This document discusses fisheries management and reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy. It summarizes research showing restoring fish stocks to sustainable levels would increase catches, revenues, and employment. Overfishing costs the environment, food security, livelihoods, and economic growth. The Marine Socio-Economics Project aims to build capacity of marine NGOs in economics to better inform policymaking. Briefings and case studies produced examine topics like valuation of natural capital and regulatory tools.

1. NEFs wider
fisheries work and
the Marine Socio
Economics Project
(MSEP)
Chris.williams@neweconomics.org
www.neweconomics.org

2. Fisheries: CFP reform..

3. An example: the Costs of overfishing
• To the environment
– Ecosystems at risk (instability, collapse, etc)
– Irreversible loss (biodiversity)
• To people
– Food security
– Livelihoods at risk
• To the economy
– Loss of wealth (lost rents, jobs)
– Fishing industry at risk / subsidies

4. Key messages from NEFs work
on EU fisheries:
“Restoring fish stocks is good for
employment & the economy”

5. Our report compared the current performance of 43
EU fish stocks with their potential if they were at
their Maximum Sustainable Yield -MSY.
1) Catches
2) Revenues
3) Employment
Note: there are 150 commercial fish stocks in EU
Jobs lost at sea (2012)

6. With every passing year that EU
stocks remain overfished we are
losing out on 2.7 billion pounds
and the potential to support
100,000 jobs.

7. EU Common fisheries policy reform
Article 2:
‘Therefore, the Union should improve the CFP by adapting
exploitation rates so as to ensure that, within a
reasonable time-frame, the exploitation of marine
biological resources restores and maintains
populations of harvested stocks above levels that
can produce the maximum sustainable yield. The
exploitation rates should be achieved by 2015.’
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF

8. How can we allocate
resources to those
that create best
value to society?
We have choices
about how we fish…

9. Good value
• Economic viability /
profitability
• Low subsidy dependence
• Jobs
• Low impact on seabed
• Low discards
• Low C emissions
• Low by-catch
• Etc
Bad value
• The opposite
Case study: North Sea Cod

10. Who creates value?
Who gets the quota?
Who gets the subsidies?
Looking at trawling vs gillnets:

11. EU Common fisheries policy reform
Article 17:
Criteria for the allocation of fishing opportunities by
Member States
When allocating the fishing opportunities
available to them, as referred to in Article 16,
Member States shall use transparent and
objective criteria including those of an
environmental, social and economic nature.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF

12. - Compares fish production vs
consumption.
- Estimates when a country starts
depending on fish from non-EU waters.
Fish Dependence (2012- 2015…)

14. In NEFs working paper on bass we recommend seven key
steps to recovery:
1. Follow scientific advice – natural limits cannot be
negotiated.
2. Increase the Minimum Landing Size to 42cm for
commercial and recreational fishers.
3. Regulate netting for bass by increasing the mesh size
of nets and the length of nets used.
4. Limit the weekly landings per vessel to 1.5 tonnes – a
necessary reduction from the current 5 tonnes and
introduce a recreational bag limit (with mandatory fin
clipping).
5. Better protect nursery areas for bass around the UK
coastline.
6. Make the seasonal pelagic trawl ban permanent, not a one-
off measure, and extend the ban from December 1st – April
30th.
7. Adequately resource regulatory bodies tasked with
fisheries management so they can extend effective
regulation to all fisheries which have an impact on bass
stocks.

15. ‘According to the Natural Capital Committee, with regard to fisheries, ‘Persistent
overfishing drives down underlying stocks and diminishes the returns that can be
generated from the stock which remains. Paradoxically, the unfavourable current
situation means that there are likely to be substantial benefits from better
management of that stock. But there are risks too. If current stocks become too low,
the chance of irreversible collapse is all the higher. This would remove perhaps
permanently, the option to enjoy these increased benefits in the future.’
This is certainly true of bass. Restoring bass stocks will require investment .
We need to aim for a stock which is rebuilt and can deliver long-term benefits
to all stakeholders. To make this possible we need a number of commitments
from the UK Government which will demonstrate they are serious about
restoring the bass fishery. Commitments must include adequate resourcing to
Defra, the MMO and IFCAs so they regulate the fishery and take a proactive
role in regulating sea angling for bass. To make it easier for Defra to regulate
the bass fishery, help recover the stock and help IFCAs set up regionally
appropriate management we need to double the financial support from central
Government made available to them . As the Impact Assessment prior to
creation of the IFCAs showed, they actually require twice the resources they
now have at their disposal . The challenge they face and the responsibility
they have is however increasing’.
http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/9e98a3d20e2b904409_w1m6bs1pl.pdf

16. ‘During the 2014 – 2015 financial year, the
ten IFCAs will commit levy-raised revenue
totalling just over £8.7m to inshore
management around the coast of England.’
‘Only four IFCAs have an annual revenue
budget exceeding £1m (Cornwall IFCA,
Eastern IFCA, North Eastern IFCA and
North Western IFCA).’

17. The Marine Socio-Economics
Project (MSEP)
Building the Socio-Economic Capacity of Marine
NGOs
Coordinated by NEF. Four NGO partners.

18. Started in 2012.
Two key outcomes:
• NGOs with increased economic capacity
• NGOs working together effectively

19. Workshops*
• Impact Assessment workshops - 2012
• MSFD (Including Defra economist)
• MCZs (Including Natural England economists)
• Theory of Change – 2013
• Valuation – 2013 (focus on economic tools and techniques)
• Nature & Progress seminar – July 2014 – **upcoming paper:
‘’Devaluing Nature?!’’
• EMFF workshop: Poole, Nov 2014. Including Defra, IFCAs
fishermen, aquaculture businesses and FLAGs
Project activities
*all presentations online – www.mseproject.net

20. • www.mseproject.net
• project website and
newsletter
• Economics Briefings
and marine
case studies
→
Project outputs

21. Briefing 1 - An overview of economics
Briefing 2 - How economics is used in government
decision-making
Briefing 3 - Valuing the environment in economic
terms
Briefing 4 - Social cost-benefit analysis and social
return on investment
Briefing 5 - Discounting and time preferences
Briefing 6 - Multi-criteria analysis
Briefing 7 - Beyond GDP: Valuing what matters and
measuring natural capital
Briefing 8 - Markets, market failure and regulation
Briefing 9a - Finance and money: the basics
Briefing 9b - What's wrong with our financial system?
Briefing 10 - Property rights and ownership models
Briefing 11 - Behavioural economics - dispelling the
myths
http://www.neweconomics.org/
publications/entry/economics-
in-policy-making

22. • Facts and Figures ↓

23. Facts and figures
briefings:
Capture fisheries
UK marine infrastructure
Marine Energy
Marine Recreation
Flows & aquaculture
www.mseproject.net

24. Infographic Impact Assessment (IIA) for MCZs
Using best available evidence in a visual way

25. https://www.dropbox.com/home/infog
raphic%20ia/icons%20and%20indesi
gn%20files/Icons%20and%20Infogra
phics%20Key/JPEGS

26. THANK YOU
Reports available at: www.neweconomics.org
Email: Chris.williams@neweconomics.org
Follow us on twitter: @nef @MarineEconomics
Newsletter(s): NEF and MSEProject