|
In most countries, national economic and social
policies influence public policies towards
fisheries and aquaculture. Food security for all,
improved incomes/employment (or reduced poverty),
food safety for all, conservation and rational use
of the environment are all important government
development objectives which are also applied to
the fisheries sector.
However, as is well known, the relative
importance of these objectives differs considerably
among countries. While poor, developing countries
often place most emphasis on food security and
improved incomes/employment, public policies in
rich, industrialized countries lately have tended
to give an increasing importance to food safety and
to the conservation and rational use of the
environment - including the marine ecosystem. In
some countries, where access to hard currencies is
a bottleneck for development, exports become a
development objective for the fisheries sector as
well. In extreme cases fisheries/aquaculture are
seen as activities to be maintained in far-off,
isolated areas in order to establish an effective
claim on territories.
Policy instruments
The policy instruments available to governments
are essentially of three types: the provision of
public goods and services, the use of
incentives/disincentives, and a legally enforceable
framework of command and control measures.
How policy instruments are used to achieve
development objectives naturally vary. Over the
last decade a growing number of rich,
industrialized countries have introduced policies
and strategies inspired by the concept of 'open
market economies' (sometimes modified to 'open,
social market economy' to indicate that social
considerations are taken). Based on the notion that
highest economic growth - and therefore well-being,
according to proponents - is achieved through
unrestricted trade, the market decides on the
allocation of labour and capital. In addition,
there is a consensus among adherents of the open
market economy model that the state is not an
efficient entrepreneur - thus entrepreneurial
activities should be carried out by the private
sector.
In open market economies, public policies should
aim to favour the movement of capital and labour
among sectors of the economy (including
internationally - at least for capital) and the
movement of production factors should only respond
to rewards received. In essence, the state should
make lighter use of the first two categories of
policy instruments (public goods/services and
incentives/disincentives) and try to ensure a legal
framework establishing incentives for producers and
consumers to produce and consume, respectively, in
a manner that improves their own well-being without
damaging that of their neighbours.
The principles of the 'open market economy' have
several consequences for the strategies applied to
fisheries, although they are not the only
influences affecting the sector. The supremacy of
economic development policies (which tend to give
more importance to income growth rather than its
distribution) has been successfully challenged
during the last decades of the twentieth century.
Growing fears on the sustainability of an ecosystem
conducive to human well-being has resulted in
modified public policies towards both capture
fisheries and aquaculture reflecting environmental
concerns.
Important consequences of the 'open market
economy' model
1) There is a trend towards eliminating
publicly-funded economic support directed at
fisheries and aquaculture. Direct public transfers
to the fishers, aquaculturists and supporting
industries are gradually being removed.
2) There is little, if any, direct involvement
of the state in productive activities. Most
governments that developed and operated
publicly-owned industrial fishing fleets in the
1950s and 1960s have either sold or decommissioned
them.
3) Some countries, basing their decisions on
their country-wide economic reforms, have imposed
on the fishing industry charges for services that
the state dedicated to the industry, such as
fisheries research and monitoring, control and
surveillance (MCS). However, payment for the
service is often balanced by including industry
representatives on the management boards of the
institutions delivering these services. It is
likely that this practice will spread to a growing
number of countries.
4) The notion that employment in fisheries can
rise, but is most likely to fall, is gaining
acceptance. Thus, public policies are increasingly
based on the fact that fishers who fall on hard
times are not necessarily likely to return to the
industry.
5) The public strategy for fisheries
increasingly tends to be developed through a
continuing dialogue with the stakeholders in the
sector.
6) A specific and flexible legal framework
supports the government policy and administrative
practice towards the sector. For capture fisheries,
for example, the framework includes provisions
enabling fishery administrations to deal with the
issue of effort limitation/control.
7) Development of new technology is seen as a
private sector (and university) responsibility, not
as something the public sector should undertake
through publicly-run fishery research and
development institutes.
Development policy advances
Fishery economists have long maintained that
open access fisheries lead to economic waste in the
sense that the same volume of fish, and often
larger volumes, could be landed with a much smaller
fishing effort. Furthermore, they argue that when
labour and capital are in short supply this
situation does not make economic sense. A reduced
fishing effort would - when stocks have recovered -
lead to large profits for those who remain in the
fishery. Such 'excess' profits are frequently
referred to as 'economic rents'. Increased
attention is being given to develop policies that,
on the one hand, would obtain these rents, and, on
the other, ensure their equitable distribution. One
strategy that would create the economic rent is the
introduction of rights-based fisheries -
including the use of Individually Transferable
Quotas, or ITQs.
Among the countries that pioneered the
advancement of open market economies, there are
some for which fisheries are important and a few
for which export of fishery products are essential.
The latter (e.g. Iceland and New Zealand) have
naturally taken a vigorous interest in the
conditions under which fish is traded
internationally. Following the principles of the
open market economy, they argue in international
forum for the removal of all barriers to
international trade in fish and fish products.
Subsidies to the fisheries sector are considered,
inter alia, as creating such a hindrance. There are
also those who argue that the suppression of
subsidies would benefit the marine ecosystem as
subsidies lead to excess fishing capacity
Some poor, developing countries (e.g. Namibia,
Maldives) put quite some effort into the
development of a strategy for achieving economic
and social development objectives in the fishery
sector whereas others do not. In poor, developing
countries where fisheries represent a minor section
of the economy and fish consumption is low (e.g.
Afghanistan, Paraguay, Swaziland) there is no
strong reason for attempting to develop specific
policies towards the fishery and aquaculture
sector.
However, the principles of open market economies
are gradually being promoted in several developing
countries where fisheries are important.
Introduction of these principles is difficult as
they rest upon assumptions about the economy that
may not hold in poor, developing countries such as
equal opportunity in acceding to factors of
production (capital, land), equal access to
information and an efficient juridical system. Thus
it is understandable that implementation is partial
and slow in many countries. Also, given that
fishery administrations often were small and
relatively weak when open market policies were
introduced, the margins for reduction are and have
been very small. It is therefore not surprising
that the results are hardly those expected, as
based on the experience in wealthy, industrialized
fisheries.
Difficulties in adopting open market economy
principles
1) Where fishers live at a subsistence level,
subsidies may have a significant impact on
revenues. If there are only very weak social safety
nets (extended families rather than public
unemployment benefits, etc.) the elimination of
subsidies may threaten the survival of fishing
communities.
2) Artisanal, small-scale fishing communities
are seldom equipped to take on responsibility for
the provision of public services, and even less for
creating them where they do not exist. It is
evident that artisanal fishers only in very unusual
situations have the economic strength to pay for
MCS or monitoring of wild stocks. A sudden, drastic
and permanent improvement of the fortunes of
fishers is needed to provide the basis for
introducing fees or taxes. The development of the
Nile perch fishery on Lake Victoria is one
such example (a landing tax is paid by Tanzanian
fishermen). However, in most developing countries
there is no effective MCS service and the public
sector generally does not have the economic
resources needed to create one. Furthermore, unless
such a service is created by the public sector, it
is unlikely to come into being and it is highly
unlikely that fishers would pay for such a system
until they have proof that it functions in their
interest.
3) In the absence of a strong fishery
administration and local manufacturing industries,
technological developments must come from abroad.
Fishers do not have the funds, the infrastructure
and the know-how to improve fishing equipment,
machinery and gear.
|
