Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managing Fleet Capacity Effectively Under Second-Hand Market Redistribution

  • Report
  • Published:
AMBIO Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fishing capacity management policies have been traditionally implemented at national level with national targets for capacity reduction. More recently, capacity management policies have increasingly targeted specific fisheries. French fisheries spatially vary along the French coastline and are associated to specific regions. Capacity management policies, however, ignore the capital mobility associated with second-hand vessel trade between regions. This is not an issue for national policies but could limit the effectiveness of regional capacity management policies. A gravity model and a random-effect Poisson regression model are used to analyze the determinants and spatial extent of the second-hand market in France. This study is based on panel data from the French Atlantic Ocean between 1992 and 2009. The trade flows between trading partners is found to increase with their sizes and to be spatially concentrated. Despite the low trade flows between regions, a net impact analysis shows that fishing capacity is redistributed by the second-hand market to regions on the Channel and Aquitaine from central regions. National capacity management policies (constructions/destructions) have induced a net decrease in regional fleet capacity with varying magnitude across regions. Unless there is a change of policy instruments or their scale of implementation, the operation of the second-hand market decreases the effectiveness of regional capacity management policies in regions on the Channel and Aquitaine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. In France, complementary licences have been introduced on a piecemeal basis at the regional or local (sub-regional) level to limit entry for specific fisheries and related fish stocks. These fishery licenses are operated by the fishing industry with limited involvement of the government so far. A more detailed description of how the fishing licences are operated in France can be found in MRAG and Tecnalia (2009).

  2. A métier is a homogeneous subdivision of a fishery by vessel type (ICES 2003, p. 2). The concept has recently been more specifically defined for the European Union as “a group of fishing operations targeting a similar (assemblage of) species, using similar gear, during the same period of the year and/or within the same area and which are characterized by a similar exploitation pattern” (European Commission Decision 2010/93/EU, Annex I, Chap. 1, p. 9). Identification of different métiers is, however, not always straightforward in practice (Marchal 2008; Deporte et al. 2012).

  3. Greater specialization of individual trading partners would be expected to lead to greater trade flows between them (Haveman and Hummels 2004). Subsidies are mostly offered at the national level, and there is no data available on regional or local subsidies. Also, there are no tax differences along the coastline other than landings taxes. There is no available data on these landing taxes and fishers can land outside their maritime district of registration. These were thus not included into the analysis. Fiscal regulations have been shown to influence investment into fishing capital across vessels (Le Floc’h et al. 2011). These regulations are national and apply to all administrative regions.

  4. We tested fish landings as a proxy for implicit equilibrium prices P i(j) in each district (or “multilateral resistance” for trade with other districts) but these were not found to have a significant impact on trade flows between districts. This could be due to the available data on landings only representing the fraction of harvest landed in criées for auction and not including direct sales on fish markets. Landings are also inconsistently recorded over the time period. Because of this low data quality, we have removed landings from our analysis.

References

  • Anderson, L.G. 1989. Conceptual constructs for practical ITQ management policies. Chapter V. Individual transferable quotas: Part two. In Rights Based Fishing, ed. P. Neher, R. Arnarson, and N. Mollett, vol. 169, 191–209. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Anderson, L.G. 2008. The control of market power in ITQ fisheries. Marine Resource Economics 23: 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.E. 2011. The gravity model. Annual Review of Economics 3: 133–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.E., and E. van Wincoop. 2003. Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review 93: 170–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnason, R. 2009. Conflicting uses of marine resources: Can ITQs promote an efficient solution? Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 53: 145–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asche, F., H. Eggert, E. Gudmundsson, A. Hoff, and S. Pascoe. 2008. Fisher’s behaviour with individual vessel quotas—over-capacity and potential rent: Five case studies. Marine Policy 32: 920–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastardie, F., J.R. Nielsen, B.S. Andersen, and O.R. Eigaard. 2010. Effects of fishing effort allocation scenarios on energy efficiency and profitability: An individual-based model applied to Danish fisheries. Fisheries Research 106: 501–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthou, P., F. Daurès, O. Guyader, C. Merrien, and M. Jézéquel. 2002. Synthèse des pêcheries 2000—Flotte Mer du Nord-Manche Atlantique, Ifremer—RH, DEM, 122 pp. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00000/2629. Accessed 25 June 2012.

