UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An assessment of area licence configurations in the B.C. salmon fishery Sakata, Tommy Taira 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A6_7 S23_3.pdf [ 6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096278.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096278-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096278-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096278-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096278-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096278-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096278-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096278-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096278.ris

Full Text

AN ASSESSMENT OF AREA LICENCE CONFIGURATIONS IN THE B.C. SALMON FISHERY By TOMMY TAIRA SAKATA B . S c , The University of Bri t i sh Columbia, 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1985 © Tom T. Sakata, 1985 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of f^gADaATE 8>"iUDt£S^  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 D a t e Qc-rs&er ( g p ^ r ABSTRACT There has been much discussion of the merits and limitations of area licencing, i . e . , a fishery management tool which restricts fishermen to certain geographic areas, in the British Columbia," Canada, salmon fishery. To date there has been l i t t l e formal evaluation of the implications of this policy tool for salmon fishery management. In the reports by Pearse (1982), Sinclair (1978) and Fleet Rationalization Committee (1982) some insights on the subject are provided, but an evaluation in terms of specific cr i ter ia is lacking. This study evaluates five area licence configurations in the context of the B.C. salmon fishery. They are assessed based on evaluative cr i ter ia that cover the following subject areas: management operations; socio-economic effects; biological effectiveness; and economic efficiency. Each of these broad subjects are factored into specific elements, in which the emphasis is on the nature of the fishery and the resource. From the analysis i t was found that the area licence configurations that factored the coast into two large harvest areas or the configuration that alienated small area(s) as test area(s) are most appropriate for the fishery. These configurations faci l i tated the attainment of management operations, socio-economic and biological goals, but not the economic efficiency goals. The other configurations, in particular those that factor the coast into a number of smaller harvest areas, result in exacerbating the problems with all cr i ter ia except economic efficiency and some biological factors. The appropriate area configurations for the B.C. salmon fishery would be the configurations that factors the coast into two large harvest areas; or the configuration where two or three small harvest areas are alienated from the existing harvest area. There are three fundamental reasons for this: (1) they are least disruptive ( i . e . , minimum impact on present harvest patterns, least po l i t i ca l ly sensitive, and minimum distributional effects); (2) they offer greatest f l ex ib i l i t y to address p o l i t i c a l , economic, biological and social uncertainties; and (3) these area configurations provide the greatest ease of implementation and incremental adjustment of the status quo. Acceptance of these configurations will depend on the time horizon and the objectives of the decision makers. - iv -TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background and Rationale 1 1.2 Purpose of Study 1 1.3 Scope of Study 2 1.4 Format of Study 3 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND - FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Area Licensing: A Definition 5 2.3 Fisheries Management: Definition and Approach 6 2.4 Problems and Issues in the B.C. Salmon Fishery 7 2.5 Summary 10 CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND DATA 13 3.1 Evaluative Framework 13 3.1.1 Management Operations 13 3.1.2 Socio-Economic Effects 15 3.1.3 Biological Effectiveness 17 3.1.4 Economic Efficiency 17 3.1.5 Summary of Evaluative Cri ter ia 19 3.2 Methods and Data 20 3.2.1 Quantitative Analysis 20 3.2.1.1 Nature of Data 21 3.2.2 Area Licence Configurations 23 3.2.3 Fleet Mobility Analysis .29 3.2.4 Catch Variabi l i ty Analysis 30 - V -Paoe 3.2.5 Run Timing Overlap Analysis 31 3.2.6 Loss of Income Due to Labour Disputes 33 3.2.7 Salmon Enhancement Potential 34 3.2.8 Other Supporting Sources for Thesis 34 3.2.8.1 Introduction 34 3.2.8.2 Other Sources 35 3.2.8.3 Limitations of the Qualitative Approach 35 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS 36 4.1 Fleet Mobility 36 4.1.1 Gillnet 36 4.1.2 Seine 41 4.1.3 Troll 45 4.2 Variabi l i ty of Catch 47 4.3 Running Timing Overlap 50 4.4 Possible Loss of Revenue Due to Labour Disputes 59 4.5 Salmon Enhancement Opportunities 64 CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION OF AREA LICENCE CONFIGURATIONS 67 5.1 Introduction 67 5.2 Management Operations 67 5.2.1 Implementabil i ty 67 5.2.2 F lex ib i l i ty 74 5.3 Socio-Economic Effects 83 5.3.1 Distributional Effects 84 5.3.2 Effect on Employment 102 5.4 Biological Effectiveness 106 5.5 Economic Efficiency (Vessel Fleet Efficiency) I l l CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 117 6.1 Summary Statement 117 6.2 Planning Recommendations 121 6.3 Concluding Remarks 124 REFERENCES 126 vi -LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 1982 Fishing Income of Salmon Vessels - Per Vessel Averages . 11 Table 2 Vessel Income and Expenses (1982) - Average Values for Each Gear Group 12 Table 3 Number of Vessels in Small Areas at Different Levels of Dependence - Gi l l net 43 Table 4 Variabi l i ty in Catch by Gear Type and by Area Under the NorthA-SouthA Area Licence Configuration. 48 Table 5 Variabi l i ty in Catch by Gear Type and by Area Under the NorthB-SouthB-WestB Area Licence Configuration 48 Table 6 Variabi l i ty in Catch by Gear Type and by Area Under the SEP Area Licence Configuration 49 Table 7 Variabi l i ty in Catch by Gear Type and by Area Under the Small Area Licence Configuration 49 Table 8 Percent of Potential Catch for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under the NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB Configurations 53 Table 9 Percent of Potential Catch for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under the S.E.P. and Small Area Configurations 54 Table 10 Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under S.E.P. Area Licence Configuration -Gillnet 55 Table 11 Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under S.E.P. Area Licence Configuration -Seine 56 Table 12 Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under S.E.P. Area Licence Configuration -Troll 57 Table 13 Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under Small Area Configurations - G i l l n e t . . . . 58 Table 14 Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under Small Area Configurations - Seine 58 - v i i -Page Table 15 Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under Small Area Configurations - Troll 58 Table 16 Loss of Revenue Due to a Two Week Strike During Early and Late Season - Percent of Gross Revenue... 61 Table 17 Loss or Revenue Due to a Two Week Strike During Periods of Peak Abundance, for Each Gear Group and for each Area - Percent of Gross Revenue 62 Table 18 Enhancement Opportunities in Different Areas Under Various Area Licence Configurations 65 Table 19 Catch Contribution of Small Areas to Large Areas . . . 