- Email: [email protected]
The discard ban policy, economic trends and opportunities for the Portuguese fisheries sector
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
The discard ban policy, economic trends and opportunities for the Portuguese fisheries sector
crossmark
⁎
Francisco Leitão , Vânia Baptista Centro de Ciências do Mar, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal
A R T I C L E I N F O
A BS T RAC T
Keywords: Fisheries economic trends Discard ban Economic scenarios Income from discards Discards economic value
In this paper the discard ban policy within the Portuguese fisheries sector is discussed and the opportunities and impact in the fisheries economy that arise from sales of unwanted fish under the new landing obligation are evaluated. The decadal mean price of fish (€/kg, adjusted for inflation) rose from the 1940s until the 1970s, dropping thereafter. The yearly averaged economic income estimated for discards sales between 1969 and 2009 ranged from 419345€ to 2164379€. Discard ban sales could contribute from 10% to 53% of the total landed value and 9–34% of the total catches (landings + discards). Under a discard ban policy, the fishing sector with the largest economic contribution for total discards sales would be multispecies (54%), followed by trawl (26%) and seine (20%). On average, fishing sales contributed with 0.63% to gross domestic production (GDP) between 1938 and 2009. Discard sales can increase 1.07–1.46 times more than the fish landing contribution to GDP. After 1983 the average landings/imports economic ratio was 0.28:1, which means that fish imports surpassed landings economic value 3.57 fold. The discard ban policy can create economic opportunities in the national context thus helping to revitalize some specific fisheries sectors.
1. Introduction Many fisheries around the world have reached unsustainable levels and therefore deliver poor income to fishers. Effective fisheries management is urgently needed to improve the economic situation of fishing communities. Part of the solution is to reduce discards by finding market-based approaches that will increase the value for all bycatch fish. The necessity of each country to manage all fisheries within their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), a consequence of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), led to attempts to find sustainable indicators for marine fisheries and ecosystems at the national level [1] but information about the economic effect of a discard ban in the fisheries sector is still scarce. Coastal and maritime activities have been traditionally important both for the national economy as well as for the historical, social and cultural identity of Portugal. The country has long relied on fishing as a major means of subsistence and many coastal communities depend almost exclusively on local fisheries and related activities. The exploitation of fisheries resources in Portuguese waters has traditionally been dominated by small-scale coastal and estuarine fisheries. Local artisanal fisheries remain socially and economically important for the coastal populations that have increased in recent decades [2–4]. In mainland Portugal, a variety of gears/metiers are used in coastal
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: fl[email protected] (F. Leitão).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.10.012 Received 5 July 2016; Received in revised form 15 October 2016; Accepted 15 October 2016 0308-597X/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
fisheries, ranging from trawls to static gears such as gill nets, long lines and traps. Therefore, a wide variety of unwanted species (by-catch) are captured along with the target species [2]. The quantification and composition of the unreported catches (e.g. discards) is a key issue in fisheries to understand the fate and impact of these unreported actions [2,5,6]. In Portugal it was estimated that between 1938 and 2009, 35.5% of the total catch corresponded to illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries (IUU), mostly due to discards that accounted for 98.5% of IUU [2]. Between 1938 and 2009, fish accounted for 93.5% of overall averaged unreported catches per year, followed by cephalopods (1.9%), crustaceans (1.4%) and sharks (1.3%). However, 89% of unreported fish and shark species had commercial value [2,7]. Moreover, between 1938 and 2009, eight frequently landed commercial species, mostly small pelagics, accounted for approximately 70% on average of total unreported catches in weight for all Portuguese gears/ fisheries: Scomber japonicus, Boops boops, Trachurus picturatus, Merluccius. merluccius, Sardina pilchardus, Liza aurata, Micromesistius poutassou and T. trachurus [2,7]. In this paper the discard ban policy will be briefly discussed, namely within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), before” and “after” the ban implementation and discards incentives (Section 2). The Portuguese fisheries status and political situation (Section 3) will be described in order to better discuss the EU demand within the Portuguese context.
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
increasing the financial revenue for the fishermen [1]. For instance, national scale “right mix” can be achieved by individual transferable quota (ITQ) that comprises an allocated privilege of landing a specified portion of the total annual fish catch in the form of quota shares. The ITQs divide the total annual catch quota into smaller individual portions and are generally transferable, which means that fishing vessel owners can sell or buy their ITQ certificates or even, lease their quota shares depending on how much (or whether) they want to participate in the fishery. The potential effects and the future incentives included in the discard ban policy are not however clear. For instance, what is the role given when unintentional catches occur despite the improved selectivity? Under these circumstances catches would be handled as follows (see [1]): i) undersized fish or minimum conservation reference sizes will be set on biological grounds. These measures will allow development of’ better gears thus minimizing juvenile catches. Fish below minimum catchable size can only be sold for fish meal or pet food production. Fishermen can thus cover the landing costs, but without generating financial gain; ii) fish caught in excess of individual quota can be marketed normally. When vessel owners are about to run out of one or more of their quotas they need to buy or lease quotas from other vessel owners in the same MS. When this step is unattainable, quota overshoot rules will be applied and fishermen must take responsibility to ensure that they have all quotas necessary to land their catches; iii) overshoot of national quotas has to be dealt with by the MS through bycatch reserves, borrowing or banking of quotas between years, or swapping quotas with other MS. If this is not enough, the overshot amounts will be deducted from the following year’s quota; iv) and within these effort management systems all commercial species which are above the minimum size can be marketed and sold normally as long as the effort to allocate them is not exhausted. From what the authors understand, there are no penalties to fishing below minimum size except for the fact that this fish must be sold for reduction (fish meal and fish oil). So it is difficult to know with certainty whether there will be any costs for fishermen if they land more fish than their quota for one or more species. In sum, fish caught in excess for individual quotas can be marketed normally and “by-catch quotas” are set as part of the fishing opportunities set by EU council each year. The European Commission proposes a gradual approach in three steps: pelagic species in 2014 (including in the Mediterranean), most valuable demersal species (cod, hake and sole) in 2015, and other species by 2016. The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) may fund innovative real time technologies aiming to control/monitor fishing activity and to enforce the discard ban. These practices will imply, not only a full reporting of fisheries and processing activities [1], but also to gear up the fishing vessels with additional technical equipment (e.g.: electronic logbook, vessel Monitoring System Program, observers, radio frequency identifications, electronic chips). Moreover, the new CFP will offer incentives to increase gear selectivity and to land the full fishing yield. Under the EFF, vessel owners would receive financial support for innovation (new technical and organizational knowledge), to increased gear selectivity (both size and fish selectivity) and to reduce incidental/accidental bycatches. Vessel owners and fishermen working on board vessels would receive financial support to participate in trials, innovative pilot projects and to collaborate with scientists [1]. POs will also receive funding to help implement the discard ban, to improve product labelling and marketing of new products. Additionally, incentives may be given in the form of quota allocation within MS. Under the TFC system, MS are free to allocate their national quotas to different vessel segments, giving for example, more quotas to vessels that fish more sustainably and environmentally friendly [1]. Despite the introduction of new technical regulations to limit unwanted catches, there is little understanding at the fishermen level of the underlying socio-economic and institutional incentives causing discards. There is a thin line between the theoretical point that
Prohibited for the first time in some EU fisheries in 2009, economic-led ‘highgrading’ is today illegal for all quota species, under amendments to fisheries technical measures enacted by the European Parliament and Council in March 2013 (Regulation (EU) No 227/2013). This means that fish that were discarded before should now have an economic value independently of their final use. Furthermore, sales of this fish will have to be accounted for and included in the country's economy. Therefore, the overall socio-economic opportunities for implementation of the discard ban policy in Portuguese fisheries sector between 1938 and 2009 is herein evaluated based on available information on landings and their economic value in Portugal. The specific aims were: (1) to estimate yearly fishing income values based on overall auction fishing sales 1938–2009); (2) to contextualize yearly fishing revenue trends with Gross Domestic Product (GDP), import and export trends, and (3) to estimate the potential economic value generated by discards (which represent 98.5% of IUU [2]), assuming that discards can be normally commercialized for different uses. 2. The discard ban policy Discards are among the best examples of the shortcomings of the CFP as they are difficult to justify to fishermen or to the general public. People in different circumstances have different perceptions of incidental catches. This is often based on emotional and heightened public awareness rather than on hard evidence that conservation, ecological or economic problems exist. This can be particularly so in the difference between protein rich developed nations and less developed nations where fishermen are dependent on fishing for their very existence and the national economy may rely on exports to developed nations of high value marine products such as shrimp. It is unclear if the debate around the EU Landing Obligation has actually started. Nevertheless, since the following of two major communications made in 2002 (EU law: COM/2002/0656) and 2007 (SEC(2007) 380; SEC(2007) 381) more attention has been given to discards. Since 2011 there has been a U-turn in the EU’s discard policy with the aim to effectively reduce discards in EU fisheries sector with the Commission proposing since 2011 a U-turn on the EU’s discard policy. Until recently, the EU prohibited discards of fish with established quotas which could be legally landed (high-grading). However, it was legal to discard non-commercial fish and other organisms or even to compulsory discard fish which could not be landed legally due to minimum landing size (MLS) or quota regulations. The 2012 revision of the EU CFP led to the implementation of the discard ban. Therefore, as cited in Ref. [8]: “In the “new world”, the aim is that landings equal catch whereas in the “old world” landings equals catch minus discards”. For instance, as part of local fisheries policy, in mixed fisheries, fishermen must join efforts with the local administration to develop actual measures thus avoiding unwanted catches in the first place. These measures may range from more selective fishing gears (e.g. increasing the mesh-size used, either by regulation or on a voluntary basis), in restrictions to access to juvenile aggregation areas at certain times of the year (e.g. in spawning periods), to real time fishing closures or even “closed” areas on a permanent basis (MPAs – Marine protected areas). Furthermore, vessels that are likely to have a mixture of species in their hauls should have quotas for all of these species. Small scale vessel owners would need to receive the right quota mix from national administrations. All other vessel owners should receive the right quota mix from the national administration transferable fishing concessions (TFCs). Vessel owners could pool their concessions, for example, in a producer organization (PO) and in addition they could buy TFCs from other vessel owners within the same Member State (MS), doing a single fishing trip, for a whole year or even longer. Over time hauls will become more selective, allowing saving time, fuel and on-board handling which ultimately will reduce pressure on fishing stocks. Under these premises, stocks will be able to recover faster and to produce larger fish which will fetch better market prices, thus 76
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
fishermen are incentivised to discard whenever benefits outweigh the penalty and what is typically considered “the (opportunity) cost of retaining and landing fish exceeds its market value” [10]. If a ban on discarding is to be implemented, which incentives should be allocated to encourage compliance or conversely which disincentives should be applied to the non-compliance [8]. There is a concern that if the full market price is paid for fish which contravenes conservation regulations, fishermen will be encouraged to fish more. On the other hand, if fishermen do not receive any kind of compensation for the extra work and landing costs of the full catch, the temptation to maintain the fishing discards at sea will be high. Therefore, there is a need to balance over compensation and encouraging trade on the one hand and under compensation and encouraging discards on the other [8,9]. This of course, assuming there is a market and value for the discarded products.