  • Beyer, H. L. 2001–2010. Geospatial modelling environment version: 0.3.4 Beta. Spatial Ecology LLC. http://www.spatialecology.com/gme. Accessed 17 June 2010.

  • Biseau, A., R. Bellail, M. Bertignac, G. Biais, J.-L. Bigot, L. Bouche, J. Bourjea, A. Caro, et al. 2011. State in 2011 of exploited resources by French fishing fleets (in French), Ifremer, 68 pp. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00035/14656/11956.pdf. Accessed 05 October 2012.

  • Burger, M.J., F.G. van Oort, and G.-J.M. Linders. 2009. On the specification of the gravity model of trade: Zeros, excess zeros and zero-inflated estimation. Spatial Economic Analysis 4: 167–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A.C., and P.K. Trivedi. 1998. Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cappell, R., T. Huntington, and G. Macfadyen. 2010. FIFG 2000–2006 Shadow Evaluation. Final Report. Report to the Pew Environment Group. Windrush, Warborne Lane, Portmore, Lymington, Hampshire SO41 5RJ, UK: Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd., 50 pp + appendices. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/FIFG-evaluation.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2012.

  • Clark, C.W., G.R. Munro, and U.R. Sumaila. 2005. Subsidies, buybacks, and sustainable fisheries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50: 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C.W., G.R. Munro, and U.R. Sumaila. 2007. Buyback subsidies, the time consistency problem, and the ITQ alternative. Land Economics 83: 50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities. 2009. Green Paper Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels: European Commission, 28 pp. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0163:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 18 May 2011.

  • Curtis, R., and D. Squires. 2004. Fisheries buybacks. La Jolla, CA: Blackwell Publishing, 267 pp.

  • Daurès, F., M. Planchot, S. Demanèche, S. Van Iseghem, P. Berthou, E. Leblond, and M. Jézéquel. 2007. Contribution et Dépendance des flottilles de pêche aux espèces commerciales majeures du Golfe de Gascogne. Ifremer, 66 pp. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00000/4697. Accessed 28 June 2012.

  • Del Valle Erkiaga, I., and K.A. Ikazuriaga. 2012. Assessing changes in capital and investment as a result of fishing capacity limitation programs. Environmental and Resource Economics. doi:10.1007/s10640-012-9591-1

  • Deporte, N., C. Ulrich, S. Mahévas, S. Demanèche, and F. Bastardie. 2012. Regional métier definition: A comparative investigation of statistical methods using a workflow applied to international otter trawl fisheries in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69: 331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esri. 2009. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 9.3.1.

  • European Commission. 2008. The common fisheries policy: A user’s guide. European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/pcp2008_en.pdf. Accessed 26 January 2011.

  • European Commission. 2010. Commission decision of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011–2013 (notified under document C(2009) 10121) (2010/93/EU), Official Journal of the European Union 16.2.2010. L 41/8: 8–71.

  • European Commission. 2011. Reform of the common fisheries policy, communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions, 11 pp. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/com_2011_417_en.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2012.

  • Feenstra, R.C. 2004. Advanced international trade: Theory and evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaaten, O. 2010. Fisheries rent creation and distribution—the imaginary case of Codland. Marine Policy 34: 1268–1272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, E.A., A.D.M. Smith, D.C. Smith, and I.E. Van Putten. 2011. Human behaviour: The key source of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries 12: 2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guyader, O., P. Berthou, and F. Daurès. 2004. Decommissioning schemes and capacity adjustment: A preliminary analysis of the French experience. In Fisheries buybacks, ed. R. Curtis, and D. Squires, 105–132. La Jolla, CA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyader, O., F. Daurès, M. Jézequel, and O. Thébaud. 2006. Second hand market for fishing vessels and implicit price of fishing rights. International Workshop on Regulating Access to Marine Fisheries in the Coastal Zone. January 2006. Brest, France: AMURE Research Group.