70 Table 20 Length of the Fishing Season in Weeks (1977-1980) Averages 95 Table 21 Number of Fishermen that could be Displaced Under Different Area Configurations 104 Table 22 Weighting of Criteria Under Different Area Licence Configurations 118 - v i i i -LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Basic Economic of the Relationship Between Cost, Revenue and Economic 8 Figure 2 Fishing Statistical Areas of the B.C. Coast 22 Figure 3 Proposed Area Rent Licence Configurations 24 Figure 4 NorthA-SouthA Configuration 25 Figure 5 NorthB-SouthB-WestB Configuration 26 Figure 6 S .E.P. Configuration 27' Figure 7 Small Area Configuration 28 Figure 8 Percent of the Gi l l net Fleet that was Stationary Under the Large Area Configurations 37 Figure 9 Percent of the Gillnet Fleet that was Stationary Under the S.E.P. Configuration 39 Figure 10 Percent of the Seine that was Stationary under the NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB Configurations 42 Figure 11 Percent of the Troll Fleet that was Stationary Under the NorthA-SouthA Configuration 46 - ix -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The committee members, Professors B. Wiesman, I.K. Fox and Norman Dale, contributed time and effort in the development of this report. Mr. A. Ferguson, provided valuable assistance in reviewing and crit iquing the various drafts of this report. His contribution to this report cannot be overstated. Dr. Ray Hilborn and Mr. Peter Calhoune were invaluable for their analysis of the Salmon Catch Stat i s t ics . From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region, I would like to thank the following: Mr. F . E . A . Wood; Mr. Christopher Lam; Mr. R. Carson; and others. The following individuals from the fishing industry provided the time to offer their insights on the subject matter: Mr. J . G . Bauer; Mr. Daniel B i l l y ; Mr. Bruce Buchanan, Vice Chairman of B.C. Packers L t d . ; Mr. David W. E l l i s ; Mr. Richard Gregory, Vice President of B.C. Packers L t d . ; Mr. R.J MacLeod; Mr Gary Nakashima; Mr. Albert Wilson J r . ; and others associated with the industry. The support and understanding from my family and friends made writing this report enjoyable and exciting. Foremost, I am greatly appreciative of the lovely woman who stood by me patiently, and provided the impetus when barriers were encountered. Without her all would have been for naught. I hope she will be forever be with me, wherever I may walk this earth, so we can enjoy the fruits of our endeavours. - X -This study is dedicated to those who despite their abi l i t ies have not achieved their goals. To these people I wish them the best in l i f e and recommend to them the works of Og Mandino, in particular the book entitled "The Choice." - 1 -CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Rationale Area licensing is a fisheries management tool which restricts fishermen to certain geographic areas. This study is concerned with the implications of alternative area configurations for the B.C. commercial salmon fishery. Pearse (1982) in the "Royal Commission on the Pacific Fisheries—Final Report" recommended, that an area licensing scheme (three areas) be adopted in the B.C. Salmon Fisheries. Contrary to this recommendation, S incla ir (1978) and The Fleet Rationalization Committee's (1982) recommended that area licensing not be adopted for the salmon f isheries . Within the fisheries management and commercial fishing communities, there are a number of individuals advocating area licensing ( E l l i s 1981, Christy 1982 and MacDonald 1982). In these and other reports, there is no shortage of ideas and statement of poss ib i l i t i e s . However, there is a lack of assessment of the implications of specific area licence configurations for specific fisheries ( i . e . , a particular fishery in a specific geographic area). Hence, i f an area licence configuration is to be adopted in the B.C. salmon fishery, i t is important for the decision makers to be informed of the possible consequences to make an informed decision. 1.2 Purpose of Study The study evaluates five area licensing configurations. The evaluation addresses a number of issues identified in the works of - 2 -Pearse (1982); The Fleet Rationalization Committee (1982); Sinclair (1978); MacDonald (1982); E l l i s (1982); Christy (1984); and through discussions with fishermen, fisheries managers and fish processors. These issues fa l l into one of the following subjects: (1) Management Operations; (2) Socio-Economic Effects; (3) Biological Effectiveness; and (4) Economic Efficiency. Upon assessing the area configurations, the area configuration(s) most appropriate for the B.C. salmon fishery will be ident i f ied. 1.3 Scope of Study The objectives of this study are as follows: 1. To identify alternative area licensing configurations for the B.C. commercial salmon fishery. 2. To assess the implications (management operation; socio-economic effects; biological effectiveness and economic efficiency) of five area configurations in the context of the B.C. salmon fishery. 3. Upon assessing the configurations, they are ranked and the configuration that would be appropriate for the B.C. salmon fishery is ident i f ied . The following constraints are assumed in the study: 1. The restrict ions on an "A" licence can be fixed or not f ixed. In this study i t will be assumed that the restr ict ion will be fixed unless otherwise stated: fixed is defined as restrict ions that run for l i f e . - 3 -2. Though non-salmon fisheries are important in understanding the dynamics of the salmon fishery, this analysis focuses on the consequences of area licencing on the commercial salmon f leet , independent of other f isheries . 3 . Whether the status quo or an area licence configuration should be maintained or adopted is not assessed in this study. 4. Harvest regulations and policies are the same as the status quo unless otherwise stated in the text. For example, the escapement targets are the same. 5. Though Native Indian food fishing and the sport fishing sectors could have a major bearing on the acceptability of the different area configurations, these two factors are not addressed in this study. 1.4 Format of Study This study is presented in six chapters. In chapter one, the purpose, rationale and scope of the study are defined. Chapter two is devoted to a discussion of the theory of fisheries management. Fisheries management is defined; the different forms of intervention are identif ied; the objectives of fisheries management and problems and issues in the B.C. salmon fishery are discussed. Implicit ly and e x p l i c i t l y , the theory of fisheries management is applied in the development of the evaluative framework, and in determining the appropriate area licence configuration in the B.C. salmon fishery. - 4 -In chapter three, the quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques, as well as the nature of the data that are used in this study are described. This chapter also covers the details of the evaluative framework used in this study. In chapter four, the results of the quantitative analysis are provided. This includes a description of the results and discussions of the results and limitations of the analyses. In chapter f ive , the area licence configurations are assessed and ranked, applying the forementioned evaluative framework. An explanation for the ranking is provided. Chapter six provides the summary of the findings; statement of the limitations of the study; and concluding remarks. - 5 -CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND - FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 2.1 Introduction The purpose o f t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o p r o v i d e background i n f o r m a t i o n o r a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n o n : a rea l i c e n s i n g as a l i m i t e d e n t r y t o o l ; t h e r o y o f f i s h e r i e s management; and d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e B.C. f i s h e r y . F i r s t , a rea l i c e n s i n g i s d e f i n e d and i d e n t i f y i n g t h e t y p e o f l i m i t e d e n t r y p o l i c y t o o l i t i s . Second, t h e r e i s a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e t h e o r y o f f i s h e r i e s management i d e n t i f y i n g t h e model adopted i n t h i s r e p o r t when f r a m i n g t h e e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a and i d e n t i f y i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a rea l i c e n c e c o n f i g u r a t i o n f o r t h e B.C. salmon f i s h e r y . T h i r d , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e B.C. salmon f i s h e r y f o c u s i n g on t h e f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s o f t h e i n d u s t r y ; and o t h e r p rob lems and i s s u e s . 