vulnerable to exploitation due to high longevity, slow growth, late maturity, and low fecundity) have been increasing whilst decrease in traditional commercial nearshore fisheries such as small and medium pelagic (represent in average ~63% of landings between 1950 and 2009) [18]. Difficulties in managing Portuguese fisheries are compounded by Portuguese the multi-species nature of the fisheries and inadequate data recording and monitoring systems [2]. Consequently, the incomplete knowledge of total fishery removals (e.g. discards, fishing effort) can undermine the effectiveness of the TAC system to manage species as well as stock recovery plans. 4. Material and methods Yearly fish auction sale prices were obtained from INE database, i) 2000's onwards available in digital format (https://www.ine.pt/ xportal/xmain?xpid=INE?xpgid=ine_publicacoes; last accessed in October 2015) and ii) paper support manually transcribed from individual records from the INE digital library for years from 1938 to 1999 (available online: http://inenetw02.ine.pt:8080/biblioteca/ search.do; last accessed in October 2015). All monetary values are nominal. Good economic data is available from 1986 onwards (INE data source) allowing to estimation of economic value per gear (trawl, seine, multispecies) and taxa (group or species). Economic values were then adjusted according to inflation between 1938 and 2009 with real prices in euros (€), using the consumer price index (CPI) also available from 1948 to 2009 (CPI-data from the INE: https://www.ine.pt/ xportal/xmain?xpid=INE?xpgid=ipc; last accessed in July 2015) relative to year 2014. This yielded time series of the landed fisheries value in year 2014 considering inflation adjusted prices, allowing estimation of’ the economic values of fisheries catches produced by the Portuguese fleet to become comparable over time. The economic landings yields were estimated by dividing total auction sales/incomes by the total quantity of landings (weight) here after expressed in € per Kg (€/kg). Illegal, unreported and undeclared data (IUU), namely unreported discards data, for the time series period was taken from [2], which comprises a reconstruction of Portuguese total fisheries catches. Economic and landing data on imports and exports, for the time period between 1969 and 2009, were also obtained from INE (see above web sources). Exports and imports include fresh fish and fish meal. With this data it was possible to estimate the unit price for imports and exports (€/kg). The economic contribution of fish landings for GDP were predicted, based on auction sale prices and imports (source PORDATA: http://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/PIB+e +rendimentos+(base+2011)−2412; last accessed in July 2015), assuming constant prices. Several economic scenarios were considered for the estimation of economic income values of discards: Scenario 1 – Sc. I) under the assumption that all discarded fish is commercialized for fresh consumption, the auction sale prices per kilogram per category – gear, taxon – was estimated, based on landings and the yearly unitary economic price for each category (€/kg) and used to estimate the total economic value of discards by multiplying the unitary price for each category, by the weight of discards. Scenario 2 – Sc. II) it can be assumed that due to large landing volumes fish might not enter the marketplace that matches the market saturation definition: the quantity of product provided to market has been maximized in the current state of the marketplace. At the saturation point, further growth can only be achieved through product improvements, market share gains or a rise in overall consumer demand. The second scenario assumes that discards are sold at minimum price, which is currently designated in auction as “rejection” price. Information on the cut-off prices or “rejection” prices were available from INE (see web references above) from 2001 onwards. Therefore, auction “rejection” values can be considered as the lowest auction sale limit, attracting the fish meal industry. In the absence of “rejection” sale data for specific years, values for those years were estimated as proposed by Leitão et al. [2]
3. Portuguese fisheries status and political context In the last half a century Portugal made a remarkable transition from an agrarian society to an industrial- and service-based economy, but the country was still not able to successfully move on to a knowledge-based economy. During this time frame Portugal experienced a number of macroeconomic shocks and structural changes. The dictatorship regime (known as “Estado Novo”) that lasted from 1933 to 1974 took control of the chaotic finances and enabled Portugal to be neutral during World War II [12]. The regime was able to recover from the negative balance of trade, particularly by exporting to both sides of the conflict and by reducing imports dramatically as belligerents were producing less at that time due to the war [13–15]. In addition to these macroeconomic perturbations, the fisheries sector was exposed to a major shock of its own: the introduction of 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zones in 1977, as a consequence of Extended Fisheries Jurisdiction (EFJ). As described by Bjørndal and Munro [16], EFJ involved a massive reallocation of natural capital from Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFN) to coastal states, with winners as well as losers [12]. EFJ meant Portuguese fishermen were excluded from distant water fishing grounds and essentially lead to the demise of Portugal as a DWFN. For instance, Portugal lost its autonomy to negotiating fishing access in developing countries for its distant water fleet. This led to the loss of access to some fishing grounds, including areas Portugal had been fishing historically, such as the Moroccan waters. Membership of the European Union in 1986 brought significant changes to the Portuguese fishing industry. For instance, according to Hill and Coelho [13] there was a decrease in the number of vessels in the Portuguese fishing fleet between 1989 and 1999, but this was compensated by an increase in vessel power and by 1996, 98% of the fishing fleet was motorized. Due to industrialization in the mid1950s, the Portuguese Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita accelerated significantly increased throughout most of the period from 1960 until 2007 [12]. The Portuguese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is defined in relation to the Portuguese mainland (322000 km2), the Azores archipelago (1.06 million km2) and Madeira islands (454500 km2), amounting to almost 50% of all European Union (EU) EEZs. Portuguese per capita consumption (62 kg in 2007 compared with an average of 21.4 kg within the EU) occupying rank 3 in fish consumption worldwide [4]. Therefore, fishing activities in mainland Portuguese waters represent an important socio-economic activity for suppling national fish market demand [2]. Currently, there is evidence that Portuguese stocks are under threat of local decline, due to the direct and indirect effects of fishing [18,19]. The number of collapsed, overexploited and fully-exploited stocks have increased considerably over the last 20 years ( > 50%). Moreover, changes in composition have been reflected in Portuguese fisheries since the 1950s, with a significant shift noticed in the middle 1980 s: deep sea resources (considered deeper waters refuges that will no longer operate) and higher trophic levels (more 77
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
at auction at the same proportion (50%), which is the same contribution to scenario (Sc.) I and II. For each of the scenarios, the potential economic value of the discard ban was estimated for the top five most commonly discarded species: S. pilchardus; T. picturatus; M. merluccius; S. japonicas; B. boops [2]. 5. Results The economic value of fisheries, generated by auction sales, increased until 1983, declining thereafter until 2009 when the values dropped to those experienced in the 1940s (Fig. 1A). Sales value peaked in 1949, 1971 and 1981. The yearly average price per kg of fish varied from 0.44 to 4.62€/kg with an average of 1.84 ± 0.59 €/kg with a coefficient of variation of 32%. The decadal total landings values (in weight) peaked in 1960s dropping thereafter until the 2000 s when the lowest values were recorded (Table 1, Fig. 1D). The landings by weight and economic value are statistically positively correlated (Spearman correlation: R =0.70; P < 0.01), meaning that landing amounts affect fishery total economic income. The decadal price of fish increased from the 1940s until the 1970s dropping thereafter (Table 1). A significant positive correlation was found between the yearly landings economic value and the auction mean fish price between 1938 and 1993 (Fig. 1A; Spearman correlation: R=0.54; P < 0.01). The correlation between landings in weight and mean fish price was negative but not significant (Fig. 1A, D; Spearman correlation: R =−0.15; P=0.20). The average contribution of fish auction sales to GDP, from 1960 to 2009 was 0.61 ± 0.39% with S. pilchardus (ranked 1st in landings) being the main contributor and representing approximately 1/5 of the contribution of fishing landings GDP (Table 2). From 1960 to 1985 the average contribution of fish auction sales to GDP was 0.92 ± 0.31%. After 1986, when Portugal became an EU member, the average contribution of fish auction sales to GDP was 0.28 ± 0.17%. While GDP increased over time, a clear decrease of the percentage contribution of fish sales to GDP was also verified (Fig. 1B). The yearly economic contribution of fish sales to GDP decreased at an average rate of −0.03% per year since the 1960s (Coefficient of variation =−4.64%). Fish exports were relatively steady until 1992 (coefficient of variation=22%), dropping to the lowest level in 1993 (54816000 €) and increasing thereafter above the average (345420000 ± 131809000 €) after 1994 (Fig. 1C). The average export/import economic ratio was 1:1.05 until 1980. However, a clear upward export trend in weight was notable after 1980 (Fig. 1C) with the average economic export/import ratio decreasing to 0.38:1. Between 1980 and 2009 the average value of imports was 2.63 times higher than exports. Until 1984, the economic value generated by landings exceeded the value spent with imports (Fig. 1C) while from 1969 to 1984 the ratio between economic values generated due to national fleet and imports was on average 1.73:1. After this period the economic ratio landings/ imports was 0.28:1, which means that the economic value of fish imports was 3.57 times higher than the landed values. Until 1993, fishing landings values (in weight) were higher than imports (Fig. 1D) as between 1969 and 1993 the average ratio landings/imports was 2.32:1. After this period the ratio landings/imports was 0.4:1, which mean that the fish imports value in weigh surpassed the landings value 2.5 times. (Fig. 2). The anomalies observed in landings/imports ratio in weight and economic value clearly showed that exports rose mostly after 1990 (values below the mean value of the time series are negative, denoting exports increases Fig. 1D). The economic income with exports surpassed landings incomes after 1995 (Fig. 1C). However, exports in weight surpassed landings only after 2005 (Fig. 1D). Generally, after the 1990's negative anomalies were verified in landings/imports ratio both in weight and economic value (Fig. 1E). The fishing sectors with the largest contribution to economic value are, multispecies, trawl and seine with 54 ± 9, 26 ± 8 and 20 ± 6%, respectively Under a discard ban scenario (Fig. 3), the economic value generated by discards could
Fig. 1. A: time series of economic values of landings (x1000€) and unit price of fish (€/kg); B: Global Domestic Production - GDP- and fish percentage contribution to GDP; C: imports and exports fresh fish and fish meal economic value (x1000€) and ratio export/import economic value (x1000€); D: imports and exports fresh fish and fish meal weight (Tonnes); E: anomalies (mean – observed value), in weight (Tonnes) and economic value (x1000€), of landings/imports ratio.
for landings in weight: the years for which reported data were available are used to calculate the average rejected price per kg of fish and used to rebuild years without data, accounting for inflation; Scenario 3 – Sc. III) it was considered that discarded fish can be sold fresh or “rejected”
78
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
Table 1 Average decadal fish price (€/kg), total economical income (x1000€) and relative percentage contribution of fishing landings to Gross Domestic Production (GDP).