  • Guyader, O., P. Berthou, C. Koustikopoulos, F. Alban, S. Démanèche, M. Gaspar, R. Eschbaum, E. Fahy, et al. 2007. Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries in Europe. Final Report of the Contract No. FISH/2005/10. Plouzané Cedex: Ifremer (coord.), 447 pp. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/small_scale_coastal_fisheries_en.pdf and http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00000/6348. Accessed 28 June 2012.

  • Haveman, J., and D. Hummels. 2004. Alternative hypotheses and the volume of trade: The gravity equation and the extent of specialization. Canadian Journal of Economics 37: 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, K., and T. Mayer. 2011. Gravity, market potential and economic development. Journal of Economic Geography 11: 281–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, D.S., and G.E. Herrera. 2012. The impact of age structure, uncertainty, and asymmetric spatial dynamics on regulatory performance in a fishery metapopulation. Ecological Economics 77: 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICES. 2003. Report of the Study Group for the Development of Fishery-based Forecasts. Boulogne, France, 18–21 February 2003. Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 37 pp. www.ices.dk/reports/ACFM/2003/SGDFF/SGDFF03.pdf. Accessed 05 October 2012.

  • Ifremer. 2010. Système d’Informations Halieutiques (SIH). http://www.ifremer.fr/sih/.

  • Larabi, Z., O. Guyader, C. Macher, and F. Daurès. 2012. Gestion des quotas de pêche dans un contexte de non transferabilité des droits à produire: le cas de la France. AMURE Elecronic Publications Working Paper Series, Document D-32-2012, 23 pp. http://www.umramure.fr/electro_doc_amure/D_32_2012.pdf. Accessed 22 November 2012.

  • Le Floc’h, P., F. Daurès, M. Nourry, O. Thébaud, M. Travers, and S. Van Iseghem. 2011. The influence of fiscal regulations on investment in marine fisheries: A French case study. Fisheries Research 109: 257–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leblond, E., F. Daurès, P. Berthou, C. Merrien, M. Pitel-Roudaut, S. Bermell, C. Brigaudeau, M. Planchot, et al. 2007. Synthèse des flottilles de pêche 2006—Flotte Mer du Nord-Manche-Atlantique-Méditerranée. Ifremer, 223 pp. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00042/15351. Accessed 22 June 2012.

  • Leblond, E., F. Daurès, P. Berthou, C. Merrien, M. Pitel-Roudaut, C. Macher, C. Le Grand, S. Demanèche, et al. 2011. Synthèse des flottilles de pêche 2009—Flotte Mer du Nord-Manche-Atlantique-Méditerranée. Ifremer, 244 pp. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00042/15352. Accessed 22 June 2012.

  • Lindebo, E. 2005. Role of subsidies in EU fleet capacity management. Marine Resource Economics 20: 445–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchal, P. 2008. A comparative analysis of métiers and catch profiles for some French demersal and pelagic fleets. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65: 674–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Microsoft Corporation. 1992–2001. Microsoft Access 2002: Computer Program.

  • MRAG, IFM, CEFAS, AZTI Tecnalia, and PolEM. 2009. An Analysis of Existing Rights Based Management (RBM) Instruments in Member States and on Setting Up Best Practices in the EU. Final Report. European Commission Studies and Pilot Projects for Carrying Out the Common Fisheries Policy No. FISH/2007/03. London: MRAG Ltd., 117 pp. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/stu. Accessed 29 June 2012.

  • Opaluch, J.J., and N.E. Bockstael. 1984. Behavioral modeling and fisheries management. Marine Resource Economics 1: 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascoe, S., L. Coglan, A.E. Punt, and C.M. Dichmont. 2012. Impacts of vessel capacity reduction programmes on efficiency in fisheries: The case of Australia’s multispecies northern prawn fishery. Journal of Agricultural Economics 63: 425–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Péreau, J.C., L. Doyen, L.R. Little, and O. Thébaud. 2012. The triple bottom line: Meeting ecological, economic and social goals with individual transferable quotas. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63: 419–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkerton, E., and D.N. Edwards. 2009. The elephant in the room: The hidden costs of leasing individual transferable fishing quotas. Marine Policy 33: 707–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quillérou, E., and O. Guyader. 2012. What is behind fleet evolution: A framework for flow analysis and application to the French Atlantic fleet. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69: 1069–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quillérou, E., O. Guyader, F. Daurès, M. Jézéquel, E. Leblond, S. Le Blond, and M. Merzéréaud. 2011. Analyse statistique du fonctionnement du marché des navires d’occasion et de la dynamique associée des flottilles. Évolution des prix sur le marché des navires d’occasion de 1992 à 2008. Rapport de la convention PPDR DPMA-IFREMER—Article 4.3, 32 pp. http://w3.ifremer.fr/blpintra/doc/00036/14704.