2.2 Area Licensing: A Definition Based on the d e s c r i p t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n s by S i n c l a i r ( 1 9 7 8 ) , E l l i s ( 1 9 8 2 ) , The F l e e t R a t i o n a l i z a t i o n Commit tee ( 1 9 8 2 ) , MacDonald (1982) and Pearse ( 1 9 8 2 ) , a rea l i c e n s i n g can be d e f i n e d a s : a management t o o l wh ich r e s t r i c t s f i s h e r m e n t o c e r t a i n g e o g r a p h i c a r e a s . T h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s s i m i l a r t o t h e " T e r r i t o r i a l Use R i g h t s " (TURFs) concep t i n t r o d u c e d by C h r i s t y ( 1 9 8 2 ) . However, t h e two c o n c e p t s d i f f e r i n t h a t TURFs i s a broad f i s h e r i e s management p o l i c y t o o l and area l i c e n s i n g i s management t o o l s p e c i f i c t o t h e B.C. f i s h e r y . T h i s i s no t t o say t h a t t h e l a t t e r can no t be a p p l i e d i n o t h e r a r e a s . Area l i c e n s i n g can be v iewed as a l i m i t e d e n t r y p o l i c y t o o l . G i n t e r and R e t t i g ( 1 9 7 8 , p. 158) have d i s c u s s e d and d e f i n e d l i m i t e d - 6 -entry as: Like the more common techniques, such as time and area closures, limited entry is intended to retard the growth of fishing effort by controlling the number of fishermen, vessels, or units of gear that have legitimate access to certain fish resources. Hence, limited entry is an alternative way of l imiting effort; however, effort l imitation does not necessarily imply entry l imi tat ion . . . . Limited entry refers to any fishery management tool which controls, re s tr i c t s , or l imits the entry of new fishermen, vessel or gear into a fishery. Based on the forementioned, and the c lass i f icat ion of fisheries management tools (Weitzman 1974, Pearse 1980), area licensing can be classed as a quantity mechanism, that effects the input into the f ishery, i . e . , harvest capacity. However, i t is unlike other management tools for i t restr icts entry via a spatial mechanism. 2.3 Fisheries Management: Definition and Approach In the fisheries management l i terature there are numerous definit ion of fisheries management. In l ieu of describing and/or quoting all the different perspectives, fisheries management can be summed up as "the endeavour to address or achieve, management operation, socio-economic, biological and economic efficiency goals, given the problem environment aad issue context for a given fishery." Thus to design an appropriate fishery management plan, these objectives as well as all other facets of the fishery and resource should be considered. This approach is labelled as the integrated/holistic approach (McHugh 1978) and is aptly described by Nickel and Sinclair (1977, pp. x v i i - x v i i i ) . - 7 -" . . . The s u c c e s s f u l management o f a f i s h e r y r e q u i r e s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p h y s i c a l methods o f f i s h i n g as w e l l as t h e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c e f f e c t s o f government r e g u l a t i o n s , m a r k e t i n g , w e l f a r e a s s i s t a n c e and o t h e r e lements r e l a t e d t o t h e f i s h e r y . " I t i s t h i s management p e r s p e c t i v e and approach t h a t i s used i n t h i s s t u d y , t o d e v e l o p an e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a , and t o i d e n t i f y an a p p r o p r i a t e a rea l i c e n c e c o n f i g u r a t i o n f o r t h e B.C. salmon f i s h e r y . 2.4 Problems and Issues i n the B.C. Salmon Fishery The purpose o f t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o i d e n t i f y t h e prob lems and i s s u e s i n t h e B.C. salmon f i s h e r y . T h i s i s p r e s e n t e d f rom a t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Gordon (1954) and S c o t t (1955) a r g u e , t h e u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r wh ich l e a d s t o economic and b i o l o g i c a l p rob lems i n most f i s h e r i e s , i s t h e common p r o p e r t y n a t u r e o f t h e r e s o u r c e . The t h e o r e t i c a l t e n e t o f t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e i s : i n t h e absence o f some f o r m o f p r o p e r t y r i g h t s , t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e h a r v e s t e r s are such t h a t t h e f i s h s t o c k s w i l l be a t r i s k o f b e i n g o v e r - h a r v e s t e d and t h e r e w i l l be excess c a p i t a l and l a b o u r i n v e s t e d i n t h e f i s h e r y . The outcome o f t h i s b e h a v i o r i s o f t e n c a l l e d " b i o e c o n o m i c e q u i l i b r u m " (Anderson 1977, C r u t c h f i e l d 1977 , S c o t t and Nehrer 1 9 8 1 ) . F i g u r e 1 shows t h a t i n an "open access " f i s h e r y t h e revenue g e n e r a t e d e q u a l s t h e c o s t o f h a r v e s t i n g t h e r e s o u r c e . A number o f d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s o f common p r o p e r t y can be found i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . Maloney and Pearse (1975) and C r u t c h f i e l d and Z e l l n e r (1962) f o r w a r d two d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s . Maloney and Pearse - 8 -Fishing Effort Figure 1 - Basic economic perspective of the relationship between cost, revenue and economic rent ( modified Anderson 1977 p.31) TC: Total cost of harvesting resource TR: Revenue of fish based on Shaefer production model A: Area where profit exists - Economic Rent B: Area where there is no prof i t , hence economic rent is dissipated B-E: Point where total cost of harvesting equal the total revenue - 9 -(1975) state that excess capital and labour in the harvest sector results in over-harvest of stock and the dissipation of economic rent. Crutchfield and Zellner (1962) state that a truly common property fishery is where there is open access. Adapting the definition forwarded by Crutchfield and Zellner (1962) i t can be argued that some of the common property characteristics of the B.C. salmon fishery have been eliminated, through the "Davis Plan," established in 1969. This limited entry program has constrained access. The economic woes of the salmon fishery cannot be solely attributed to the common property nature of the resource. There are social , pol i t ical and economic factors outside of the common property nature of the resource that have contributed to the state the industry is in . The following is a brief l i s t of these factors: 1. Vessels with smaller tonnages were "cannibalized" for the licences and combined to construct larger and more effective vessels (Fraser 1979). For the seine fleet this is often carried out due to financial advantage a fishermen could realize because of the graduated bonus on their catches. 2. Older vessels were upgraded for more powerful and luxurous harvest units. This could be considered capital and horsepower stuffing (Scott and Nehrer 1981), but such investments were often made for ego reasons ( i . e . , keeping up with the "Jones Syndrom." 3. Individuals invested in vessel/licences to realize capital gains and/or capital depreciation benefits. - 10 -4. Harvesters invested in vessel/licences based on the implicit and expl ic i t manner in which the resource was allocated by the fisheries management agency. Pearse (1982, 1981), identified and described the problems in the salmon fishery. Aside from the procedural and decision making problems and issues, they can be grouped under the following subject areas: (1) Management Operations; (2) Socio-economic Effects; (3) Biological; and (4) Economic Eff ic iency. Pearse (1981) in the discussion of "Licensing and Regulating Fleet Development" identified over-capacity, over-capital izat ion, low incomes and financial ins tabi l i ty as major problems in the industry. For example, Tables 1 and 2 show: the low net income of fishermen; and the relative importance of fuel cost, capital cost, and unemployment insurance benefits in their financial structure. Due to the financial status of harvesters, the structure of the. harvest sector (e .g . , mobility of the fleet) and the decision making process, po l i t i ca l pressure can result in a situation where stocks are placed at risk of being over-harvested. This latter problem is important due to the competing demands placed on the resource by the various user groups in the harvest sector. 2 04 Summary Area licensing is a limited entry management tool that restr icts entry into a fishery through spatial ly restr ict ing vessels. If i t is to be adopted in the B.C. salmon fishery, an integrated/holistic fisheries management approach, taking into account the problems and issues in the industry, should be adopted. - 11 -Table 1 - 1982 Fish ing Income of Salmon Vessels Per Vessel Average (Department of F i she r ies and Oceans 1983).