Fish Prince (€/Kg) Landings in weight (kg) Total Economic Income (x 1000€) Contribution of Landings to GDP (%) Exportation/Importation (x 1000€)
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
1.46 ( ± 1.05) 193077 ( ± 26607) 299367 ( ± 170178)
1.63 ( ± 0.18) 233407 ( ± 33935) 376153 ( ± 50658)
1.57 ( ± 0.11) 300893 ( ± 27310) 483116 ( ± 31816)
2.32 ( ± 0.50) 245401 ( ± 36264) 523264 ( ± 88658)
1.96 ( ± 0.41) 245005 ( ± 27187) 620997 ( ± 93831)
1.82 ( ± 0.23) 191873 ( ± 27869) 326847 ( ± 74567)
1.84 ( ± 0.19) 138338 ( ± 8568) 254069 ( ± 26368)
–
–
1.16 ( ± 0.18)
0.73 ( ± 0.15)
0.60 ( ± 0.11)
0.26 ( ± 0.10)
0.16 ( ± 0.02)
–
–
–
0.83 ( ± 0.41)
0.52 ( ± 0.24)
0.30 ( ± 0.08)
0.38 ( ± 0.06)
undervalued, particularly in cases where discards are significant, such as in Portugal [2]. The value estimated for artisanal Portuguese fishery contribution to GDP, when discard ban is considered similar to those values found in small-scale commercial fisheries in small Pacific and Asian islands [10,11]. The average contribution of auction sales to Portuguese GDP from 1986 to 2009, based on landings, was less than 0.3% but could be enhanced by 1.5 times with the contribution of discards. Portugal entered the EU in 1986, thereafter, GDP decreased by approximately 1/3 when compared to the previous years (1960– 1985). Our study indicates that between 1938 and 2009, multispecies fisheries were the strongest contributors to the GDP. The artisanal sector uses static/passive gears, namely gillnets, trammel nets, pots and traps, and hook and line gears [2] and can be considered to be mostly inshore fisheries, showing that the history or socio-economics of fisheries in Portugal is strongly associated with coastal, nearshore fisheries. This sector of the fleet caught a large diversity of species and the fish is highly prized in auction due to its freshness and overall quality relative to other sectors (e.g. trawl). It is worthy of note that GDP increased throughout most of the period from 1960 till 2007, which can be associated to industrialization since the mid-1950s [12]. However, the economic contribution of fish sales with GDP decreased at a yearly average rate of 0.03% since 1960s [present study]. Moreover, the fish mean price has declined in last two decades (1990 and 2000s) relatively to fish average peak price decreased in the 1970s. Therefore, the decreased contribution of fishing income to GDP is associated with the decrease in total landings (a strong correlation was found between economic and weight trends) over the past four decades, that is since middle 1960s. In fact, in 2000s average landings in weight reached the lowest values ever recorded for the time series. That is, in 2000s landings average values were lower than values recorded between the 1930s and 1970s, when the fleet was not still industrialized and many fishing ships had low vessel power [17]. During 1983–1993, fish landings in Portugal exceeded imports (in weight) but the average price per kg of imported fish was greater than auction/landings fish. The value of exports surpassed landings income
contribute between 10 ± 4 to 53 ± 16% of the total landings and between 9 ± 3 to 34 ± 6% of the total catches (landings + discards) (Table 2). For scenario I (fresh fish average sale price) trawl, multispecies and seine would contribute with 20 ± 5, 28 ± 19, 5 ± 2% and 17 ± 3, 20 ± 10, 5 ± 2% to the economic value of total landings and total catches, respectively (Table 2). For scenario II (minimum sale price) trawl, multispecies and seine would contribute 4 ± 1, 6 ± 4, 1 ± 0.4% and 4 ± 1, 5 ± 4, 1 ± 0.4% to the economic value of total landings and total catches, respectively (Table 2). For scenario III (equal scenario I and II contribution, 50%) trawl, multispecies and seine would contribute with 12 ± 3, 17 ± 12, 3 ± 1.3% and 11 ± 2, 14 ± 7, 3 ± 1.2% to the economic value of total landings and total catches, respectively (Table 2). That is, overall economic income contribution under a discard ban would be higher for the multispecies sector, followed by trawl and seine. The economic contribution of landing sales by fishing sector to GDP (Table 3 and Fig. 4) is higher for the multispecies sector (0.16%) followed by trawl (0.07%) and seine (0.06%). For the three scenarios (Sc. I-III) the potential contribution of discards + landings (total catch), from 1986 to 2009 to the GDP would be 0.41 ± 0.22 (Sc. I), 0.30 ± 0.18 (Sc. II) and 0.35 ± 0.20% (Sc. III), which correspond to 1.46, 1.07 and 1.25 increase to the GDP (GDP based on landings equal to 0.28 ± 0.17%, see Table 3). For the three scenarios (Sc. I-III) the potential contribution of discards + landings (total catch) per fishing sector to the GDP, from 1986 to 2009, range from 0.29% to 0.34%, 0.07–0.12% and 0.057–0.07% for multispecies, trawl and seine sector (Table 3). The top five species discarded contributed between 12 ± 2 and 2 ± 0.4% and 11 ± 2 and 2 ± 0.4% to total landings and total caches incomes under the three scenarios considered (Table 3; Fig. 5).
6. Discussion The approach of differentiating between reported landings and unreported discarded catches used in this study allows assessment of the economic contribution of fisheries to the GDP. If only based on reported commercial statistics that potential would be considerably
Table 2 Relative percentage contribution of discard per fishing sector (Trawl, seine and multispecies), with detail of top five discarded species (Boops boops, Merluccius merluccius, Sardina pilchardus; Scomber japonicus and Trachurus trachurus, see Leitão et al., 2014), relatively to fishing landings and total catches (landings + Scenario I to III). Discards (%)
Total Trawl Seine Multispecies Boops boops Merluccius merluccius Sardina pilchardus Scomber japonicus Trachurus picturatus Others
Landed
Total Catches (Landed + Sc. I-II)
Years
Sc. I
Sc. II
Sc. III
Sc. I
Sc. II
Sc. III
53.1 ( ± 16.1) 20.2 ( ± 4.6) 5.1 ( ± 2.2) 28.0 ( ± 18.8) 1.3 ( ± 0.8) 6.8 ( ± 1.9) 1.3 ( ± 0.3) 2.3 ( ± 1.1) 1.0 ( ± 0.3) 40.6 ( ± 17.0)
10.4 ( ± 3.9) 3.9 ( ± 0.9) 1.0 ( ± 0.4) 5.6 ( ± 4.2) 0.2 ( ± 0.1) 1.3 ( ± 0.4) 0.3 ( ± 0.1) 0.4 ( ± 0.2) 0.2 ( ± 0.1) 8.0 ( ± 3.9)
31.8 ( ± 10.0) 12.1 ( ± 2.7) 3.0 ( ± 1.3) 16.8 ( ± 11.5) 0.8 ( ± 0.5) 4.1 ( ± 1.1) 0.8 ( ± 0.2) 1.3 ( ± 0.7) 0.6 ( ± 0.2) 24.3 ( ± 10.4)
34.0 ( ± 6.4) 16.7 ( ± 3.3) 4.8 ( ± 2.0) 20.4 ( ± 10.2) 1.3 ( ± 0.7) 6.4 ( ± 1.7) 1.3 ( ± 0.3) 2.2 ( ± 1.1) 1.0 ( ± 0.3) 28.0 ( ± 7.9)
9.3 3.7 1.0 5.2 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 7.3
23.7 ( ± 5.4) 10.7 ( ± 2.2) 2.9 ( ± 1.2) 13.6 ( ± 7.1) 0.8 ( ± 0.4) 3.9 ( ± 1.1) 0.8 ( ± 0.2) 1.3 ( ± 0.6) 0.6 ( ± 0.2) 19.1 ( ± 6.3)
79
( ± 3.1) ( ± 0.8) ( ± 0.4) ( ± 3.6) ( ± 0.1) ( ± 0.4) ( ± 0.1) ( ± 0.2) ( ± 0.1) ( ± 3.3)
1969–2009 1969–2009 1986–2009 1973–2009 1973–2009 1969–2009 1973–2009 1973–2009 1991–2009 1969–2009
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
Fig. 2. Economic value by sector/gears (Trawl, Seine and multispecies) in relation to total landed economic value (x1000€).
after 2004, showing that the average value per kg of fish worth more in international markets, making exports attractive for industry. This suggests that the internal market can assimilate the discard ban “wastes” and additionally this policy might also promote exports. In fact, most exports are sardine and small pelagic fish (e.g. mostly used for the canning industry) that have large discards in weight [2,12]. Consequently, the economic revenue of the fishing industry can increase under a discard ban, due to sale of common/marketable species so far discarded. However, the Portuguese fish trade is highly complex. For instance, the economic values of fish imports surpassed landings values in 1984 and exports surpassed landings income and landings in weight after 1995 and 2005, respectively. Higher export values than landings values suggests that most of the imported fish are not for national consumption, as landed fish is, but rather acquired for economic reasons by Portuguese fish traders as an opportunity to resale at a better price in other international markets (e.g. raw material can be transformed in Portugal and then exported). Whether fish for re-sale is acquired for economic reasons in the international market (lowest price) or due to the lack of national available fish is unknown. Therefore, caution is required when predicting values of exports based on fish discards driven by a discard ban policy. However, with a discard ban policy, national dealers can potentially gain access to “discarded fish” at competitive prices when otherwise they would need to import and sell this fish both in national and international markets. The discard ban policy (due to higher amounts of fish involved) could also increase the secondary sector production and generate new jobs and new industry opportunities (exports, fish meal and canning industry) for a fishing sector that has been in crisis in terms of overexploited fish stocks since the mid-1980's [18] and economically also since 1983 (present work, see also for a review [12]). It is noteworthy that while net imports were low in 1976-80, they have
Table 3 Relative percentage contribution of fishing landings to Gross Domestic Production (GDP) under the 3 scenarios considered (Sc. I to III) after 1986. Contribution to GDP (%) Landed Landed+Sc. I Landed+Sc. II Landed+Sc. III Trawl Landed Trawl Discards Sc. I Trawl Discards Sc. II Trawl Discards Sc. III Seine Landed Seine Discards Sc. I Seine Discards Sc. II Seine Discards Sc. III Multispecies Landed Multispecies Discards Sc. I Multispecies Discards Sc. II Multispecies Discards Sc. III Sardina pilchardus Landed Sardina pilchardus Discards Sc. I Sardina pilchardus Discards Sc. II Sardina pilchardus Discards Sc. III
0.28 ( ± 0.17) 0.41 ( ± 0.22) 0.30 ( ± 0.18) 0.35 ( ± 0.20) 0.065 ( ± 0.045) 0.056 ( ± 0.038) 0.011 ( ± 0.007) 0.034 ( ± 0.022) 0.059 ( ± 0.037) 0.016 ( ± 0.014) 0.003 ( ± 0.003) 0.009 ( ± 0.008) 0.159 ( ± 0.088) 0.056 ( ± 0.021) 0.013 ( ± 0.010) 0.037 ( ± 0.015) 0.029 ( ± 0.019) 0.004 ( ± 0.003) 0.001 ( ± 0.001) 0.002 ( ± 0.002)
increased over time until 2009. In other words, Portugal has become more dependent on imports for satisfying the national demand for fish. According to the New Economics Foundation and OCEAN2012 [20], Portugal is one of the most dependent countries on fish in the European Union (EU). The national fish consumption is more than the amount that Portuguese fleet can take within the EU waters, which makes Portugal a country dependent on fish imports from EU and other countries (e.g. all consumed cod arrive from outside the EU). The
Fig. 3. Economic value under a discard ban police for scenarios I to III in relation to total economic value of the landed fish (x1000€).
80
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
Fig. 4. Economic value contribution of each sector, under discard ban policy, for scenarios I to III in relation to total economic value of the landed fish (x1000€). A: trawl; B: seine; C: multispecies.
Fig. 5. Economic value contributions of top five discarded species (Boops boops, Merluccius merluccius, Sardina pilchardus; Scomber japonicus and Trachurus trachurus, see Leitão et al., 2014) under a discard ban police, for scenarios I to III in relation to total economic value of the landed fish (x1000€).
