Numerous experiences, review papers and country reports submitted to the Consultation describe the various methodologies used for the evaluation and allocation of fishery resource
Allocation is a concept used by many in connexion with methods, criteria and models. It appears that too many case studies and concepts are borrowed from other disciplines for use in fisheries. The time has arrived to develop theories and models specifically for fishery allocation problems, although it was noted that theories and fishery models used in one continent do not necessarily apply in another. The evolution of best-use allocations of fishery resources - from the ancestors of modern man, where brute force was the deciding factor, to the Magna Carta, the charters of the thirteen original American colonies, and modern times - was described. As early as 1950, many inland fishery managers in America, in particular, were accommodating the social and economic aspects of recreational fishing on a basis of parity with biological factors and commercial fishing in their resource management action. This has led in recent decades to the development of the concept of optimum yield (OY) which embraces a broad spectrum of potentially beneficial resource uses.
One of the most far-reaching fishery developments in modern times has been the extension of marine fishery jurisdiction seaward to 200 nautical miles. This new situation puts a stronger focus on the allocation of recently acquired resources and the concept of optimum yield. In the USA this materialized in the enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) of 1976. A series of Regional Fishery Management Councils established under this Act were charged to develop fishery management plans for selected stocks of fish in the 200-mile Fishery Conservation and Management Zone (FCZ). The revolutionary aspect of the FCMA is that fishery plans are required to be drawn upon the basis of optimum yield determinations. The FCMA defines optimum yield as being the yield which: (a) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation, with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities, and (b) is presented on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) from such fishery as modified by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factors. The new concept of optimum yield management has brought forth a new set of factors, in addition to the biological, to take into account in resource allocation - economic, social and ecological. These latter considerations are only now commencing to become incorporated in the decision-making process governing fishery allocations between commercial and recreational users of the fishery resources. This is also true in Europe where the scientific dominance of biologists in management is gradually changing in light of inputs from economists and more recently from other social scientists. Solo performances by these scientists are now developing into teamwork and integrated studies and designs. Capacity planning in The Netherlands is a case in point.
User studies are increasing in number although most of them use fairly simple methods and they are practical. Specific demand studies are also made in several countries but it is argued that careful definitions of supply are necessary to make the results useful for management. It appears to be necessary to make user and demand studies more reliable and valid. Sampling errors and faulty survey techniques can give large systematic errors of catch estimation, preferences and participation.
A review was made of different kinds of methods and their usefulness in fishery evaluation. It is evident from the experience gained with the uncritical use in Europe of North American methods that different methods and concepts have to be combined and adapted to specific purposes and local circumstances.
The work of economists in this field came in for critical comment despite the long-recognized complexity of some of the basic problems involved. Key among the latter was the formulation of a sounder basis for economic input into management due to the lack of market pricing, especially in North America. There are also numerous unresolved theoretical and dafinitional problems. Finally, the long-delayed emergence of recreational fisheries as a serious and continuing field of economic investigation has until recently had a low priority. A broader less site-specific approach was seen as needed, as is a sharper definition and clarification of the values involved. Related to this is the need for a better fitting of all such economic measures and values into the mainstream of both macro and microeconomics, and specifically into national income and expenditure accounts.
It was explained that in the USA economic analysis of recreational fishing has grown considerably in the 1970s. Economists have spent some time developing conceptual tools. These tools have been applied in various settings: the Great Lakes, Pacific coast salmon, and Atlantic gamefish. There are several serious problems to be addressed. First, economists must attempt to communicate the strengths and shortcomings of their results to other participants in fishery management. Applications under many different local conditions should help. Second, there is a strong need for applied cases of economic analysis of the division of fishery yields between commercial and recreational users. The definition of best use as that which yields the maximum net benefits will be far more convincing when we are able to show how it is to be applied under various local circumstances. Third, economists and biologists need to work together in analysing problems with the clear recognition that no problem can be solved exclusively by one discipline. When economists, biologists and other scientists have a stake in understanding and using each other's work, economic methods will be in an improved position to contribute to the better use of fishery resources.
The long experience of The Netherlands is particularly useful here. Simple socio-economic studies where consumption is considered the same as demand, and the absence or neglect of data on motives, satisfaction, latent demand, barriers and quality aspects often neglected were heavily criticized. In The Netherlands the concept of capacity planning is based on a conceptual structure of landscape composed of interchanging factors, infrastructures, accommodation and socio-economic structures and culture. For example, ecological and cultural capacity concepts cover the point of view of the manager as well as that of the sport fisherman, the user of the facilities. Behavioural research is essential to clarify the meaning of activity space and the taxonomy of user types.
The purpose of capacity planning is to reach a well balanced demand/supply equilibrium. It is particularly useful in situations where several kinds of land and water uses, including recreational fisheries, conflict. Capacity planning can lead to overall comprehensive planning where the total situation is known.
Another method, that of action-research, derived from social psychology, could find an excellent area of application here. This is as yet unexplored, and could bring new elements to both theorical and practical perspectives. In the first place, this method would have the advantage of enabling us to complement the body of knowledge which classical socio-economic research has permitted us to compile - and which unfortunately remains incomplete. In the second place, it would serve to educate the public by putting this knowledge at its disposal and by providing the means by which the knowledge can be transformed into action. The issues at present are to understand more fully the motives and latent demands of anglers, and to establish the best utilization of fisheries resources, so as to regulate the conflicts between the different recreational users of water resources or between recreational and other users. It is also necessary to educate the public, increase public awareness, and particularly increase the capacities for action of anglers' associations. Thus, we must turn toward scientific field work methods. Just as managers are advised to work not only for people but with the people, scientists could generate data not only on user groups, but with them, thereby involving them in the process.