* High 25% Medium 50% Low 25% A l l SP Vessles Salmon G i l l net Gross Income Net Tax ( los s ) $ 54,779 18,323 12,657 (12) $24,128 8,158 6,201 (36) $ 8,326 376 (1,126) (18) $ 27,461 8,616 5,888 (71) Seine Gross Net Tax 237,937 52,809 548 (6) 97,557 21,321 (13,159) (13) 39,641 812 (9,286) (6) 117,348 24,436 (9,137) (25) T r o l l Gross Net Tax 76,699 28,163 15,648 (36) 37,631 13,475 8,738 (78) 15,728 1,048 13,685 (34) 42,103 13,679 7,558 (142) Combination Salmon G i l l / T r o l l / S a l m o n Gross Net Tax 60,956 26,039 19,369 (9) 29,599 9,788 5,692 (18) 12,598 1,718 (12,098) (8) 29,056 11,087 7,364 (35) Combination Licences G i l l n e t / H e r r i n g Gross Net Tax 67,603 26,488 16,282 (6) 38,879 12,603 9.467 (4) 17,806 17,806 (1,680) (7) 39,913 12,584 7,920 (24) T r o l l / H e r r i n g Others Gross Net Tax 133,308 44,710 27,833 (25) 64,979 19,400 13.096 (55) 28.663 4,719 1.0660 (25) 72,602 21,930 13,883 (105) Gi11 ne t /Tro l l /Sa lmon + Herring Gross Net Tax 90,840 36,667 31,502 (6) 46,599 17,185 13,736 (14) 16,984 (1.343) 3,187 (8) 47,618 16,006 $ 12,708 (28) Seine/Salmon/Herring Gross Net Tax 211,584 96,990 35,942 (19) 115,354 24,220 2,420 (37) 56,963 10,492 (15,082) (18) 125,848 34,460 (6,769) (74) Gross Income = Landing value plus bonus except for the se ine , the gross income assumes that shares i n payment of fuel e t c . i s computed i n . Net Income = Gross income minus expenses ( e . g . , operating cos t s , shares, c ap i t a l c o s t ) . Taxable Income - Net income minus shares paid to shareholders . Capi ta l cost allowance and i f a p p l i c a b l e . No f i sh ing expense. (#) = Number of respondants for each c e l l . L imi t a t i on of Data = The data i s l i m i t e d due to the fo l lowing fac to rs : (1) the sample size of some of the c e l l s i s small from a s t a t i s t i c a l po in t -of -v iew; (2) the sample may not be a true representat ion of the industry for the respondents were selected from the f i l e s of an accounting f i rm; and (3) the ca tagor i za t ion of the groups as High, Medium and Low does not r e f l e c t the economic nature of the f i sh harvest sec tor . *This data i s a compression of the data in the above referenced repor t . - 12 -Table 2 - Vessel Income and Expenses. Average % Value of tota l income and expense for Each Gear Group (Department of F i sher ies and Oceans 1983).* Gear Group High 25% Med i urn 50% Low 25% Tro l l - Fuel Costs U.I.C. Income Interest (C) (I) (I) 17 13 20 (40) 9 18 12 (81) 1L 22 31 (41) Trol1/Herring - Fuel U.I.C. Interest (C) (I) (I) 7 7 13 (27) 8 12 12 (59) 11 19 14 (27) Gi l 1 net/Salmon - Fuel U.I.C. Interest (C) (I) (I) 8 7 11 (19) 10 21 8 (38) 10 9 18 (17) G i l lnet/Herr ing - Fuel U.I.C. Interest (C) (I) (I) 6 8 4 (7) 12 32 10 (14) 13 9 ' 7 (7) Trol1/Gi11 net/Salmon - Fuel (C) U.I.C. (I) Interest (I) 10 8 10 (10) 16 13 12 (19) 17 13 20 (14) T r o l l / G i l l net/Herring - Fuel (C) U.I.C. (I) Interest (I) 7 5 7 (8) 9 6 5 (15) 11 48 22 (8) Seine (unincorporated) - Fuel (C) Interest (I) 6 34 (8) Seine (incorporated) - Fuel (C) Interest (I) 6 10 (6) 7 18 (13) 4 29 (16) Seine/Salmon/Herring (unincorporated) - Fuel (C) Interest (I) 3 7 (12) Seine/Salmon/Herring e t c . (incorporated) - Fuel (C) Interest (I) 4 18 5 31 (36) 10 41 (25) *These rat io f igures are as per the data in the report on the 1982 fishermens income. (#) = Number of respondents per c e l l . (C) = Cost (s ) . (I) = Income. - 13 -CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND DATA 3 .1 Evaluative Framework In this study five area licence configurations are assessed, applying an evaluative framework which focuses on four broad subject areas: management operations; socio-economic (distributional) effects; biological effectiveness; and economic efficiency. The c r i t e r i a under these catagories, are based on those developed by Fox (1977), Cicin-Sain (1978), Crutchfield (1979), Scott (1979), Clawson (1980), Ingram (1980), Anderson (1980), Bishop et. a l . (1980), Langdon (1982), Pearse (1981, 1982), Stokes (1982). The four subject areas are divided into sub-criteria based on the above works, the nature of the resource, the structure of the fishery, and the nature of the existing management system in the industry. 3 . 1 . 1 Management Operations A. Implementability - a concern of decision makers and fisheries managers is the ease with which a plan can be implemented. The follow-ing is a l i s t of factors that should be taken into account, to ensure that the management plan can be easily implemented (Anderson 1980). 1. A plan should be simple: uncertainties will be greater i f i t is too complex; there may be a greater need for more institutions to administer i t ; decision makers and the affected groups ( i . e . , fishermen and processors) may have d i f f i cu l ty conceptualizing i t ' s short-term and long-term consequences-. - 1 4 -2. A plan should be social ly and p o l i t i c a l l y acceptable. If the plan is opposed by different actors ( i . e . , different user groups such as fishermen and processors), i t may be d i f f i c u l t to implement for there will be resistance to i ts adoption. B. Management F l e x i b i l i t y - a plan should be f lexible so that adjustments to unexpected events can be made. The following is a l i s t of factors that should be considered concerning the f l e x i b i l i t y of a management plan: 1. Salmon stocks display temporal ( i . e . , within and between season) and spatial ( i . e . , area distribution) var iab i l i ty in abundance; yet our measurement and predictive capabil i t ies are l imited. The management plan should be designed with some f l e x i b i l i t y , so that in-season restrict ions (e .g . , halt or reduce fishing effort by time, area or species and by gear usage) and between season adjustments (e .g . , reduction in harvest capacity, modification in the distribution of harvest effort or changes in allocation by gear or area of allowable catch) can be adopted with minimum disruption of harvest a c t i v i t i e s . 2. The i n i t i a l plan should be chosen to ensure that future management options are not foreclosed. That i s , the i n i t i a l plan generally determines what future management options are possible. The management plan should be designed so i t can be modified to complement any future changes in fisheries management objectives (Walters 1975). - 15 -3 . 1 . 2 Socio-Economic Effects A. Distributional Effects - The distribution of benefits and costs is of concern to decision makers and harvesters. The issue is whether the distributional consequences are contrary to "the perceived norm" and i f so who will benefit and who will bear the costs. The norm is very d i f f i c u l t to define for there are many interest groups involved. This issue is complicated by the fact that the catch by the different user groups has varied over time. This var iab i l i ty can be attributed to the following: catchabil i ty of species by different user groups and different gear types; change in catch capacity by different gear types and user group; change in the abundance of the different stocks; and changes in regulations over time and space. When addressing this subject, the following should be considered: 1. Harvesters should have the opportunity to ensure that catches result in equitable distribution of revenue from the fisheries so that fishermen in each gear groups under area licensing have the opportunity to realize catches that are close to the provincial average catch ( i . e . , the average catch per vessel given the total catch in the B.C. salmon f ishery) . This is important for the harvesters' mobility will be restricted i f area licensing is introduced. Under the status  quo situation fleet mobility tends to equalize catches over time and space. 2. Related to the forementioned factor is the access the harvesters will have to the surplus production from salmon - 16 -enhancement projects. Under the present management system, the increased production from enhancement project can be accessed by most fishermen, subject to licence restrict ions and the species enhanced. Area licensing could pose a problem, by restr ict ing fleet mobil ity, for specific fleets could be foreclosed from harvesting the additional production. 3. As indicated in the financial profi le of the harvest sector (Table 1), Unemployment Insurance Benefits are important to the fishermens' income: this income range from 5% to 48% of gross income. Area licensing could pose problems i f i t leads to shorter fishing seasons affecting fishermen's e l i g i b i l i t y for the benefits. 