MANAGING RECREATIONAL FISHERIES IN MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCE USER SITUATIONS

I.G. COWX

University of Hull, International Fisheries Institute, Hull HU6 7RX, UK

Introduction

Most rivers, lakes and reservoirs are exploited for a diverse array of reasons, including, water abstraction for domestic, industrial and agricultural use, effluent disposal, fisheries and aquaculture, and navigation (Cowx, 1994). However, over the past 100 years inland waters have suffered because many of these activities have interrupted, degraded or destroyed the functioning of the aquatic ecosystems. The net result has been a loss of amenity and resource value for other users. For example, fish stocks have suffered in the face of many developmental activities which appear to conflict with the sustainability of the fisheries resources (Cowx, 1994; Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Perturbations affecting the status of inland fisheries (from Cowx, 1994)

There are three main reasons for the decline in the fish stocks.

• Insufficient is known about the interrelationships between fish and their habitat.

• Fisheries are not considered of sufficiently high priority or value in multiple resource use situations and thus suffer in the face of economically and socially higher priorities, e.g. agriculture, hydroelectric power production or flood prevention.

• Recreational and commercial fisheries activities traditionally have been managed in isolation from other aquatic resource users, yet when examined in context fisheries are subjected to a diverse range of inputs which are interacting and thus cannot be treated as such.

Although it is desirable to understand how ecosystems function, the state of many inland fisheries are now so precarious that unless concerted action is taken in the near future many fish species and resources may be irretrievably lost. By undertaking further research to identify the problems and solutions the inevitable is probably being delayed, and the time when harsh decisions will have to be made to manage the resources on a rational, sustainable basis is being put off. There is an urgent need to evaluate existing information and use it to formulate rational management policy. Unfortunately, mechanisms for managing fisheries in a multiple resource use situation are not well developed. This is now partially overcome by the use of integrated aquatic resource management planning. This paper describes how this multi-disciplinary approach can be used to achieve integrated land-water management to promote sustainable fisheries enhancement.

Status of recreational fisheries in Europe

The importance of recreational fisheries in Europe varies between regions and is usually dependent on resource use (Wortley 1995) (Table 1). In western European countries the fisheries are generally exploited for pleasure and sport, and few fish are consumed. In the past twenty years there has been a decline in the number of fishing licences sold, suggesting a reduction in interest. This is probably linked to a greater diversity of leisure activities and possibly dilution of interest. In northern Europe the fisheries are exploited on a subsistence basis and fishermen tend to use passive gears (e.g. gill nets, traps and baited lines), although sport fishing is becoming more popular. In this region recreational fishing is an important and growing activity. In eastern Europe recreational fishing is much more than simply a leisure activity, there is an increasing dependence on this activity as a source of food as the transition from the communist regime proceeds. Recreational fishing in southern Europe is generally less well developed and in a state of decline.

Recreational fishing in Europe is under-going these major changes for several reasons. These are related to on-going restructuring in post-communist countries, changing relationships between commercial and recreational fishermen, deficiencies and confusion in fisheries legislation, administration and access to waters (Wortley 1995). The resources are also subject to numerous anthropogenic perturbations, such as pollution, eutrophication, acidification, afforestation, river engineering works, and hydropower development, which have resulted in a shift in the status of the fisheries and a general decline in the yield. However, perhaps the greatest, short-term problems arise from conflict with other aquatic resource users, especially, commercial fishermen, other water-recreational activities, and those involved with the wider aspects of conservation.

Table 1 Summary of the status of recreational fishing in selected European countries (after Wortley 1995).

Unfortunately, data relating to inland recreational fisheries (Table 1) are usually poor and generally inadequate for evaluating the importance of the sub-sector and managing it effectively. However, the economic and social importance of this activity cannot be underestimated. The contribution to leisure participation, fish landings and gross domestic product are often high (Table 1) and need to be sustained on a rational basis.

Management of recreational fisheries in multiple resource use situations

In the past, management of fisheries resources has been based on interpreting information on the fish stocks and reacting to shifts in availability (Cowx 1995, 1996; Fig. 2). Integral within this approach are adequate stock assessment procedures which provide the baseline information on which to manage the fisheries resources. However, from the problems relating to recreational fisheries it is clear that this approach is inadequate. Foremost in the argument against this strategy is the consistent lack of information on the social and economic importance of the resources. It is unlikely that this limitation will be resolved in the foreseeable future, thus alternative mechanisms need to be developed. Furthermore, increasing pressures on aquatic resources dictate that fisheries can no longer be treated in isolation, and an integrated approach to aquatic resource management is required. This is not to say there is no place for traditional fisheries management based on stock assessment procedures. It is an integral component in the overall management (Fig. 2) and is needed, particularly in data poor situations.

