Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


BEST USE OF FISHERY RESOURCES

Panel 2 considered in its various aspects the whole question of what constitutes best use of a fishery. It is obvious that each individual user of a resource sees the concept of use optimization in the terms of his own interest and what is best use for one might well be adverse to another. A general definition of best use (including non-consumptive use) of fishery resources was given simply as the use or combination of uses of the yield from the fishery that produces the greatest net benefits currently and into the indefinite future. These net benefits essentially derive from the amounts that fishery users would pay or accept for their portion of resource use or the harvest, less the costs of managing the fishery.

A more detailed definition would be: (a) a use that takes into account the biological basis of the specific resource as an integral part of the ecosystem and protects it from excessive exploitation, whether of the stock itself or environment in which the stock exists; (b) a use that optimizes the sum of social surpluses or “economic rent” at the same time recognizing the social values in recreational as compared with commercial use; (c) a use that provides for equity in the distribution of access and the harvest among competing users based on an analysis of the tangible and intangible benefits and costs.

It is apparent that the achievements of goals implicit in this general definition are contingent upon the establishment of a management system capable of portraying the essential nature of these considerations, not only to the public at large, but especially to the participating fishermen. Otherwise any attempts at implementation, based on a wide range of historical precedents, are bound to fail.

There are difficult theoretical problems in our approach toward the economies of common property resources shared by a multitude of competing users. Our systems have hitherto been almost totally incapable of providing a systematic approach toward a fair comparison of the tangible and intangible benefits and cost involved in comparisons between recreational pursuit and the manifold subsistence and commercial activities of man calculated and evaluated in purely monetary terms. It is only in relatively recent years that the problems of increasing demand, resource stresses and conflicting uses have become severe enough, that the matter of the overall economic analysis of all fishery use has begun to be approached as a legitimate and important branch of the economic discipline.

It is essential to elaborate a public education plan that will provide a functional means of bringing about public conciousness of problems and concern for the resource and its future related to the public welfare. Such a programme should create and foster the public support to assure its adoption and implementation. Any change in fishing or management or allocation can upset the ecological balance to some extent. It is obvious from the toll taken by man's historical experience with the “laissez-faire” approach that we must attempt to maintain ecosystems in healthy or stable condition, minimizing irreversible or long-term adverse effects.

In 1885 over 100 000 salmon were landed in the estuary of the Rhine and Meuse at the fish market near Rotterdam. Now the total number landed is zero. Similarly around 1900, the Loire-Allier system yielded 100 000 fish. Now a run of 3 000 salmon is considered large. It is evident that habitat preservation is essential; allocation or best use means nothing if you have nothing to allot.

It can be concluded that the ultimate decision concerning the determination of best use of a resource has to be made in the political arena. Science and the best intentions of resource managers can only go so far in allocating resources for the best use. The final decision has to combine the best of science, sound management principles and the informed judgement of the citizenry.

Summary of the Discussion on Best Use

The discussion brought out clearly the differing perspectives of various users of fish resources and the sometimes inequitable treatment of these users by society. On the one hand, historical rights to the use of resources are carried over from circumstances long since changed. Cited were the allocations by treaty of fishing rights to native peoples in North America and, in France, the assignment of costs of repopulating fish stocks to sport fishermen even where professionals (commercial fishermen) also have a share in the harvest. On the other hand, lack of adequate economic theory, data and suitable models, or simply ineffective communication between managers, biologists, economists and other scientists, often precludes a satisfactory evaluation of best use. Our lack of knowledge about the details of ecosystem functioning was cited as one reason for difficulty in such assessments. It was also pointed out that the economic value of a particular activity or product is not wholly intrinsic but varies from place to place.

While it is essential that comprehensive and reliable data and advice be available for allocation decisions, it was further noted that the decision is ultimately a societal rather than an individual one, based more often on the political than the scientific or other analytical processes.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page