81
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
1950 and 2010 fishers accounted for 1.4%, 0.9% [23] and 0.5% [24]. Overall, in short term it can be foreseen a fish market enhancement due to the new CFP bringing opportunity to enhance employment, economic income and trade in the fisheries economic sector. Moreover, the number of species landed can increase with discard ban (diversification of fish supply). As mention by [13] an expansion of the fisheries and also a better use of the marine “biodiversity”, number of species, can be seen as a way for redistribute fishing effort of Portuguese fisheries that have been heavy exploited since middle 1980s. In Portugal the effect of the discards ban in the fisheries sector and economy is still unclear. At author's best knowledge, fishermen's associations have little knowledge regarding the discard ban policy. In January 2016 the Portuguese Fisheries office (DGRM) published a manual (obligation for discards ban manual [25]) mentioning that: i) species obligated to be landed, above minimum landing size, can be sold for human consumption and; ii) species obligated to be landed below the minimum landing size can be sold at auction for meal, pharmacy/cosmetic, pet food, etc. Discards are possibly under a minimis percentage regulated by DGRM (that do not account for quota but should be declared) and for species that have high survival rate (e.g. nephrops). However, practical actions resulting from discard ban policy to be enforced aiming fisheries management are lacking. For instance, ITQs have been used in Canada and Denmark but so far in Portugal ITQs systems have not been so far debated by fisheries associations/vessel owners. This suggests that the “right” mix promised cannot so far be achieved in fisheries sector.
discard ban policy will be progressively implemented, as part of the new CFP, until 2017. This will necessarily be reflected in gradual changes in the Portuguese fishing sector. For instance, sardine discards are presently managed by quotas according to ICES advice (9000 t for the period between June-October 2015), which are divided among producer organizations. Therefore, the entrance of “discard ban fish” in the market can create a by-product which should create or help to revitalize new fish market niches such as the canning industry. It is important to note that 89% of Portuguese discards include mostly fish and shark species that have commercial value [2]. However, not all discarded species can be used for direct human consumption. Therefore, it may be useful to evaluate the potential of currently discarded catches. For example, Costa and Borges [21] illustrated that shark discards constituted 15.5% of the total catch by weight of all species caught in trawls off the southern coast of Portugal. The most frequently discarded species was Scyliorhinus canicula (Scyliorhinidae) (5.1% of the total catch by weight), which is just occasionally sold, due to limited market demand [21]. All other shark species caught are always discarded due to their low commercial value. In this case, as deep water shark discards represent a considerable proportion of the total catch, they are potentially valuable commercial species and could be important as a by-catch if a market were developed for them (however, these species have low resilience, therefore it might not be a good idea to encourage their unregulated exploitation). Therefore, even species or groups with no current economic value might have potential economic interest in the short term, for national or international markets, for consumption (fresh; canned; salted; dried; smoked) or fish meal (e.g. invertebrates such as sea cucumbers, sea stars from trawl fisheries, shark livers for oil for the China market [22]). However, sustainable exploitation of new species must be in line with the requirements of the EU precautionary approach and ecological ecosystems approach. That is, potentially some of these “new” species can be discarded at the sea alive due to low discard rate mortality. In these cases, discarding may prove to be a more effective approach, if adequate regulation is implemented. No significant correlation was found between yearly landings in weight and fish mean price. Such a relationship’ contradicts the supplydemand model of price determination in a market. However, in this study the fisheries data was grouped, excluding for top five main landed species. Therefore, the evolution of a specific species average price is unclear with the present approach, requiring detailed future studies. It is likely that auction prices will be reduced if the quantity of a given species increased due to the discard ban. Hence, the present economic estimations should be interpreted cautiously (authors were not yet able to estimate that) since a broader evaluation of this issue will only be possible after the implementation of the new CFP. Prices can change for various reasons, such as technology, consumer preference, weather conditions etc., so predictions are hard to make. Nonetheless, fish can be considered an elastic good (the relationship between the supply and demand for a good and changes in price) as it is very responsive to price. Therefore, fish suppliers will keep producing as long as they can sell fish for a price that exceeds their production cost (the marginal cost of production). Buyers will go on purchasing as long as their satisfaction is greater than the price paid (the marginal utility of consumption). Investments in new products, services, production methods or processes would allow the Portuguese fisheries sector to receive advantageous financial incentives (both refundable and non-refundable founds/subsidies of PROMAR - Operational Program of Fisheries under the European Fisheries Fund to support salted & dried fish processing industry) compared to other international and EU countries. Due to the discard ban fish landings are expected to increase. As mentioned, exports are an attractive business for Portuguese sellers, and more fish landed can mean more exports and fewer imports also. A question remains open regarding the fate of the discard ban policy and overall fisheries catches? The findings of this work should address or at least speculate on possible future scenarios. In 1853,
7. Conclusion A marked under-reporting of total catches has been observed, suggesting inadequate monitoring and data recording mechanisms in Portuguese fisheries [2]. However, unreported catches are dominated by discards, a wasteful practice that was addressed through the revised CFP. This issue requires improvement, comprehensive data collection and monitoring, as well as updated approaches to fishing and fish retention and utilization. The present assessment suggests that, relying solely in fisheries landing data reports, the economic contribution to the GDP of Portuguese fisheries, under a discard ban scenario, can result in a substantial underestimation. This fact must challenge existing perspectives for commercial fisheries sectors and should give the national government the opportunity to rethink its prioritization of fisheries development. Under the discard ban policy to be implemented by the revised EU Common Fisheries Policy, there may be new economic opportunities, based on the income of discards estimated here. This can enhance opportunities in the national and international context for revitalizing, to some extent, the economic situation of Portuguese fisheries and reducing exports, which have surpassed domestic production (landings) during the last decade. Under the landing obligation, all catches have to be kept on board, landed and counted against the quotas. According to the EU discard ban policy undersized fish cannot be marketed for human consumption purposes and the landing obligation will be applied fishery by fishery. Therefore, detailed knowledge about the discard ban implementation should be included in multiannual plans. However, a key question is related to the permission to commercialize discards under the new CFP (in this study it was assumed that all discards could be commercialized). Many societies adhere to the principle that human beings have a moral obligation to make best use of natural resources and minimization of waste [26]. The opportunity exists now for Portuguese fishers to utilize the developing discard ban by doing what fishers have done well for centuries, namely to innovate and adapt to changing conditions and circumstances. However, avoidance, minimization and utilization of former discards should be one step ahead in this process and should be embraced, not opposed, by the national fishing community as a required step in the right direction for sustainable fisheries. However, the national and international fisheries sector still needs 82
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
more action to rebuild fisheries and implement reforms to sustain them.
[11]
Acknowledgements
[12]
Francisco Leitão and Vânia Baptista hold scholarships from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (references SFRH/BPD/ 108949/2015 and SFRH/BD/104209/2014, respectively). The authors would like acknowledge to Pedro Range and Jorge Palma for valuable comments and English review of the paper. We would like to thank to Hance Smith for his valuable comments that greatly contributed to improve the manuscript.
[13]
References
[17]
[14] [15]
[16]
[1] P. Andersen, J. Andersen, S. Mardle, What’s going to happen with the CFP Reform discard policy? IIFET 2014 Australia Conference Proceedings, 1–11, 2014. [2] F. Leitão, V. Baptista, D. Zeller, K. Erzini, Reconstructed catches and trends for mainland Portugal fisheries between 1938 and 2009: implications for sustainability, domestic fish supply and imports, Fish. Res. 155 (2014) 33–50. [3] F. Leitão, V. Baptista, K. Erzini, D. Iritani, D. Zeller, Reconstruction of Mainland Portugal Fisheries Catches 1950–2010, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2014 (Working Paper Series, 2014–08). [4] FAO, FAO Statistics 2008, Rome, FAO, 2010 (available at: 〈http://www.fao.org/ docrep/013/i1890t/i1890t.pdf〉; last accessed in October 2015). [5] D. Zeller, S. Booth, G. Davis, D. Pauly, Re-estimation of small-scale fisheries catches for U.S. flag island areas in the Western Pacific: the last 50 years, Fish. Bull. 105 (2007) 266–277. [6] D. Zeller, P. Rossing, S. Harper, L. Persson, S. Booth, D. Pauly, The BalticSea: estimates of total fisheries removals 1950–2007, Fish. Res. 108 (2011) 356–363. [7] F. Leitão, V. Alms, K. Erzini, A multi-model approach to evaluate the role of environmental variability and fishing pressure in sardine fisheries, J. Mar. Syst. 139 (2014) 128–138. [8] European Commission, Green Paper. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. COM163, Brussels, 2009, 2009 [9] S. Pascoe, Bycatch management and the economics of discarding 370, Fisheries Technical Paper FAO, Rome, 1997. [10] FAO, Status and potential of fisheries and aquaculture in Asia and the Pacific 2008, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia
[18] [19] [20]
[21]
[22] [23]
[24] [25] [26]
83
and The Pacific, Bangkok, 2008 (available online: 〈http://www.fao.org/docrep/ 011/i0433e/I0433E04.htm〉). D. Zeller, S. Booth, D. Pauly, Fisheries contributions to the gross domestic product: understanding small-scale fisheries in the pacific, Mar. Resour. Econ. 21 (2007) 355–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/mre.21.4.42629521. T. Bjørndal, A. Lappo, J. Ramos, An economic analysis of the Portuguese fisheries sector 1960–2011, Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 21–30. E., Malefakis, Southern Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries: an historical overview. Estudios/Working Papers, Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ciencias Sociales, 1992, 35: pp. 1–5. J.M. Maravall, Regimes, Politics and Markets: Democratization and Economic Change in Southern and Eastern Europe, Oxford University Press, USA, 1997. A.L.M. Rocha, As pressões dos Aliados e a evolução da política externa portuguesa entre 1942 e 1943: da neutralidade à colaboração, Rev. De. História 161 (2009) 113–145. T. Bjørndal, G.R. Munro, The Economics And Management Of World Fisheries, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012. L. Hill, M.L. Coelho, Portuguese fisheries in Portugal for the period 1950–1999. Comparison with ICES data, Fisheries Impacts On North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort And National/regional Data Sets 9, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 2001, pp. 187–190 (Fisheries Centre Research Reports). F. Leitão, Landing profiles of Portuguese fisheries: assessing the state of stocks, Fish. Manag. Ecol. 22 (2015) 152–163. Anon, Pescas em Portugal 1986–1996, Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE), Direcção Geral das Pescas e Aquacultura, Lisboa, 1998. A. Esteban, R. Crilly, Fish Dependence – 2012 Update: The Increasing Reliance of the EU on Fish From Elsewhere, New Economics Foundation/OCEAN2012, London, Brussels, 2012. M. Costa, T. Borges, Shark discards from the Southern Portuguese coastal fisheries. ICES CM 1998/BB: 15 Fisheries Assessment Methods, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 1998. ChinaBusinessWorld.Com, 〈http://www.chinabusinessworld.com/Fish〉, last accessed in October, 2015. J. Alves, A Pesca e os Pescadores do Litoral Portuense em 1868. Revista da Faculdade de Letras 1991, 8: pp. 151–184 (available online: 〈http://ler.letras.up. pt/uploads/ficheiros/2260.pdf〉; last accessed in July 2015). INE, Estatistica da Pesca, Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Estatística, I.P., 2010, 2010. DGRM, Aplicação da Obrigação De Descarga, Direcção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos, Lisboa, 2016. M. Kelleher, Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: an update, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470, Rome, 2005.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
The discard ban policy, economic trends and opportunities for the Portuguese fisheries sector
crossmark
⁎
Francisco Leitão , Vânia Baptista Centro de Ciências do Mar, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal
A R T I C L E I N F O
A BS T RAC T
Keywords: Fisheries economic trends Discard ban Economic scenarios Income from discards Discards economic value
In this paper the discard ban policy within the Portuguese fisheries sector is discussed and the opportunities and impact in the fisheries economy that arise from sales of unwanted fish under the new landing obligation are evaluated. The decadal mean price of fish (€/kg, adjusted for inflation) rose from the 1940s until the 1970s, dropping thereafter. The yearly averaged economic income estimated for discards sales between 1969 and 2009 ranged from 419345€ to 2164379€. Discard ban sales could contribute from 10% to 53% of the total landed value and 9–34% of the total catches (landings + discards). Under a discard ban policy, the fishing sector with the largest economic contribution for total discards sales would be multispecies (54%), followed by trawl (26%) and seine (20%). On average, fishing sales contributed with 0.63% to gross domestic production (GDP) between 1938 and 2009. Discard sales can increase 1.07–1.46 times more than the fish landing contribution to GDP. After 1983 the average landings/imports economic ratio was 0.28:1, which means that fish imports surpassed landings economic value 3.57 fold. The discard ban policy can create economic opportunities in the national context thus helping to revitalize some specific fisheries sectors.