Fig. 2 Relationship between fisheries stock assessment and aquatic resource management (modified from Cowx 1995)

Aquatic resource planning and management must be a multi-disciplinary approach dealing with all the existing and potential user groups, including adjacent land use. The main objective of aquatic resource management planning is to promote the sustainable use of the water body to yield the greatest benefit to the present population whilst maintaining the potential of the water body to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations, in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the water body and their value for wildlife.

The approach is essentially a descriptive technique. It allows wider issues than those related to a single activity, in this case recreational fisheries, to be taken into account during the process of taking decisions about that activity and its likely effect upon the environment and other activities, or conversely the likely affect of other activities on fisheries.

In view of the high degree of inter-dependence between activities, in developing the management plan it is necessary to explore the wide range of uses and issues (problems and conflicts with and between user groups) within the system itself (Fig. 3). The first step in the process is a review of the system and identification of issues and conflicts between user groups. Many of these have been illustrated previously, but when this exercise is carried out it is essential that the boundaries of the project area are well defined. Simple delimitation into catchments or zones of a river are not necessarily adequate. In many situations activities taking place up or downstream, or in adjacent catchments may have an influence on the management zone in question. Consequently, the plans should be formulated on local issues but take a wider perspective at the catchment and regional/national level.

At this point it is possible to identify the conflicts between resource users and recognise the extent of the influence on each activity by other user groups. This analysis can be used to attempt to resolve the problems by aggregating the relevant aspects into a multi-functional and multi-use plan (Fig. 4). The conflicts between user groups can be adequately evaluated using matrix analysis (e.g. Leopold et al. 1971).

Fig. 3 Summary of inputs into aquatic resource management plan

This phase provides a clear basis for the formulation of objectives and standards for use by the various activities. At this time the current status of the fisheries and other aquatic resources is compared with objectives and the variation qualified. Options to overcome the shortfalls are generated and presented in the draft management plan. It is critical that issues relating to existing and potential user groups are identified otherwise conflicts between user groups cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner. The requirements of each user-group, in terms of demand on the aquatic resources and standards for water quality, must be addressed at this stage. To assist in the resolution of conflicts it will be necessary to identify a lead organisation to chair the discussion. If problems arise in identifying such a lead organisation an independent trust should be considered to undertake this function.

Once the management plan has been formulated, and adequate consultation has been made with Government departments, institutions, user-groups, industry and the public, it will be possible to draw up action plans for the future development of the resources (Fig. 4). When considering formulation of the action plans it is critical that the goals set are achievable, the costs of the action and who pays are identified, and finally the action represents value for money or has considerable non-tangible benefit. This can only be done if clear agreement over the issues is made between the various user groups. Clear priorities for the main problems and conflicts should emerge, with a statement of the consequences of the proposed actions. At this point the conflicts between user-groups can be resolved, and a compromise be drawn up which will have the minimum impact for all concerned. Persuading those responsible to action and arriving at the proper key issues is more likely to be successful using the aquatic resource management planning methodology than a purely descriptive one since it focuses upon all of the relevant points and what can be justified and implemented.

Fig. 4 Process of formulating and implementing aquatic resource management plans

References

Cowx, I.G. (1994) Strategic approach to fishery rehabilitation Rehabilitation of freshwater fisheries. Oxford: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science. pp 1–9.

Cowx, I.G. (1995) Fish stock assessment - biological basis for sound ecological management. In: D.M. Harper & A.J.D. Ferguson (eds) The ecological basis for river management. Chichester: Wiley. pp 375–388.

Cowx, I.G. (1996) The integration of fish stock assessment into fisheries management. In: I.G. Cowx (ed.) Stock assessment in inland fisheries. Oxford: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science.

Leopold, L.B., Clarke, F.E., Hanshaw, B.B. & Balsley, J.R. (1971). A procedure for evaluating environmental impact. Washington DC: Geological Survey Circ. 645,

Wortley, J. (1995) Recreational fisheries. In K.T. O'Grady (ed.) Review of inland fisheries and aquaculture in the EIFAC area by subregion and subsector. FAO Fisheris Report 509, Suppl. 1, 60–72.