4. Another factor that could result in distribution effects is strikes . Depending on the timing of the runs ( i . e . , peak abundance of the returning stocks); the area licence configuration; and timing of the str ikes , the fishermens' gross revenue could be effected. Since some fishermen would be more dependent upon specific runs, within specific areas, they are more vulnerable to labour disputes. Presently fishermen can offset industry strikes by fishing other runs throughout the coast. B. Employment Effects - Decision makers and some fishermens' associations are concerned about the potential for the displacement of fishermen i f area licensing is introduced. When addressing this - 17 -subject, the extent to which fishermen will be displaced should be considered. 3.1.3 B i o l o g i c a l Effectiveness A. Attain Biological Goals - The maintenance of the stocks is c r i t i c a l to the health of the fishery. The key factors to be considered are: 1. Stocks should be maintained at a sustainable level by ensuring that harvest levels are such that the escapement is realized to maintain populations (Fisheries and Marine Services, 1976). 2. Mixed stock fishing should be avoided to minimize the harvest of multiple stocks simultaneously. This can lead to major management problems (Dickie and Kerr 1982; Healey 1982; and Ledbetter and Hi 1 born 1981). 3. Stocks deemed to be at low productive levels should be enhanced. 4. Fleet concentration which could increase the risk of overfishing should be avoided. 3.1.4 Economic E f f i c i e n c y A. Vessel and fleet efficiency - eff icient u t i l i za t ion of fish resources has been advocated by fisheries managers, economists and others (Anderson 1980; Scott 1979; Crutchfield 1979). This is attained when the economic rent is maximized or when the - 18 -positive difference in revenue and cost is the greatest. Given the biological production, the objective is to maximize long-term outputs and minimize long-term inputs in the fishery. There are a number of definitions of "the efficient" ut i l i za t ion of f ish resources. The definitions dif fer due to assumptions made about: (1) time horizons; (2) discount rates; and (3) competing goals. The underlying argument of most fisheries economists and managers, is that for fisheries to be optimally managed, the cost of harvesting the resource should not exceed the revenue generated. Factors influencing output or production revenue can be broken down into the following components: 1. Production of salmon (volume by species); 2. Market value of the product, which is a function of product quality and market demand; and 3. Efficiency of the processing sector, hence their ab i l i ty (or willingness) to pay a specific ex-vessel price. Harvest cost, can be factored as follows: 1. Fixed costs ( i . e . , costs incurred whether or not the individual fishes) includes: costs of capita l ; vessel maintenance and annual fees (e .g . , insurance, l icence, and moorage). 2. Variable costs ( i . e . , cost incurred to harvest fish) includes: equipment, fue l , and others. A management plan should be designed to increase the efficiency of the vessel / f leet , hence the output/input ratio should be enhanced. - 19 -3.1.5 Summary of Evaluative C r i t e r i a Given the nature of the B.C. salmon fishery and the forementioned factors, the evaluative framework to be used in this analysis can be stated as follows: Management Operations A. Implementability 1. Will area licensing result in management plans that are unnecessarily complex? 2. Will area licensing result in plans that are l ike ly to be social and p o l i t i c a l l y unacceptable? B. Management F l e x i b i l i t y 1. Will area licensing reduce management f l e x i b i l i t y with regards to in-season and between season adjustments? 2. Will area licensing foreclose future management options and make i t d i f f i c u l t to adopt changes in management objective? Socio-Economic Effects A. Distributional Effects 1. Under area licencing will different gear groups have the opportunity to realize catches that are approximately the provincial average catch by each gear group? 2. Under area l icensing, will harvesters have equal access to production from salmon enhancement development? - 20 -3. Will area licensing make i t more-or-less d i f f i c u l t for a fisherman to be e l ig ib le for Unemployment Insurance Benefits? 4. Will area licensing result in major differences in the economic impact of a strike in the fishing industry? B. Effects on Employment 1. Will fishermen be displaced under area licensing? Biological Effectiveness 1. Will area licensing result in sufficient escapement to sustain stock levels? 2. Will area licensing minimize the harvest of multiple stocks? 3. Will area licensing fac i l i ta te or inhibit enhancement of stocks that are at low productive levels? 4. Will area licensing reduce fleet concentration? Economic Efficiency 1. Will area licensing result in a reduction in fleet/harvest costs? 3.2 Methods and Data 3.2.1 Quantitative Analysis In the quantitative analysis two data sources were used. Most of the analysis is based on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Catch - 21 -Stat i s t ics (1971 - 1981) and the data from Geographic Working Group Enhancement Data and Salmon Enhancement Program ( S . E . P . ) . 3.2.1.1 Nature of Data A. Sales Sl ips The Department of Fisheries and Ocean Catch Stat i s t i c s , in particular fish sales slips were the primary data source. The individual sales slips are stored in computer f i l e s , in the following manner: (1) date of sales; (2) the period when the fish was harvested; (3) the s tat i s t ica l area where the fish was harvested is divided into 30 s tat i s t ica l areas and several sub-areas (see Figure 2); (4) vessel code number; (5) the species harvested; (6) the number of pieces (fish) sold; (7) the weight and value of catch by weight, by species and gear used. The data is not completely accurate, but is the best information available. Some limitations of the data are: 1. Not al l the catches are recorded since some catches enter the market through nonconventional channels; 2. Catch are sold to some fish buyers using false identif ication numbers; 3. In some cases, fishermen may have harvested their catch in more than one area, but only one area is recorded on the sales s l i p ; and 4. Some species, though harvested using one gear type are delivered as being harvested using another gear type. Figure 2. - Fishing Stat is t ical Areas of the B.C. Coast (Department of Fisheries and Ocean, 1983). - 23 -B. S .E .P . Enhancement Data The Geographic Working Group (1980) generated, data on the manageable enhancement potential for B.C. stream systems, for the Salmon Enhancement Program Planning. The data presents the stock enhancement potential for salmon systems and for various regions on the coast ( e .g . , North Coast; Central Coast, Northwest Vancouver Island; Southwest Vancouver Island; Johnstone Stra i t , Georgia Strai t ; Fraser River; and Juan de Fuca S t r a i t ) . 3.2.2 Area Licence Configurations In this study five area configurations or schemes are assessed (Figure 3). NorthA-SouthA (Figure 4); NorthB-SouthB-WestB (Figure 5); S .E .P . (Figure 6); Small Areas-Part of Coast (Figure 7) and Small Area -Whole Coast (Figure 2). These configurations are not a comprehensive l i s t of a l l the possible area licence schemes. However, they were selected assuming that they would be representative of the range of the possible configurations, schemes ranging from small to large areas. The NorthA-SouthA configuration was selected, because many fishermen, with whom this subject was discussed, preferred i t , and this configuration is an incremental change from the present s ituation. The NorthB-SouthB-WestB configuration was selected because the t r o l l fleet under the above configuration would be exposed to a three area harvest system and the net fleet would not. This is the case for - 24 -Figure 3 - Proposed Area licensing configurations A. NorthA/SouthA configuration for al l gear types - NorthA — stat i s t ia l areas (SAs) 1-8, 30 2 west and 2 east - SouthA — SAs 9-29 B. NorthB-SouthB-WestB configuration for al l gear types - North B — SAs 1-8, 30 2 west and east - South B - - SAs 9-18, 28 and 29 - West B — SAs 19-27 C. S .E.P. configuration - North Coast — SAs 1-5, 2 west and 2 east - Central Coast ~ SAs 6-10 and 30 - N.W. Vancouver Island — SAs 25-27 - S.W. Vancouver Island — SAs 21-24 - Johnstone Straits — SAs 11-13 - Georgia Straits - - SAs 14-18 - Fraser — SAs 29 (all subareas) & 28 - Juan de Fuca — SAs 20 & 19 D. Small Area-Part of The Coast Configuration - River-Smith Inlet — SAs 9 and 10 - Barkley Sound — SA 23 - Nass River — SAs 3x-3y - Rest of the Coast — All areas except the above E . Small Area-Whole Coast Configuration - Al l s ta t i s t i c areas are harvest areas. F i g u r e 4 - NorthA-SouthA Area L i c e n c e C o n f i g u r a t i o n (Department of F i s h e r i e s and Oceans, 1983). F i g u r e NorthB-SouthB-WestB Area (Department of F i s h e r i e s L i c e n c e C o n f i g u r a t i o n and Oceans, 1983). F i g u r e 6 - S.E.P. Area L i c e n c e C o n f i g u r a t i o n (Department of F i s h e r i e s and Oceans, 1983). F i g u r e 7 - Small Area-Part of- the.Coast C o n f i g u r a t i o n (Department of F i s h e r i e s and Oceans, 1983). - 29 -an inside-outside A licensing management plan exists. The S.E.P. area configuration was selected because these areas have been defined by the Salmon Enhancement Planning Group, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as functional and practical management and planning boundaries. The Small Area-Whole Coast configuration was selected because i t represents a case that is least l ike the present s ituation. The Small Area-Part of the Coast configuration as considered for i t was one of the configurations fishermen preferred, for i t is similar to the status quo. Also, i t can be viewed as a configuration that allows for an experimental s i tuation. 3 . 2 . 3 Fleet Mobility Analysis To determine the mobility trends for the different gear types under each area licence configuration (the exception being the Small Area-Whole Coast configuration), the following analysis was conducted: 1. The total number of vessels that harvested fish in an area was determined and the number of boats defined as harvesting 100% and 80% - 100% of their catch from a harvest area, for each gear type under the each configuration was determined. 2. The number of vessels determined at step two was divided by the total number of boats that engaged in the fishery, to generate a percentage value. This was done for each gear type for the area licence configurations. - 30 -For the above analysis the 1971-1980 sales s l ip data was used. However, i t must be pointed out the mobility of the fleet may have changed since this period. These changes could be due to factors such as: 1. The timing and the length of fisheries openings; 2. The economics of the harvest sector—to maximize catch the harvester may have select fisheries with a potential for a high catch-per-unit effort; and 3. The physical mobility ( i . e . , power) of the vessels. The results of this analysis will be used to assess the following c r i t e r i a : (1) implementation; (2) management f l e x i b i l i t y ; (3) access to the resource; (4) biological effectiveness; and (5) economic eff ic iency. 3.2.4 Catch V a r i a b i l i t y Analysis The fish sales s l ip data for the 1971-1981 period was used to determine the var iab i l i t y in catch, within each area, for the area licence configurations. The numeric indicator computed in this analysis is the coefficient of variation which is indicator of the degree of v a r i a b i l i t y . The larger the index value the greater the var iab i l i ty in catch during the 1971-1981 period. The coefficient of variation was determined in the following manner: I. The ex-vessel value of the catch for each gear group in each harvest area under the different area configuration was determined. - 31 -2. The ex-vessel value, for each gear group in each harvest area, under the different area configuration was computed. 3. The standard deviation was calculated for the revenue for each gear group in each harvest area under the different area configurations. 4. The standard deviation value was then divided by the ex-vessel value to give the coefficient of variat ion, for each gear group in each harvest area under the different area configurations. It should be noted that the coefficient of variation describes the degree of var iab i l i ty in the catch, but no confidence l imits have been assigned. The results of the catch var iab i l i ty analysis will be used to assess the following c r i t e r i a : (1) management implementation; (2) management f l e x i b i l i t y ; (3) harvesters' access to the resource (4) biological effectiveness; and (5) economic eff iciency. 3.2.5 Run Timing Overlap Analysis The 1971-1981 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Sales Sl ip data was analyzed to determine the overlap in the timing of the runs in any two harvest areas under the different area licence configurations. In this analysis a numeric value was computed, and the value ranged from 0 to 1.0. This value represents the potential catch an individual could realize by fishing in any two harvest areas for the area licence configurations. For all area configurations, except Small Area-Whole Coast, the degree of var iab i l i ty was computed for al l possible harvest - 32 -areas. Using past catch data, in particular the timing of the catch for both areas, the degree of run timing segregation was computed. With this information, the percent of the possible maximum catch from both areas was computed. The percentage value takes into account that 100% of catch from both areas may not be realized due to physical and biological constraints. To compute the run timing overlap indicator, the 1971 - 1981 catch s tat is t ics was used in the following manner: 1. For each gear group within each harvest area, under each area licence configuration, the value of the catch and the timing of the catches was determined. 2. For each gear group the value of the catch during the overlap period (when fishery in both places was opened) was determined for al l two harvest area combinations (e .g . , NorthB-SouthB, SouthB-WestB and NorthB-WestB for the NorthB-SouthB-WestB area licence configuration). 3. The value of the catch generated for al l harvest area combinations was computed, for each gear group, under the area licence configurations. 4. If there was overlap in run timing (opening of the two fisheries) i t was assumed the fleet would be in the area that generated the greatest catch for any of the area combinations. Thus, to determine the overlap indicator, this latter mentioned value was added to the value of the catch during the non-overlap period, and divided by the total values of catches - 33 -from both harvest areas, for each gear group, under the area licence configurations. The results of this analysis will be used to determine the degree to which fishermen could benefit i f they leased or purchased a second l icence/vessel . This will be used to ascertain the potential effects, in terms of economic efficiency and of the displacement of fishermen, under the different area configurations. 3.2.6 Loss of Income Due to Labour Disputes To compute income losses due to labour disputes the catch s tat is t ics for the 1971-1981 period were used. For each gear type in each area under the different area licence configurations the revenue loss due to hypothetical strikes was computed. Potent revenue losses due to strikes was computed in the following manner: 1. The weekly catches by gear and harvest area, under the different area licence configurations was computed using D.F.O. catch s ta t i s t i c s . 2. The loss of revenue during a two week period of greatest potential loss was identi f ied. This value was then divided by the total value of the catch to determine the percent loss in revenue. 3. Revenue loss for a hypothetical early strike (e .g . , early to mid-July) and late strike (e .g . , early to mid-August) was calculated. These periods were selected based on experience. The results of this analysis will be used to assess the area configurations, in terms of loss of income due to a two week s tr ike . - 34 -3.2.7 Salmon Enhancement Potential In this analysis the salmon enhancement potential data produced by the Geographic Working Group (D.F .O. , 1982) was used. These data provides salmon enhancement potential figures for each region of the coast. The salmon enhancement production figures are given by species, and figures used where those identified as manageable programs ( i . e . , this takes into account technical , biological and financial aspects of the projects). This information is important for i t identif ies the spatial distribution of salmon enhancement opportunities. Under the different area licence configurations some harvester may not have access to future enhancement production. In this analysis the salmon enhancement potential for each area under the different area licence configurations was computed. The information generated for each area included: the production of each species; and the species mix. The results of the salmon enhancement potential analysis will be used to assess how the harvesters' access to production from enhancement projects could be constrained under the different area configurations. 