1. Introduction Many fisheries around the world have reached unsustainable levels and therefore deliver poor income to fishers. Effective fisheries management is urgently needed to improve the economic situation of fishing communities. Part of the solution is to reduce discards by finding market-based approaches that will increase the value for all bycatch fish. The necessity of each country to manage all fisheries within their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), a consequence of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), led to attempts to find sustainable indicators for marine fisheries and ecosystems at the national level [1] but information about the economic effect of a discard ban in the fisheries sector is still scarce. Coastal and maritime activities have been traditionally important both for the national economy as well as for the historical, social and cultural identity of Portugal. The country has long relied on fishing as a major means of subsistence and many coastal communities depend almost exclusively on local fisheries and related activities. The exploitation of fisheries resources in Portuguese waters has traditionally been dominated by small-scale coastal and estuarine fisheries. Local artisanal fisheries remain socially and economically important for the coastal populations that have increased in recent decades [2–4]. In mainland Portugal, a variety of gears/metiers are used in coastal
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: fl[email protected] (F. Leitão).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.10.012 Received 5 July 2016; Received in revised form 15 October 2016; Accepted 15 October 2016 0308-597X/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
fisheries, ranging from trawls to static gears such as gill nets, long lines and traps. Therefore, a wide variety of unwanted species (by-catch) are captured along with the target species [2]. The quantification and composition of the unreported catches (e.g. discards) is a key issue in fisheries to understand the fate and impact of these unreported actions [2,5,6]. In Portugal it was estimated that between 1938 and 2009, 35.5% of the total catch corresponded to illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries (IUU), mostly due to discards that accounted for 98.5% of IUU [2]. Between 1938 and 2009, fish accounted for 93.5% of overall averaged unreported catches per year, followed by cephalopods (1.9%), crustaceans (1.4%) and sharks (1.3%). However, 89% of unreported fish and shark species had commercial value [2,7]. Moreover, between 1938 and 2009, eight frequently landed commercial species, mostly small pelagics, accounted for approximately 70% on average of total unreported catches in weight for all Portuguese gears/ fisheries: Scomber japonicus, Boops boops, Trachurus picturatus, Merluccius. merluccius, Sardina pilchardus, Liza aurata, Micromesistius poutassou and T. trachurus [2,7]. In this paper the discard ban policy will be briefly discussed, namely within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), before” and “after” the ban implementation and discards incentives (Section 2). The Portuguese fisheries status and political situation (Section 3) will be described in order to better discuss the EU demand within the Portuguese context.
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
increasing the financial revenue for the fishermen [1]. For instance, national scale “right mix” can be achieved by individual transferable quota (ITQ) that comprises an allocated privilege of landing a specified portion of the total annual fish catch in the form of quota shares. The ITQs divide the total annual catch quota into smaller individual portions and are generally transferable, which means that fishing vessel owners can sell or buy their ITQ certificates or even, lease their quota shares depending on how much (or whether) they want to participate in the fishery. The potential effects and the future incentives included in the discard ban policy are not however clear. For instance, what is the role given when unintentional catches occur despite the improved selectivity? Under these circumstances catches would be handled as follows (see [1]): i) undersized fish or minimum conservation reference sizes will be set on biological grounds. These measures will allow development of’ better gears thus minimizing juvenile catches. Fish below minimum catchable size can only be sold for fish meal or pet food production. Fishermen can thus cover the landing costs, but without generating financial gain; ii) fish caught in excess of individual quota can be marketed normally. When vessel owners are about to run out of one or more of their quotas they need to buy or lease quotas from other vessel owners in the same MS. When this step is unattainable, quota overshoot rules will be applied and fishermen must take responsibility to ensure that they have all quotas necessary to land their catches; iii) overshoot of national quotas has to be dealt with by the MS through bycatch reserves, borrowing or banking of quotas between years, or swapping quotas with other MS. If this is not enough, the overshot amounts will be deducted from the following year’s quota; iv) and within these effort management systems all commercial species which are above the minimum size can be marketed and sold normally as long as the effort to allocate them is not exhausted. From what the authors understand, there are no penalties to fishing below minimum size except for the fact that this fish must be sold for reduction (fish meal and fish oil). So it is difficult to know with certainty whether there will be any costs for fishermen if they land more fish than their quota for one or more species. In sum, fish caught in excess for individual quotas can be marketed normally and “by-catch quotas” are set as part of the fishing opportunities set by EU council each year. The European Commission proposes a gradual approach in three steps: pelagic species in 2014 (including in the Mediterranean), most valuable demersal species (cod, hake and sole) in 2015, and other species by 2016. The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) may fund innovative real time technologies aiming to control/monitor fishing activity and to enforce the discard ban. These practices will imply, not only a full reporting of fisheries and processing activities [1], but also to gear up the fishing vessels with additional technical equipment (e.g.: electronic logbook, vessel Monitoring System Program, observers, radio frequency identifications, electronic chips). Moreover, the new CFP will offer incentives to increase gear selectivity and to land the full fishing yield. Under the EFF, vessel owners would receive financial support for innovation (new technical and organizational knowledge), to increased gear selectivity (both size and fish selectivity) and to reduce incidental/accidental bycatches. Vessel owners and fishermen working on board vessels would receive financial support to participate in trials, innovative pilot projects and to collaborate with scientists [1]. POs will also receive funding to help implement the discard ban, to improve product labelling and marketing of new products. Additionally, incentives may be given in the form of quota allocation within MS. Under the TFC system, MS are free to allocate their national quotas to different vessel segments, giving for example, more quotas to vessels that fish more sustainably and environmentally friendly [1]. Despite the introduction of new technical regulations to limit unwanted catches, there is little understanding at the fishermen level of the underlying socio-economic and institutional incentives causing discards. There is a thin line between the theoretical point that
Prohibited for the first time in some EU fisheries in 2009, economic-led ‘highgrading’ is today illegal for all quota species, under amendments to fisheries technical measures enacted by the European Parliament and Council in March 2013 (Regulation (EU) No 227/2013). This means that fish that were discarded before should now have an economic value independently of their final use. Furthermore, sales of this fish will have to be accounted for and included in the country's economy. Therefore, the overall socio-economic opportunities for implementation of the discard ban policy in Portuguese fisheries sector between 1938 and 2009 is herein evaluated based on available information on landings and their economic value in Portugal. The specific aims were: (1) to estimate yearly fishing income values based on overall auction fishing sales 1938–2009); (2) to contextualize yearly fishing revenue trends with Gross Domestic Product (GDP), import and export trends, and (3) to estimate the potential economic value generated by discards (which represent 98.5% of IUU [2]), assuming that discards can be normally commercialized for different uses. 2. The discard ban policy Discards are among the best examples of the shortcomings of the CFP as they are difficult to justify to fishermen or to the general public. People in different circumstances have different perceptions of incidental catches. This is often based on emotional and heightened public awareness rather than on hard evidence that conservation, ecological or economic problems exist. This can be particularly so in the difference between protein rich developed nations and less developed nations where fishermen are dependent on fishing for their very existence and the national economy may rely on exports to developed nations of high value marine products such as shrimp. It is unclear if the debate around the EU Landing Obligation has actually started. Nevertheless, since the following of two major communications made in 2002 (EU law: COM/2002/0656) and 2007 (SEC(2007) 380; SEC(2007) 381) more attention has been given to discards. Since 2011 there has been a U-turn in the EU’s discard policy with the aim to effectively reduce discards in EU fisheries sector with the Commission proposing since 2011 a U-turn on the EU’s discard policy. Until recently, the EU prohibited discards of fish with established quotas which could be legally landed (high-grading). However, it was legal to discard non-commercial fish and other organisms or even to compulsory discard fish which could not be landed legally due to minimum landing size (MLS) or quota regulations. The 2012 revision of the EU CFP led to the implementation of the discard ban. Therefore, as cited in Ref. [8]: “In the “new world”, the aim is that landings equal catch whereas in the “old world” landings equals catch minus discards”. For instance, as part of local fisheries policy, in mixed fisheries, fishermen must join efforts with the local administration to develop actual measures thus avoiding unwanted catches in the first place. These measures may range from more selective fishing gears (e.g. increasing the mesh-size used, either by regulation or on a voluntary basis), in restrictions to access to juvenile aggregation areas at certain times of the year (e.g. in spawning periods), to real time fishing closures or even “closed” areas on a permanent basis (MPAs – Marine protected areas). Furthermore, vessels that are likely to have a mixture of species in their hauls should have quotas for all of these species. Small scale vessel owners would need to receive the right quota mix from national administrations. All other vessel owners should receive the right quota mix from the national administration transferable fishing concessions (TFCs). Vessel owners could pool their concessions, for example, in a producer organization (PO) and in addition they could buy TFCs from other vessel owners within the same Member State (MS), doing a single fishing trip, for a whole year or even longer. Over time hauls will become more selective, allowing saving time, fuel and on-board handling which ultimately will reduce pressure on fishing stocks. Under these premises, stocks will be able to recover faster and to produce larger fish which will fetch better market prices, thus 76
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
fishermen are incentivised to discard whenever benefits outweigh the penalty and what is typically considered “the (opportunity) cost of retaining and landing fish exceeds its market value” [10]. If a ban on discarding is to be implemented, which incentives should be allocated to encourage compliance or conversely which disincentives should be applied to the non-compliance [8]. There is a concern that if the full market price is paid for fish which contravenes conservation regulations, fishermen will be encouraged to fish more. On the other hand, if fishermen do not receive any kind of compensation for the extra work and landing costs of the full catch, the temptation to maintain the fishing discards at sea will be high. Therefore, there is a need to balance over compensation and encouraging trade on the one hand and under compensation and encouraging discards on the other [8,9]. This of course, assuming there is a market and value for the discarded products.