  • R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  • Santos Silva, J.M.C., and S. Tenreyro. 2006. The log of gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics 88: 641–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sextant. 2010. Port français et internationaux (version SIH 2010). Ifremer - Système d’Informations Halieutiques. http://www.ifremer.fr/sextant/srv/fr/metadata.show?id=205&currTab=simple. Accessed 17 June 2010.

  • Squires, D., Y. Jeon, R.Q. Grafton, and J. Kirkley. 2010. Controlling excess capacity in common-pool resource industries: The transition from input to output controls. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 54: 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. 2007. Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

  • Townsend, R.E. 2010. Transactions costs as an obstacle to fisheries self-governance in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 54: 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Iseghem, S., E. Quillérou, C. Brigaudeau, C. Macher, O. Guyader, and F. Daurès. 2011. Ensuring representative economic data: Survey data-collection methods in France for implementing the Common Fisheries Policy. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68: 1792–1799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Putten, I.E., K.G. Hamon, and C. Gardner. 2011a. Network analysis of a rock lobster quota lease market. Fisheries Research 107: 122–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Putten, I.E., S. Kulmala, O. Thébaud, N. Dowling, K.G. Hamon, T. Hutton, and S. Pascoe. 2011b. Theories and behavioural drivers underlying fleet dynamics models. Fish and Fisheries 13: 216–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Putten, I.E., E. Quillérou, and O. Guyader. 2012. How constrained? Entry into the French Atlantic fishery through second-hand vessel purchase. Ocean and Coastal Management 69: 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villasante, S. 2010. Global assessment of the European Union fishing fleet: An update. Marine Policy 34: 663–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villasante, S., and U.R. Sumaila. 2010. Estimating the effects of technological efficiency on the European fishing fleet. Marine Policy 34: 720–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerlund, J., and F. Wilhelmsson. 2009. Estimating the gravity model without gravity using panel data. Applied Economics 43: 641–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmarsh, D.J. 1998. The fisheries treadmill. Land Economics 74: 422–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J.M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the very helpful comments and suggestions received from the Editor, the Associate Editor, and two anonymous reviewers. We would also like to thank Dr. Sylvain Barde (University of Kent) and Dr. Olivier Thébaud (CSIRO) for their insights and constructive suggestions. We are also very grateful for comments and suggestions received during a seminar presentation at the School of Economics of the University of Kent (UK) and at the 2012 Conference of the Natural Resource Modeling Association as part of a research visit funded by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decision (CEED) Australia. In addition, we would like to thank Dr. Fabienne Daurès for her insights into fishery policy, Samuel Le Blond, Mathilde Pitel and the Sextant team at Ifremer for greatly facilitating the building of the database, Christelle Le Grand and Damaris Phélippé. We would also like to thank Tatiana Jousselin (ESRI) and Dr. Hawthorne L. Beyer (Spatial Ecology LLC) for their help with ArcGIS 9.3.1 and Geospatial Modelling Environment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), United Nations University, 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 204, Hamilton, ON, L8P 0A1, Canada

    Emmanuelle Quillérou

  2. IREA, Université de Bretagne Sud, 8 rue Montaigne, 56017, Vannes, France

    Nolwenn Roudaut

  3. Ifremer, UMR AMURE, Unité d’Économie Maritime, Technopole de Brest-Iroise, BP 70, 29280, Plouzané Cedex, France

    Olivier Guyader

Authors
  1. Emmanuelle Quillérou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nolwenn Roudaut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olivier Guyader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuelle Quillérou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Quillérou, E., Roudaut, N. & Guyader, O. Managing Fleet Capacity Effectively Under Second-Hand Market Redistribution. AMBIO 42, 611–627 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0358-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0358-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation