Fisher's preferences and trade‐offs between management options. Issue 5 (2nd February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fitzpatrick, Mike; Maravelias, Christos D; Eigaard, Ole Ritzau; Hynes, Stephen; Reid, David
• Is Part Of: Fish and fisheries. Volume 18:Issue 5(2017)
• Page Start: 795
• Page End: 807
• Publication Date: 2017-02-02
• Subjects: behaviour of fishers -- choice experiment -- common fisheries policy -- fisheries governance -- random utility model; Fisheries -- Periodicals; Fishes -- Periodicals; 639.2
• DOI: 10.1111/faf.12204
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1467-2960

Abstract

Abstract: Failure to understand the potential responses of fishers to management measures creates a significant risk of revisiting the familiar scenario of perverse and unintended consequences of those measures. This paper reports on a choice experiment survey to evaluate fisher's preferences for various management measures proposed under the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform process, but the conclusions have wider relevance as similar measures are used by comparable fleets in fisheries globally. The survey was conducted with fishers involved in mixed pelagic and demersal fisheries in Ireland, pelagic fisheries in Denmark and demersal fisheries in Greece. Fisheries management policies were characterized by five attributes designed both to cover the principal CFP reform proposals and to integrate ecological, social, economic and institutional factors affecting fisher's decisions. The study uses a random utility modelling framework to reveal the preferences of the fishers across the alternative policy attributes. Results show that while there are generally preferences both for healthy stocks and for maintaining the importance of fishing to the local community, strong interfishery preference differences exist. These differences are most notable in relation to a discard ban and to the use of individual transferable fishing rights, favoured in Denmark, but not in Ireland for instance. The strength of these interfishery differences supports the assertion that there are no panaceas in fisheries management and that solutions should be tailored within the context of specific fisheries. Not doing so could create a significant risk of inappropriately managed fisheries that may lead to unsustainable outcomes.