vulnerable to exploitation due to high longevity, slow growth, late maturity, and low fecundity) have been increasing whilst decrease in traditional commercial nearshore fisheries such as small and medium pelagic (represent in average ~63% of landings between 1950 and 2009) [18]. Difficulties in managing Portuguese fisheries are compounded by Portuguese the multi-species nature of the fisheries and inadequate data recording and monitoring systems [2]. Consequently, the incomplete knowledge of total fishery removals (e.g. discards, fishing effort) can undermine the effectiveness of the TAC system to manage species as well as stock recovery plans. 4. Material and methods Yearly fish auction sale prices were obtained from INE database, i) 2000's onwards available in digital format (https://www.ine.pt/ xportal/xmain?xpid=INE?xpgid=ine_publicacoes; last accessed in October 2015) and ii) paper support manually transcribed from individual records from the INE digital library for years from 1938 to 1999 (available online: http://inenetw02.ine.pt:8080/biblioteca/ search.do; last accessed in October 2015). All monetary values are nominal. Good economic data is available from 1986 onwards (INE data source) allowing to estimation of economic value per gear (trawl, seine, multispecies) and taxa (group or species). Economic values were then adjusted according to inflation between 1938 and 2009 with real prices in euros (€), using the consumer price index (CPI) also available from 1948 to 2009 (CPI-data from the INE: https://www.ine.pt/ xportal/xmain?xpid=INE?xpgid=ipc; last accessed in July 2015) relative to year 2014. This yielded time series of the landed fisheries value in year 2014 considering inflation adjusted prices, allowing estimation of’ the economic values of fisheries catches produced by the Portuguese fleet to become comparable over time. The economic landings yields were estimated by dividing total auction sales/incomes by the total quantity of landings (weight) here after expressed in € per Kg (€/kg). Illegal, unreported and undeclared data (IUU), namely unreported discards data, for the time series period was taken from [2], which comprises a reconstruction of Portuguese total fisheries catches. Economic and landing data on imports and exports, for the time period between 1969 and 2009, were also obtained from INE (see above web sources). Exports and imports include fresh fish and fish meal. With this data it was possible to estimate the unit price for imports and exports (€/kg). The economic contribution of fish landings for GDP were predicted, based on auction sale prices and imports (source PORDATA: http://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/PIB+e +rendimentos+(base+2011)−2412; last accessed in July 2015), assuming constant prices. Several economic scenarios were considered for the estimation of economic income values of discards: Scenario 1 – Sc. I) under the assumption that all discarded fish is commercialized for fresh consumption, the auction sale prices per kilogram per category – gear, taxon – was estimated, based on landings and the yearly unitary economic price for each category (€/kg) and used to estimate the total economic value of discards by multiplying the unitary price for each category, by the weight of discards. Scenario 2 – Sc. II) it can be assumed that due to large landing volumes fish might not enter the marketplace that matches the market saturation definition: the quantity of product provided to market has been maximized in the current state of the marketplace. At the saturation point, further growth can only be achieved through product improvements, market share gains or a rise in overall consumer demand. The second scenario assumes that discards are sold at minimum price, which is currently designated in auction as “rejection” price. Information on the cut-off prices or “rejection” prices were available from INE (see web references above) from 2001 onwards. Therefore, auction “rejection” values can be considered as the lowest auction sale limit, attracting the fish meal industry. In the absence of “rejection” sale data for specific years, values for those years were estimated as proposed by Leitão et al. [2]
3. Portuguese fisheries status and political context In the last half a century Portugal made a remarkable transition from an agrarian society to an industrial- and service-based economy, but the country was still not able to successfully move on to a knowledge-based economy. During this time frame Portugal experienced a number of macroeconomic shocks and structural changes. The dictatorship regime (known as “Estado Novo”) that lasted from 1933 to 1974 took control of the chaotic finances and enabled Portugal to be neutral during World War II [12]. The regime was able to recover from the negative balance of trade, particularly by exporting to both sides of the conflict and by reducing imports dramatically as belligerents were producing less at that time due to the war [13–15]. In addition to these macroeconomic perturbations, the fisheries sector was exposed to a major shock of its own: the introduction of 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zones in 1977, as a consequence of Extended Fisheries Jurisdiction (EFJ). As described by Bjørndal and Munro [16], EFJ involved a massive reallocation of natural capital from Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFN) to coastal states, with winners as well as losers [12]. EFJ meant Portuguese fishermen were excluded from distant water fishing grounds and essentially lead to the demise of Portugal as a DWFN. For instance, Portugal lost its autonomy to negotiating fishing access in developing countries for its distant water fleet. This led to the loss of access to some fishing grounds, including areas Portugal had been fishing historically, such as the Moroccan waters. Membership of the European Union in 1986 brought significant changes to the Portuguese fishing industry. For instance, according to Hill and Coelho [13] there was a decrease in the number of vessels in the Portuguese fishing fleet between 1989 and 1999, but this was compensated by an increase in vessel power and by 1996, 98% of the fishing fleet was motorized. Due to industrialization in the mid1950s, the Portuguese Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita accelerated significantly increased throughout most of the period from 1960 until 2007 [12]. The Portuguese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is defined in relation to the Portuguese mainland (322000 km2), the Azores archipelago (1.06 million km2) and Madeira islands (454500 km2), amounting to almost 50% of all European Union (EU) EEZs. Portuguese per capita consumption (62 kg in 2007 compared with an average of 21.4 kg within the EU) occupying rank 3 in fish consumption worldwide [4]. Therefore, fishing activities in mainland Portuguese waters represent an important socio-economic activity for suppling national fish market demand [2]. Currently, there is evidence that Portuguese stocks are under threat of local decline, due to the direct and indirect effects of fishing [18,19]. The number of collapsed, overexploited and fully-exploited stocks have increased considerably over the last 20 years ( > 50%). Moreover, changes in composition have been reflected in Portuguese fisheries since the 1950s, with a significant shift noticed in the middle 1980 s: deep sea resources (considered deeper waters refuges that will no longer operate) and higher trophic levels (more 77
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
at auction at the same proportion (50%), which is the same contribution to scenario (Sc.) I and II. For each of the scenarios, the potential economic value of the discard ban was estimated for the top five most commonly discarded species: S. pilchardus; T. picturatus; M. merluccius; S. japonicas; B. boops [2]. 5. Results The economic value of fisheries, generated by auction sales, increased until 1983, declining thereafter until 2009 when the values dropped to those experienced in the 1940s (Fig. 1A). Sales value peaked in 1949, 1971 and 1981. The yearly average price per kg of fish varied from 0.44 to 4.62€/kg with an average of 1.84 ± 0.59 €/kg with a coefficient of variation of 32%. The decadal total landings values (in weight) peaked in 1960s dropping thereafter until the 2000 s when the lowest values were recorded (Table 1, Fig. 1D). The landings by weight and economic value are statistically positively correlated (Spearman correlation: R =0.70; P < 0.01), meaning that landing amounts affect fishery total economic income. The decadal price of fish increased from the 1940s until the 1970s dropping thereafter (Table 1). A significant positive correlation was found between the yearly landings economic value and the auction mean fish price between 1938 and 1993 (Fig. 1A; Spearman correlation: R=0.54; P < 0.01). The correlation between landings in weight and mean fish price was negative but not significant (Fig. 1A, D; Spearman correlation: R =−0.15; P=0.20). The average contribution of fish auction sales to GDP, from 1960 to 2009 was 0.61 ± 0.39% with S. pilchardus (ranked 1st in landings) being the main contributor and representing approximately 1/5 of the contribution of fishing landings GDP (Table 2). From 1960 to 1985 the average contribution of fish auction sales to GDP was 0.92 ± 0.31%. After 1986, when Portugal became an EU member, the average contribution of fish auction sales to GDP was 0.28 ± 0.17%. While GDP increased over time, a clear decrease of the percentage contribution of fish sales to GDP was also verified (Fig. 1B). The yearly economic contribution of fish sales to GDP decreased at an average rate of −0.03% per year since the 1960s (Coefficient of variation =−4.64%). Fish exports were relatively steady until 1992 (coefficient of variation=22%), dropping to the lowest level in 1993 (54816000 €) and increasing thereafter above the average (345420000 ± 131809000 €) after 1994 (Fig. 1C). The average export/import economic ratio was 1:1.05 until 1980. However, a clear upward export trend in weight was notable after 1980 (Fig. 1C) with the average economic export/import ratio decreasing to 0.38:1. Between 1980 and 2009 the average value of imports was 2.63 times higher than exports. Until 1984, the economic value generated by landings exceeded the value spent with imports (Fig. 1C) while from 1969 to 1984 the ratio between economic values generated due to national fleet and imports was on average 1.73:1. After this period the economic ratio landings/ imports was 0.28:1, which means that the economic value of fish imports was 3.57 times higher than the landed values. Until 1993, fishing landings values (in weight) were higher than imports (Fig. 1D) as between 1969 and 1993 the average ratio landings/imports was 2.32:1. After this period the ratio landings/imports was 0.4:1, which mean that the fish imports value in weigh surpassed the landings value 2.5 times. (Fig. 2). The anomalies observed in landings/imports ratio in weight and economic value clearly showed that exports rose mostly after 1990 (values below the mean value of the time series are negative, denoting exports increases Fig. 1D). The economic income with exports surpassed landings incomes after 1995 (Fig. 1C). However, exports in weight surpassed landings only after 2005 (Fig. 1D). Generally, after the 1990's negative anomalies were verified in landings/imports ratio both in weight and economic value (Fig. 1E). The fishing sectors with the largest contribution to economic value are, multispecies, trawl and seine with 54 ± 9, 26 ± 8 and 20 ± 6%, respectively Under a discard ban scenario (Fig. 3), the economic value generated by discards could
Fig. 1. A: time series of economic values of landings (x1000€) and unit price of fish (€/kg); B: Global Domestic Production - GDP- and fish percentage contribution to GDP; C: imports and exports fresh fish and fish meal economic value (x1000€) and ratio export/import economic value (x1000€); D: imports and exports fresh fish and fish meal weight (Tonnes); E: anomalies (mean – observed value), in weight (Tonnes) and economic value (x1000€), of landings/imports ratio.
for landings in weight: the years for which reported data were available are used to calculate the average rejected price per kg of fish and used to rebuild years without data, accounting for inflation; Scenario 3 – Sc. III) it was considered that discarded fish can be sold fresh or “rejected”
78
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
Table 1 Average decadal fish price (€/kg), total economical income (x1000€) and relative percentage contribution of fishing landings to Gross Domestic Production (GDP).
