Fisheries Theme Team

Socioeonomics

The consideration of socioeconomic information represents an important step in the development of effective domestic management policy and regulatory measures pertaining to the domestic fisheries of the United States. The mandate to interject the socioeconomic dimensions of domestic fisheries into the management process arises primarily through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (PL 94-265). The Magnuson-Stevens Act states that the development of fishery management plans should address the economic and social elements of a fishery. In particular, National Standard 1 defines optimum yield as "maximum yield as modified by economic, social or ecological factors". National Standard 8 specifies that management measures must minimize the economic impact to fishing communities to the extent practical. In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (PL 104-121) provides the basis by which a determination is made regarding the extent small businesses are financially impacted by changes in fishery regulations. The resulting economic and social information represents a critical component of the Regulatory Impact Review and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, both of which are required by law to be contained within any fishery management plan developed by the Regional Fishery Management Councils.

Historically, the domestic fisheries of the US were managed under an open access management scheme. As the councils developed management plans for the fisheries within federal waters, economic data regarding costs and earnings of typical vessels in the fleet were gathered. Such information was necessary for determining the level of rents, or profit, that existed in the fishery. Theoretically, the optimum level of effort could be determined that would maximize profit and thereby move managers closer to achieving optimum yield. For some fisheries, such vessel-level economic information is still needed, as effort controls such as trip limits, catch quotas, seasonal closures, and gear restrictions continue to be the primary set of management tools. Such management approaches led to instances of overcapitalization, which in turn required the collection of additional economic information to describe the extent of overcapitalization. Similar cost and earnings information is also required for more recent and aggressive limited access management strategies, such as permit moratoria and license limitations, which are specifically designed to mitigate the tendency to overcapitalize.

Rights-based fisheries management represents an alternative approach to fisheries management in the US. In this case, a fixed level of allowable catch is assigned to an initial number of fishers, each of whom is assigned an individual quota. Within certain limits, the participants may catch their individual share whenever and however they choose. Theoretically, the existing market will provide the overriding direction regarding how and when the individual shares will be harvested. But more importantly, the market will determine who remains in the fishery ... and who sells out. This management approach requires a new set of economic information to be collected, such that the economically efficient initial allocation of quota among participating user groups can occur. In addition, as new user subgroups are identified, the distribution of quota may need to be adjusted. In addition to cost and earnings data, which is necessary for determining measures of commercial producer surplus, information required to develop a comparable measure of economic surplus for recreational user groups is vital. Equating comparable measures of economic value, or utility, at the marginal unit of production provides the basis from which an initial allocation of allowable catch among user groups can be prescribed. This initial allocation, and the economic and social information required, is a key step to the success of such a rights-based, limited access management program.

Development of rights-based management schemes may become a more frequently used management tool in the future. Along with the economic information need to measure marginal utilities, information on how such management approaches effect fishing communities will be required. This is particularly true within the context of National Standard 8. However, before community impacts can be measured, a workable definition of "community" needs to be developed. Although initial studies are attempting to define what a fishing community is, additional study will need to be needed to develop a usable definition that accommodates whether the community is urban vs rural, commercial vs recreational, seasonal vs permanent, etc.

The requirements for socioeconomic data will therefore be changing as the objectives of management change. As management strategies move from effort control in an open access environment, to resource allocation in a rights-based, limited access environment, the data needs will be necessarily be altered. Cost and earnings data will continue to be necessary for adhering to IRFA requirements. But additional information will be required to satisfy the requirements set forth in National Standard 8. In addition, as the need to properly allocate a total allowable catch (determined initially via biological models) among multiple user groups, economic information necessary for determining the efficient allocation scheme will be required. The latter may necessitate measuring the economic values which extend beyond the dock and accrue to nonusers, as well as users. In that sense, the need for timely and accurate socioeconomic data will become more acute