3.2.8 Other Supporting Sources f o r Thesis 3.2;8.1 Introduction The purpose of this section is to brief ly describe the non-quantitative information sources, and subjective approach used in the evaluation. - 35 -3.2.8.2 Other Sources When assessing and comparing the different area configurations the following information and perspectives were used: 1. The author's knowledge of the industry through thirteen years of experience as an owner/operator of a salmon fishing vessel; and 2. Information generated through discussion with representatives of fishermen's organizations, processors and fishermen. When evaluating and comparing the different configurations, in the non-quantifiable areas, the judgement of the author was applied. This subjective assessment was based on his understanding of the industry, as well as his assessment of the perspective of others involved in i t . 3.2.8.3 Limitations of the Qualitative Approach The technique employed in the qualitative approach is limited by the following factors: 1. The majority of the people this subject was discussed were based in Vancouver; 2. The people that the author held discussions with have varying interests in the industry, and since the beginning of this study (1982) there has been considerable change in the problem envi ronment; 3. The author, though he endeavoured to be objective, has bias due to his investment in the industry and his long term objectives as an actor in i t . - 36 -CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Fleet Mobility The purpose of this section is to present the results of the fleet mobility analysis describing the mobility trends for each gear group under each area configuration. 4.1.1 G i l l n e t A. NorthA-SouthA Configuration Under the NorthA-SouthA area licence configuration, the percentage of the g i l lnet fleets that were stationary ( i . e . , 100% of the catch from a single area) ranged from 29% (347 vessels) in 1980 to 61% (722 vessels) in 1971 for the NorthA f leet , and 68% (1177 vessels) in 1978 to 83% (2225 vessels) in 1971 for the SouthA fleet (Figure 8). The mobility of the SouthA fleet was less variable: In 1979, 76% (933 vessels) and in 1980, 73% (941 vessels) of the SouthA fleet was stationary. The SouthA fleet was more stationary than the NorthA f leet: this difference ranged from a high of 45% in 1980 and a low of 15% in 1977 (Figure 8) . When a stationary vessel is defined as any vessel that harvests 80% or more of i t ' s catch from a single area, the mobility trends for the two fleets are similar to the above (Figure 8), but the percent of the fleets that were stationary, is greater: 83% (910 vessels) in 1979 and 62% (789 vessels) in 1980 for the NorthA f leet , and 84% (1032 F i g u r e 8 - P e r c e n t o f t h e G i l l n e t F l e e t t h e w a s S t a t i o n a r y U n d e r t h e L a r g e A r e a C o n f i g u r a t i o n s ' ( 1 9 7 0 - 7 0 , 1 9 7 7 - 8 0 ) NORTH SOUTH WEST 80-100% catch single area 100% catch single area - 38 -vessels) in 1979 and 86% (1102 vessels) in 1980 for the SouthA fleet. B. NorthB-SouthB-WestB Configuration Under the NorthB-SouthB-WestB area configurations, there was no substantial change in the mobility of the SouthB fleet, during the 1977-1980 period: the percentage of the fleet that was stationary ranged from 53% in 1978 to 60% in 1979 (Figure 8). The mobility of the WestB fleet decreased during this period; the percentage of the fleet that was stationary increased from 14% (1977) to 37% (1980) (Figure 8). The mobility of the NorthB fleet increased during the 1977-1980 period: the percentage of stationary vessel decreased from 52% (1977) to 27% (1980) (Figure 8). When a stationary vessel was defined as any vessel that harvested 80% or more of the revenue in a single area, the mobility trends are similar to the above, but the number of vessels and the percentage of the vessels that are stationary is greater (Figure 8). In 1980 the NorthB fleet was more mobile than the WestB fleet and the WestB fleet more mobile than the SouthB fleet (Figure 8). C. S.E.P. Area Configuration Under the S.E.P. area configuration the mobility of the North Coast fleet increased during the 1977-1980 period (Figure 9): the percent of the fleet that was stationary ranged from 57% in 1977 (total number of vessels was 793) to 15% in 1980 (total number of vessels was 751). The values are greater i f a stationary vessel is defined as "a F i g u r e 9 - P e r c e n t of t h e G i l l n e t F l e e t T h a t Was S t a t i o n a r y Under t h e S.E.P. A r e a C o n f i g u r a t i o n - (1977-80) 100-BBSS V//A 80-100% catch single area UJ o tr LU CL NORTH - NORTH COAST CENTRAL-CENTRAL COAST NW ISLD- NORTHWEST VANCOUVER ISLAND SW ISLD - SOUTHWEST VANCOUVER ISLAND JOHN ST- JOHNSTONE STRAITS GEO ST - GEORGIA STRAITS FRASER - FRASER RIVER J DE F - JUAN DE FUCA STRAITS M 0 0 % catch single area cc o < a a H I- CO CO z z Z Z ^ Ul ^ ^ o O Z W T 1977 tr UJ u. CO ~" <r UJ U_ " 3 < Q Q x or _i - i (- h- CO CO o : z ; l i o fen CO UJ 8"  r * . J - ^ 3 rS u i 5 $ o u J t r Q O Z (/) - J (9 1L "D 1978 < f !-| U h X 2 _ l _J CO H }± CO CO z £ z s- Z ^  Z O Z CO - 3 1979 . tr ^ UJ u_ UJ rr Q o u_ - 3 x tr —i —i ^  hi UJ h- K CO CO z CO tr z " ~ x o < o UJ ^  $ o LU tr Z O Z C 0 - 3 C 9 U . - O 1980 UJ Q - 40 -vessel that harvested 80%-100% of the revenue from a single area" - 90% of the fleet in 1977, and 46% of the fleet, in 1980, were stationary. The Central Coast fleet mobility pattern remained relatively stable during the 1977-1980 period (Figure 9). The percent of the fleet that was stationary ranged from a high of 31% (128 vessels) in 1979 and a low of 13% (144 vessels) in 1978. For the same period, the Southwest Vancouver Island fleet displayed a decline in mobility: 6% of the fleet was stationary (11 vessels) in 1977 and 22% (77 vessels) of the fleet was stationary in 1980 (Figure 9). The mobility of the Johnstone Strait fleet decreased during the same period (Figure 9). There was an increase in stationary vessels: 14% (43 vessels) in 1978 and 41% (73 vessels) in 1980. The mobility of the Fraser River fleet was relatively stable in this period (Figure 9). The percent of the fleet that was stationary ranged from 50% (1995 vessels) in 1978 to 68% (394 vessels) in 1979. The mobility of the gil lnet fleets in the following areas; Juan de Fuca Strait; North West Vancouver Island and Georgia Stra i t , declined during the 1977-1980 period (Figure 9). This information must be carefully interpreted for the number of vessels that are stationary is so low that the percentage change could over represent the mobility trend. When the stationary vessel is defined as any vessel that harvested 80%-100% of its catch in a single area, the mobility trends of these fleets are similar to the above, but the over all mobility of the fleets was less (Figure 9). - 41 -D. Small Area-Whole Coast and.Small Area-/Part of the Coast  Configurations Under the Small Area-Whole Coast and Small Area-Part of the coast configuration, which includes Rivers-Smith Inlet, Nass River, and Barkley Sound, the total number of vessels that depend on these fisheries for the majority of their catch varied over time (Table 3). The majority of the vessels that engaged in these fisheries had small dependencies on them: Relative to the total number of vessels that harvested fish in these areas, the number of vessel that depended on them ( i . e . , 80% - 100% and 50% - 100%) of gross income is small (Table 3). In 1980, 1412 g i l lnet vessels engaged in the Rivers-Smith Inlet f i sher ies , but only 9 vessels harvest the majority of their catch from this area. Hence, when interpreting the data one should bear in mind the low g i l lnet catch levels . 