Fish Prince (€/Kg) Landings in weight (kg) Total Economic Income (x 1000€) Contribution of Landings to GDP (%) Exportation/Importation (x 1000€)
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
1.46 ( ± 1.05) 193077 ( ± 26607) 299367 ( ± 170178)
1.63 ( ± 0.18) 233407 ( ± 33935) 376153 ( ± 50658)
1.57 ( ± 0.11) 300893 ( ± 27310) 483116 ( ± 31816)
2.32 ( ± 0.50) 245401 ( ± 36264) 523264 ( ± 88658)
1.96 ( ± 0.41) 245005 ( ± 27187) 620997 ( ± 93831)
1.82 ( ± 0.23) 191873 ( ± 27869) 326847 ( ± 74567)
1.84 ( ± 0.19) 138338 ( ± 8568) 254069 ( ± 26368)
–
–
1.16 ( ± 0.18)
0.73 ( ± 0.15)
0.60 ( ± 0.11)
0.26 ( ± 0.10)
0.16 ( ± 0.02)
–
–
–
0.83 ( ± 0.41)
0.52 ( ± 0.24)
0.30 ( ± 0.08)
0.38 ( ± 0.06)
undervalued, particularly in cases where discards are significant, such as in Portugal [2]. The value estimated for artisanal Portuguese fishery contribution to GDP, when discard ban is considered similar to those values found in small-scale commercial fisheries in small Pacific and Asian islands [10,11]. The average contribution of auction sales to Portuguese GDP from 1986 to 2009, based on landings, was less than 0.3% but could be enhanced by 1.5 times with the contribution of discards. Portugal entered the EU in 1986, thereafter, GDP decreased by approximately 1/3 when compared to the previous years (1960– 1985). Our study indicates that between 1938 and 2009, multispecies fisheries were the strongest contributors to the GDP. The artisanal sector uses static/passive gears, namely gillnets, trammel nets, pots and traps, and hook and line gears [2] and can be considered to be mostly inshore fisheries, showing that the history or socio-economics of fisheries in Portugal is strongly associated with coastal, nearshore fisheries. This sector of the fleet caught a large diversity of species and the fish is highly prized in auction due to its freshness and overall quality relative to other sectors (e.g. trawl). It is worthy of note that GDP increased throughout most of the period from 1960 till 2007, which can be associated to industrialization since the mid-1950s [12]. However, the economic contribution of fish sales with GDP decreased at a yearly average rate of 0.03% since 1960s [present study]. Moreover, the fish mean price has declined in last two decades (1990 and 2000s) relatively to fish average peak price decreased in the 1970s. Therefore, the decreased contribution of fishing income to GDP is associated with the decrease in total landings (a strong correlation was found between economic and weight trends) over the past four decades, that is since middle 1960s. In fact, in 2000s average landings in weight reached the lowest values ever recorded for the time series. That is, in 2000s landings average values were lower than values recorded between the 1930s and 1970s, when the fleet was not still industrialized and many fishing ships had low vessel power [17]. During 1983–1993, fish landings in Portugal exceeded imports (in weight) but the average price per kg of imported fish was greater than auction/landings fish. The value of exports surpassed landings income
contribute between 10 ± 4 to 53 ± 16% of the total landings and between 9 ± 3 to 34 ± 6% of the total catches (landings + discards) (Table 2). For scenario I (fresh fish average sale price) trawl, multispecies and seine would contribute with 20 ± 5, 28 ± 19, 5 ± 2% and 17 ± 3, 20 ± 10, 5 ± 2% to the economic value of total landings and total catches, respectively (Table 2). For scenario II (minimum sale price) trawl, multispecies and seine would contribute 4 ± 1, 6 ± 4, 1 ± 0.4% and 4 ± 1, 5 ± 4, 1 ± 0.4% to the economic value of total landings and total catches, respectively (Table 2). For scenario III (equal scenario I and II contribution, 50%) trawl, multispecies and seine would contribute with 12 ± 3, 17 ± 12, 3 ± 1.3% and 11 ± 2, 14 ± 7, 3 ± 1.2% to the economic value of total landings and total catches, respectively (Table 2). That is, overall economic income contribution under a discard ban would be higher for the multispecies sector, followed by trawl and seine. The economic contribution of landing sales by fishing sector to GDP (Table 3 and Fig. 4) is higher for the multispecies sector (0.16%) followed by trawl (0.07%) and seine (0.06%). For the three scenarios (Sc. I-III) the potential contribution of discards + landings (total catch), from 1986 to 2009 to the GDP would be 0.41 ± 0.22 (Sc. I), 0.30 ± 0.18 (Sc. II) and 0.35 ± 0.20% (Sc. III), which correspond to 1.46, 1.07 and 1.25 increase to the GDP (GDP based on landings equal to 0.28 ± 0.17%, see Table 3). For the three scenarios (Sc. I-III) the potential contribution of discards + landings (total catch) per fishing sector to the GDP, from 1986 to 2009, range from 0.29% to 0.34%, 0.07–0.12% and 0.057–0.07% for multispecies, trawl and seine sector (Table 3). The top five species discarded contributed between 12 ± 2 and 2 ± 0.4% and 11 ± 2 and 2 ± 0.4% to total landings and total caches incomes under the three scenarios considered (Table 3; Fig. 5).
6. Discussion The approach of differentiating between reported landings and unreported discarded catches used in this study allows assessment of the economic contribution of fisheries to the GDP. If only based on reported commercial statistics that potential would be considerably
Table 2 Relative percentage contribution of discard per fishing sector (Trawl, seine and multispecies), with detail of top five discarded species (Boops boops, Merluccius merluccius, Sardina pilchardus; Scomber japonicus and Trachurus trachurus, see Leitão et al., 2014), relatively to fishing landings and total catches (landings + Scenario I to III). Discards (%)
Total Trawl Seine Multispecies Boops boops Merluccius merluccius Sardina pilchardus Scomber japonicus Trachurus picturatus Others
Landed
Total Catches (Landed + Sc. I-II)
Years
Sc. I
Sc. II
Sc. III
Sc. I
Sc. II
Sc. III
53.1 ( ± 16.1) 20.2 ( ± 4.6) 5.1 ( ± 2.2) 28.0 ( ± 18.8) 1.3 ( ± 0.8) 6.8 ( ± 1.9) 1.3 ( ± 0.3) 2.3 ( ± 1.1) 1.0 ( ± 0.3) 40.6 ( ± 17.0)
10.4 ( ± 3.9) 3.9 ( ± 0.9) 1.0 ( ± 0.4) 5.6 ( ± 4.2) 0.2 ( ± 0.1) 1.3 ( ± 0.4) 0.3 ( ± 0.1) 0.4 ( ± 0.2) 0.2 ( ± 0.1) 8.0 ( ± 3.9)
31.8 ( ± 10.0) 12.1 ( ± 2.7) 3.0 ( ± 1.3) 16.8 ( ± 11.5) 0.8 ( ± 0.5) 4.1 ( ± 1.1) 0.8 ( ± 0.2) 1.3 ( ± 0.7) 0.6 ( ± 0.2) 24.3 ( ± 10.4)
34.0 ( ± 6.4) 16.7 ( ± 3.3) 4.8 ( ± 2.0) 20.4 ( ± 10.2) 1.3 ( ± 0.7) 6.4 ( ± 1.7) 1.3 ( ± 0.3) 2.2 ( ± 1.1) 1.0 ( ± 0.3) 28.0 ( ± 7.9)
9.3 3.7 1.0 5.2 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 7.3
23.7 ( ± 5.4) 10.7 ( ± 2.2) 2.9 ( ± 1.2) 13.6 ( ± 7.1) 0.8 ( ± 0.4) 3.9 ( ± 1.1) 0.8 ( ± 0.2) 1.3 ( ± 0.6) 0.6 ( ± 0.2) 19.1 ( ± 6.3)
79
( ± 3.1) ( ± 0.8) ( ± 0.4) ( ± 3.6) ( ± 0.1) ( ± 0.4) ( ± 0.1) ( ± 0.2) ( ± 0.1) ( ± 3.3)
1969–2009 1969–2009 1986–2009 1973–2009 1973–2009 1969–2009 1973–2009 1973–2009 1991–2009 1969–2009
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
Fig. 2. Economic value by sector/gears (Trawl, Seine and multispecies) in relation to total landed economic value (x1000€).
after 2004, showing that the average value per kg of fish worth more in international markets, making exports attractive for industry. This suggests that the internal market can assimilate the discard ban “wastes” and additionally this policy might also promote exports. In fact, most exports are sardine and small pelagic fish (e.g. mostly used for the canning industry) that have large discards in weight [2,12]. Consequently, the economic revenue of the fishing industry can increase under a discard ban, due to sale of common/marketable species so far discarded. However, the Portuguese fish trade is highly complex. For instance, the economic values of fish imports surpassed landings values in 1984 and exports surpassed landings income and landings in weight after 1995 and 2005, respectively. Higher export values than landings values suggests that most of the imported fish are not for national consumption, as landed fish is, but rather acquired for economic reasons by Portuguese fish traders as an opportunity to resale at a better price in other international markets (e.g. raw material can be transformed in Portugal and then exported). Whether fish for re-sale is acquired for economic reasons in the international market (lowest price) or due to the lack of national available fish is unknown. Therefore, caution is required when predicting values of exports based on fish discards driven by a discard ban policy. However, with a discard ban policy, national dealers can potentially gain access to “discarded fish” at competitive prices when otherwise they would need to import and sell this fish both in national and international markets. The discard ban policy (due to higher amounts of fish involved) could also increase the secondary sector production and generate new jobs and new industry opportunities (exports, fish meal and canning industry) for a fishing sector that has been in crisis in terms of overexploited fish stocks since the mid-1980's [18] and economically also since 1983 (present work, see also for a review [12]). It is noteworthy that while net imports were low in 1976-80, they have
Table 3 Relative percentage contribution of fishing landings to Gross Domestic Production (GDP) under the 3 scenarios considered (Sc. I to III) after 1986. Contribution to GDP (%) Landed Landed+Sc. I Landed+Sc. II Landed+Sc. III Trawl Landed Trawl Discards Sc. I Trawl Discards Sc. II Trawl Discards Sc. III Seine Landed Seine Discards Sc. I Seine Discards Sc. II Seine Discards Sc. III Multispecies Landed Multispecies Discards Sc. I Multispecies Discards Sc. II Multispecies Discards Sc. III Sardina pilchardus Landed Sardina pilchardus Discards Sc. I Sardina pilchardus Discards Sc. II Sardina pilchardus Discards Sc. III
0.28 ( ± 0.17) 0.41 ( ± 0.22) 0.30 ( ± 0.18) 0.35 ( ± 0.20) 0.065 ( ± 0.045) 0.056 ( ± 0.038) 0.011 ( ± 0.007) 0.034 ( ± 0.022) 0.059 ( ± 0.037) 0.016 ( ± 0.014) 0.003 ( ± 0.003) 0.009 ( ± 0.008) 0.159 ( ± 0.088) 0.056 ( ± 0.021) 0.013 ( ± 0.010) 0.037 ( ± 0.015) 0.029 ( ± 0.019) 0.004 ( ± 0.003) 0.001 ( ± 0.001) 0.002 ( ± 0.002)
increased over time until 2009. In other words, Portugal has become more dependent on imports for satisfying the national demand for fish. According to the New Economics Foundation and OCEAN2012 [20], Portugal is one of the most dependent countries on fish in the European Union (EU). The national fish consumption is more than the amount that Portuguese fleet can take within the EU waters, which makes Portugal a country dependent on fish imports from EU and other countries (e.g. all consumed cod arrive from outside the EU). The
Fig. 3. Economic value under a discard ban police for scenarios I to III in relation to total economic value of the landed fish (x1000€).
80
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
Fig. 4. Economic value contribution of each sector, under discard ban policy, for scenarios I to III in relation to total economic value of the landed fish (x1000€). A: trawl; B: seine; C: multispecies.
Fig. 5. Economic value contributions of top five discarded species (Boops boops, Merluccius merluccius, Sardina pilchardus; Scomber japonicus and Trachurus trachurus, see Leitão et al., 2014) under a discard ban police, for scenarios I to III in relation to total economic value of the landed fish (x1000€).
