been an apparent increase in the use of capacity reduction programmes in small-scale fisheries in countries of the region within the past few years but not in industrial fisheries. This parallels the increase in activity related to measurement of fishing capacity in small-scale, but not industrial fisheries. The overall effectiveness of these programmes, however, seems to have been limited with capacity increasing by 9.7 percent in the largest industrial fisheries

_________
¹³ Which is part of the UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

of the region and 14.4 percent in the largest small-scale fisheries during the period 2002-2005 and, despite this increase in capacity, production falling in 86 percent of fisheries.

3.9 What plans do member countries have to address fishing capacity issues within the next five years?

Of the ten respondent countries, six had already implemented capacity reduction programmes (Table 6) and all these six intended to implement further programmes in other fisheries over the next five years (Table 6).

One country, although not having implemented any capacity reduction programmes in the past, intended to do so over the next five years while two countries who had not implemented any such programmes did not intend to do so in the future, citing no capacity problems in their fisheries as the reason.

Conclusions: Within the countries that provided data, all countries that have already implemented capacity reduction programmes have plans to undertake further programmes within the next five years. One country that has not previously implemented these programmes plans to do so within the next five years while two countries are not planning any capacity reduction programmes.