The statutory requirement to manage the fisheries under optimum yield regimes in the USA also facilitates added consideration of social and ecological factors. The ultimate political decision will nevertheless be needed to determine if commercial and recreational fishermen should reap equal benefits or otherwise from a given resource.
Many papers clearly stated that the optimum allocation of fishery resources is closely dependent upon the generation of reasonably accurate, precise and reliable data not only on catch demand and supply but also on the socio-economic and behavioural aspects. The use of national surveys as they relate to information needs of recreational fishery management was emphasized. The forthcoming US National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Associated Recreation was fully described. Scheduled for data gathering in 1981 covering the activities of the calendar year 1980, this survey will produce a separate report for each of the 50 states and a report with national totals. It is designed to produce state level participation and expenditure data for recreational fishing, hunting and other outdoor-related activities. In addition, the recreational fishermen's social and demographic characteristics will be reported along with the origin and destination of recreational fishermen.
The 1979–80 US National Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey was described as a model survey. Its objectives are to estimate the total catch, catch by species, fishing effort and the number of participants in marine recreational fishing. Previous surveys estimated 20–25 million marine recreational fishermen in the United States. Also, it was estimated that the recreational catch now accounted for approximately 50 percent of the total US finfish harvest for food. The data provided by the marine survey will be used for the management and planning of fishery programmes by Regional Fishery Management Councils, State Fishery Agencies and others concerned with management and conservation of fishery resources. Accurate estimates of the harvest by the recreational fishery are essential to complement statistics on the commercial fishery and to allow the development of comprehensive fishery management plans.
A significant innovation in North America is the joint planning underway respecting the US 1980 National Survey of Hunting and Fishing and the Province of Ontario component of the 1980 National Coordinated Survey of Sport fishing in Canada. Preliminary meetings have taken place to coordinate the survey coverages and the content of the questionnaires between the two countries to produce the first compatible and standardized data base for the management of the Great Lakes fisheries. The analysis of the combined results will enable the International Great Lakes Fishery Commission to formulate coordinated fishery policy relating to the management of the Great Lakes recreational fisheries, both on the Canadian and American sides of the lakes.
In conclusion, national surveys can be effective in collecting some of the necessary data to plan long-term fishery programmes. The broad overview that can be gained from analysing national data as well as regional differences in the data can help determine the trends in preferences for various fisheries to recreational fishermen. The use of recreational values for fisheries can assist in both the determination of preferable species for stocking programmes and the justification of future sites for locating hatcheries. National surveys can also be used in assessments of the current fishery programmes and, based on future trends in use, suggest future directions to meet long-term needs for recreational uses and fishery resource protection.
There are limitations to some national surveys, such as recall bias, i.e., the ability to remember over time. Another is the difficulty of obtaining reliable estimates for activities that are rare events. This leads to the requirement for special surveys to complement national surveys. A special survey is a survey, unique either by the population covered, the timing, or area, to obtain information from members of a subset of the population who participate in an activity. An example of a special survey could be of all fishermen who fish from charter boats, or who fish for a particular species in a specific geographical area.
A strong plea was made that fishery managers recognize the essential role of the public in fishery management - managers should work not only for the people concerned but also with them. This necessitates a greater focus on the user needs and points of view. Participation with fishermen in surveys, field work and in the development of management programmes is getting increasing recognition. Social scientists were urged to join fishery teams in the field and participate in the use of a reportedly growing methodology referred to above as “action research”.
Remarking on the self-criticism being heard from the economists, it was suggested that biologists need to look at their own shortcomings. Cited was the overconcern with catch estimation which may not be as relevant to management decisions which have to be made, as biologists may think. It was further noted that it was often the less important peripheral decisions that are made on the basis of technical considerations, while major central decisions are based on political considerations. The suggestion was made that managers should concern themselves much more with relating their areas of competence to the more general public goals.
Economists replied that where tax monies are expended it is also essential that the economic implications of these decisions be carefully determined. The hope was finally expressed that this Consultation mark the end of polemics between biologists and economists and the arrival of the social scientist. The period of academic solo performance seems to be at an end.
It was mentioned that much of the current decision-making in fisheries is some mysterious combination of science and politics. As an alternative, a model used in Quebec attracted much attention. This nine-factor simulation model relates fishery variables to the use of different fisheries in a region by the public, thus keeping managers fully informed. Others argued that multifactor models do not explain a large part of fishing behaviour, i.e., outdoor taste formation or education is a basic factor that is often omitted from these models.
Much of the discussion concentrated on data requirements and collection. It was stressed that public action is not effective unless it is informed, i.e., adequate data are essential. Some participants suggested that in some cases there were plenty of data but little agreement as to which are essential.
More specifically, it was noted that the frequency of substitute responses in mail surveys was a major problem. It was suggested that the problem could be reduced by involving fishermen associations or individuals highly respected by the fishermen in the survay.
Even if good data were available, managers were urged not to stop with the formulation of projects, but also to concern themselves with how to explain and justify them to the public and decision-makers.