81
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
1950 and 2010 fishers accounted for 1.4%, 0.9% [23] and 0.5% [24]. Overall, in short term it can be foreseen a fish market enhancement due to the new CFP bringing opportunity to enhance employment, economic income and trade in the fisheries economic sector. Moreover, the number of species landed can increase with discard ban (diversification of fish supply). As mention by [13] an expansion of the fisheries and also a better use of the marine “biodiversity”, number of species, can be seen as a way for redistribute fishing effort of Portuguese fisheries that have been heavy exploited since middle 1980s. In Portugal the effect of the discards ban in the fisheries sector and economy is still unclear. At author's best knowledge, fishermen's associations have little knowledge regarding the discard ban policy. In January 2016 the Portuguese Fisheries office (DGRM) published a manual (obligation for discards ban manual [25]) mentioning that: i) species obligated to be landed, above minimum landing size, can be sold for human consumption and; ii) species obligated to be landed below the minimum landing size can be sold at auction for meal, pharmacy/cosmetic, pet food, etc. Discards are possibly under a minimis percentage regulated by DGRM (that do not account for quota but should be declared) and for species that have high survival rate (e.g. nephrops). However, practical actions resulting from discard ban policy to be enforced aiming fisheries management are lacking. For instance, ITQs have been used in Canada and Denmark but so far in Portugal ITQs systems have not been so far debated by fisheries associations/vessel owners. This suggests that the “right” mix promised cannot so far be achieved in fisheries sector.
discard ban policy will be progressively implemented, as part of the new CFP, until 2017. This will necessarily be reflected in gradual changes in the Portuguese fishing sector. For instance, sardine discards are presently managed by quotas according to ICES advice (9000 t for the period between June-October 2015), which are divided among producer organizations. Therefore, the entrance of “discard ban fish” in the market can create a by-product which should create or help to revitalize new fish market niches such as the canning industry. It is important to note that 89% of Portuguese discards include mostly fish and shark species that have commercial value [2]. However, not all discarded species can be used for direct human consumption. Therefore, it may be useful to evaluate the potential of currently discarded catches. For example, Costa and Borges [21] illustrated that shark discards constituted 15.5% of the total catch by weight of all species caught in trawls off the southern coast of Portugal. The most frequently discarded species was Scyliorhinus canicula (Scyliorhinidae) (5.1% of the total catch by weight), which is just occasionally sold, due to limited market demand [21]. All other shark species caught are always discarded due to their low commercial value. In this case, as deep water shark discards represent a considerable proportion of the total catch, they are potentially valuable commercial species and could be important as a by-catch if a market were developed for them (however, these species have low resilience, therefore it might not be a good idea to encourage their unregulated exploitation). Therefore, even species or groups with no current economic value might have potential economic interest in the short term, for national or international markets, for consumption (fresh; canned; salted; dried; smoked) or fish meal (e.g. invertebrates such as sea cucumbers, sea stars from trawl fisheries, shark livers for oil for the China market [22]). However, sustainable exploitation of new species must be in line with the requirements of the EU precautionary approach and ecological ecosystems approach. That is, potentially some of these “new” species can be discarded at the sea alive due to low discard rate mortality. In these cases, discarding may prove to be a more effective approach, if adequate regulation is implemented. No significant correlation was found between yearly landings in weight and fish mean price. Such a relationship’ contradicts the supplydemand model of price determination in a market. However, in this study the fisheries data was grouped, excluding for top five main landed species. Therefore, the evolution of a specific species average price is unclear with the present approach, requiring detailed future studies. It is likely that auction prices will be reduced if the quantity of a given species increased due to the discard ban. Hence, the present economic estimations should be interpreted cautiously (authors were not yet able to estimate that) since a broader evaluation of this issue will only be possible after the implementation of the new CFP. Prices can change for various reasons, such as technology, consumer preference, weather conditions etc., so predictions are hard to make. Nonetheless, fish can be considered an elastic good (the relationship between the supply and demand for a good and changes in price) as it is very responsive to price. Therefore, fish suppliers will keep producing as long as they can sell fish for a price that exceeds their production cost (the marginal cost of production). Buyers will go on purchasing as long as their satisfaction is greater than the price paid (the marginal utility of consumption). Investments in new products, services, production methods or processes would allow the Portuguese fisheries sector to receive advantageous financial incentives (both refundable and non-refundable founds/subsidies of PROMAR - Operational Program of Fisheries under the European Fisheries Fund to support salted & dried fish processing industry) compared to other international and EU countries. Due to the discard ban fish landings are expected to increase. As mentioned, exports are an attractive business for Portuguese sellers, and more fish landed can mean more exports and fewer imports also. A question remains open regarding the fate of the discard ban policy and overall fisheries catches? The findings of this work should address or at least speculate on possible future scenarios. In 1853,
7. Conclusion A marked under-reporting of total catches has been observed, suggesting inadequate monitoring and data recording mechanisms in Portuguese fisheries [2]. However, unreported catches are dominated by discards, a wasteful practice that was addressed through the revised CFP. This issue requires improvement, comprehensive data collection and monitoring, as well as updated approaches to fishing and fish retention and utilization. The present assessment suggests that, relying solely in fisheries landing data reports, the economic contribution to the GDP of Portuguese fisheries, under a discard ban scenario, can result in a substantial underestimation. This fact must challenge existing perspectives for commercial fisheries sectors and should give the national government the opportunity to rethink its prioritization of fisheries development. Under the discard ban policy to be implemented by the revised EU Common Fisheries Policy, there may be new economic opportunities, based on the income of discards estimated here. This can enhance opportunities in the national and international context for revitalizing, to some extent, the economic situation of Portuguese fisheries and reducing exports, which have surpassed domestic production (landings) during the last decade. Under the landing obligation, all catches have to be kept on board, landed and counted against the quotas. According to the EU discard ban policy undersized fish cannot be marketed for human consumption purposes and the landing obligation will be applied fishery by fishery. Therefore, detailed knowledge about the discard ban implementation should be included in multiannual plans. However, a key question is related to the permission to commercialize discards under the new CFP (in this study it was assumed that all discards could be commercialized). Many societies adhere to the principle that human beings have a moral obligation to make best use of natural resources and minimization of waste [26]. The opportunity exists now for Portuguese fishers to utilize the developing discard ban by doing what fishers have done well for centuries, namely to innovate and adapt to changing conditions and circumstances. However, avoidance, minimization and utilization of former discards should be one step ahead in this process and should be embraced, not opposed, by the national fishing community as a required step in the right direction for sustainable fisheries. However, the national and international fisheries sector still needs 82
Marine Policy 75 (2017) 75–83
F. Leitão, V. Baptista
more action to rebuild fisheries and implement reforms to sustain them.
[11]
Acknowledgements
[12]
Francisco Leitão and Vânia Baptista hold scholarships from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (references SFRH/BPD/ 108949/2015 and SFRH/BD/104209/2014, respectively). The authors would like acknowledge to Pedro Range and Jorge Palma for valuable comments and English review of the paper. We would like to thank to Hance Smith for his valuable comments that greatly contributed to improve the manuscript.
[13]
References
[17]
[14] [15]
[16]
[1] P. Andersen, J. Andersen, S. Mardle, What’s going to happen with the CFP Reform discard policy? IIFET 2014 Australia Conference Proceedings, 1–11, 2014. [2] F. Leitão, V. Baptista, D. Zeller, K. Erzini, Reconstructed catches and trends for mainland Portugal fisheries between 1938 and 2009: implications for sustainability, domestic fish supply and imports, Fish. Res. 155 (2014) 33–50. [3] F. Leitão, V. Baptista, K. Erzini, D. Iritani, D. Zeller, Reconstruction of Mainland Portugal Fisheries Catches 1950–2010, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2014 (Working Paper Series, 2014–08). [4] FAO, FAO Statistics 2008, Rome, FAO, 2010 (available at: 〈http://www.fao.org/ docrep/013/i1890t/i1890t.pdf〉; last accessed in October 2015). [5] D. Zeller, S. Booth, G. Davis, D. Pauly, Re-estimation of small-scale fisheries catches for U.S. flag island areas in the Western Pacific: the last 50 years, Fish. Bull. 105 (2007) 266–277. [6] D. Zeller, P. Rossing, S. Harper, L. Persson, S. Booth, D. Pauly, The BalticSea: estimates of total fisheries removals 1950–2007, Fish. Res. 108 (2011) 356–363. [7] F. Leitão, V. Alms, K. Erzini, A multi-model approach to evaluate the role of environmental variability and fishing pressure in sardine fisheries, J. Mar. Syst. 139 (2014) 128–138. [8] European Commission, Green Paper. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. COM163, Brussels, 2009, 2009 [9] S. Pascoe, Bycatch management and the economics of discarding 370, Fisheries Technical Paper FAO, Rome, 1997. [10] FAO, Status and potential of fisheries and aquaculture in Asia and the Pacific 2008, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia
[18] [19] [20]
[21]
[22] [23]
[24] [25] [26]
83
and The Pacific, Bangkok, 2008 (available online: 〈http://www.fao.org/docrep/ 011/i0433e/I0433E04.htm〉). D. Zeller, S. Booth, D. Pauly, Fisheries contributions to the gross domestic product: understanding small-scale fisheries in the pacific, Mar. Resour. Econ. 21 (2007) 355–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/mre.21.4.42629521. T. Bjørndal, A. Lappo, J. Ramos, An economic analysis of the Portuguese fisheries sector 1960–2011, Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 21–30. E., Malefakis, Southern Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries: an historical overview. Estudios/Working Papers, Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ciencias Sociales, 1992, 35: pp. 1–5. J.M. Maravall, Regimes, Politics and Markets: Democratization and Economic Change in Southern and Eastern Europe, Oxford University Press, USA, 1997. A.L.M. Rocha, As pressões dos Aliados e a evolução da política externa portuguesa entre 1942 e 1943: da neutralidade à colaboração, Rev. De. História 161 (2009) 113–145. T. Bjørndal, G.R. Munro, The Economics And Management Of World Fisheries, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012. L. Hill, M.L. Coelho, Portuguese fisheries in Portugal for the period 1950–1999. Comparison with ICES data, Fisheries Impacts On North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort And National/regional Data Sets 9, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 2001, pp. 187–190 (Fisheries Centre Research Reports). F. Leitão, Landing profiles of Portuguese fisheries: assessing the state of stocks, Fish. Manag. Ecol. 22 (2015) 152–163. Anon, Pescas em Portugal 1986–1996, Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE), Direcção Geral das Pescas e Aquacultura, Lisboa, 1998. A. Esteban, R. Crilly, Fish Dependence – 2012 Update: The Increasing Reliance of the EU on Fish From Elsewhere, New Economics Foundation/OCEAN2012, London, Brussels, 2012. M. Costa, T. Borges, Shark discards from the Southern Portuguese coastal fisheries. ICES CM 1998/BB: 15 Fisheries Assessment Methods, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 1998. ChinaBusinessWorld.Com, 〈http://www.chinabusinessworld.com/Fish〉, last accessed in October, 2015. J. Alves, A Pesca e os Pescadores do Litoral Portuense em 1868. Revista da Faculdade de Letras 1991, 8: pp. 151–184 (available online: 〈http://ler.letras.up. pt/uploads/ficheiros/2260.pdf〉; last accessed in July 2015). INE, Estatistica da Pesca, Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Estatística, I.P., 2010, 2010. DGRM, Aplicação da Obrigação De Descarga, Direcção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos, Lisboa, 2016. M. Kelleher, Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: an update, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470, Rome, 2005.