4.1.2 Seine A. NorthA-SouthA Configuration Under the NorthA-SouthA area configuration the mobility of the NorthA and SouthA fleet was relat ively stable: the stationary component of the fleet ranged from 21% (83 vessels) in 1978 to 37% (122 vessels) in 1980 for the SouthA, and 8% (17 vessels) in 1979 to 18% (22 vessels) in 1978 for the NorthA (Figure 10). The NorthA fleet was more mobile NORTH/SOUTH A NORTH/SOUTH/WEST B 10 - Percent of the Seine F l e e t that was S t a t i o n a r y Under the NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB Area C o n f i g u r a t i o n s -(1970-71 & 1977-80) Table 3 - Number of Vessels in the Small Areas at Different Levels of Dependence for Good and Bad Years - Gillnet* Bad Year Good Year 50% - 100% (Year) 80% - 100% (Year) 50% - 100% (Year) 80% - 100% (Year) Rivers-Smith 9 (1980) 3 (1980) 235 (1977) 75 (1977) Barkley Sound 101 (1979) 49 (1979) 235 (1980) 98 (1980) Nass River 33 (1979) 4 (1979) 169 (1980) 25 (1980) *Note: This table indentifies the number of gi l lnet vessels that were dependent on the fisheries at two levels of dependence: 50% - 100% of their catch from a single area; and 80% - 100% of their catch from a single area. Also, two ranges were identified: years when the number of vessel were small and large. - 44 -than the SouthA f leet . Relative to the gi l lnet fleet the seine fleet was more mobile. For example, in 1980 the ratio of percent stationary g i l lnet to percent stationary seine was 1:4 for the NorthA fleet and 1:2 for the SouthA fl eet. B. NorthB-SouthB-WestB Configuration Under the NorthB-SouthB-WestB configuration, the mobility of the fleets were relat ively stable in the 1977-1980 period (Figure 10). The percent of the fleet that was stationary ranged from 5% (NorthB fleet in 1977) to 21% (WestB fleet in 1978), with the figures for the other areas for this period fa l l ing within this range. Relative to the g i l lnet fleet the seine fleet was more mobile. When a stationary vessel was defined as any vessel that harvested 80%-100% of i ts revenue in a single area, the percent of the fleets that was stationary was greater (Figure 10). The mobility trend was similar to that described above. However, relative to the g i l lnet f leet , the seine fleet was more mobile. C. SEP and Small Areas Configuration Under the SEP and small area configuration, there were few stationary vessels. Due to the small number of stationary seine vessels in each area, no analysis was conducted. If percentage values were assigned the information could deceptively over or understate the case. - 45 -4.1.3 Tro l l A. NorthB-SouthB-WestB For the 1977-1980 period the mobility of the t ro l l fleet declined under this configuration. For the SouthB fleet the proportion of stationary vessels increased from 70% (338 vessels) in 1977 to 80% (468 vessels) in 1980 (Figure 11). The mobility of the WestB fleet varied over this period: the proportion of stationary vessels ranged from a low of 55% (828 vessels) in 1979 to a high of 66% (864 vessels) in 1980. When a stationary vessels are defined as vessels that harvested 80%-100% of their gross revenue in a single area, the fleets were fa i r ly stationary during the 1977-1980 period. The proportion of the fleet that was stationary range from a low of 79% (1980) for the NorthB fleet to a high of 89% (1980) for the SouthB fleet - the other figures were within this range. The t ro l l fleet is not as mobile as the other gear groups based on the mobility pattern of the fleets under the NorthB-SouthB-WestB area licence configuration. The mobility trends for t ro l l fleet was not analyzed for the S.E.P. and small area configurations due to the nature of the t ro l l f i sheries . However, there is a substantial movement within specific areas. The fleet that work the West Coast Vancouver Island area, for example, move within this area f a i r l y extensively and the same can be said of fleets in other areas. - 46 -Fi g u r e 11 - 47 -4.2 V a r i a b i l i t y of Catch Based on an analysis of the 1971-1981 catch s ta t i s t i c s , the var iab i l i ty in catch by gear and by area increased as the coast was disaggregated into smaller fishing areas. With a reduction in the area! extent of the fishing areas, the var iab i l i ty in value of catch (or revenue) increases (Tables 4-7). There are a number of exceptions to this trend. There are some areas that are small in areal extent, but the coefficient of var iab i l i ty is less than for some of the areas that are large. Within specific area licence configurations, the coefficient of var iab i l i ty for specif ic gear types varies from sub area to sub area. For example, under the SEP configuration, the var iab i l i ty in catch of the g i l lnet fleet ranged from 0.334 in Fraser River to 1.158 in Georgia Strait (Table 6). A similar range exists for other gear types, and under different area licence configurations. Generally, the net fleets displayed greater var iab i l i ty than the t r o l l f leet , under the different area licence configurations (Tables 4-7). However, as the coast is disaggregated into smaller harvest areas, e .g . , moving from the NorthA-SouthA configuration to the Small Area-Whole Coast configuration, there are some areas where the var iab i l i ty in the catches by tro l l fleet was greater than the net fl eet. Within the net f leets , the var iab i l i ty in the catch for the g i l lne t fleet was greater than the seine fleet under the NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB area licence configurations (Table 5). However, - 48 -Table 4 - Var iabi l i ty in Catch by Gear Type and by Area, Under the NorthA-SouthA Area Licence Configuration. The Values are Coefficient of Variation (1971-1980).! Areas Gear Type NorthA SouthA Gil lnet 0.350 0.391 Seine 0.329 0.338 Trol l 0.144 0.317 Table 5 - Var iab i l i ty in Catch by Gear Type and by Area, Under the NorthB-SouthB-WestB Area Licence Configuration. The Values are Coefficient of Variation (1971-1980). Areas Gear Type North South West Gil lnet 0.350 0.380 0.443 Seine 0.329 0.415 0.400 Trol l 0.146 0.098 0.152 iThe coefficient of variation is a numeric indicator of v a r i a b i l i t y . Confidence l imits are not provided, hence significant differences must be qualitative asessed. Please note that this footnote applies to Tables 4-7. Table 6 - Variabi l i ty in Catch by Gear Type and by Area Under the SEP Area Licence Configuration, the Values are Coefficient of Variation (1971-1980). Areas North Central NW Van. SW Van. Johnstone Georgia Fraser Juan de Gear Type Coast Coast I si and Island Strait Strait River Fuca Gil lnet 0.360 0.589 0.992 0.385 0.420 1.158 0.334 0.570 Seine 0.390 0.387 0.858 0.581 0.502 0.445 - 0.533 Trol l 0.177 0.187 0.281 0.168 0.270 0.204 0.606 0.456 Table 7 - Variabi l i ty in Catch by Gear Type and by Area Configuration. The Values are Coefficient of Under the Small Areas Variation (1971-1981) Area Licence • Areas Gear Type Rivers-Smith Inlet Barkley Sound Nass River Rest of the Coast Gil lnet 0.881 0.392 0.569 0.318 Seine 1.207 0.677 0.870 0.126 Trol l 0.514 0.518 0.279 0.126 - s o -under the NorthB-SouthB-WestB scheme, the var iab i l i ty in the seine catch was greater than for the gi l lnet f leet . The exception is the SouthB area under the NorthB-SouthB-WestB area licence configuration. Under the S .E.P. and Small Area licence configurations, there is no particular trend in var iab i l i ty in catches for the g i l lnet and seine f leet . Depending on the area, the var iab i l i ty of catch for the seine fleet was greater than for the g i l lnet fleet (Table 6). Under the Small Area-Whole Coast licence configuration, the var iab i l i ty of the seine catch was greater than the g i l lnet catch (Table 7). The exception being that the g i l lnet catch was more variable than the seine for the larger areas. These trends in var iab i l i ty of catch by gear and by area, and the difference in the value of catch by time, gear and area, under different area licence configurations can be due to a number of factors. The number of vessels for each gear group in each harvest area, and difference in biological production and species mix in the areas could contribute to var iab i l i ty in catches. 4o3 Run Timing Overlap As the coast is disaggregated into smaller fishing areas, moving from NorthA-SouthA to Small Areas-Whole Coast area licence configurations, the overlap in the timing of the runs is reduced. Thus, the percent of the potential harvest from both areas could be greater as the area! extent of the area licence configurations is reduced. Table 8 to 15 show, the increase in the percent of potential catch for vessels - 51 -licenced for two areas, under the different area configurations. The purpose of this section is to describe such trends for each gear group under each area configuration. A. NorthA-SouthA Configuration Under this configuration the percent of the potential catch for a vessel licenced for two areas are: Gillnet 64%, Seine 74% and Troll 76% (Table 8). B. NorthB-SouthB-WestB Configuration Under this configuration the potential catch for a vessel with a licence for two areas is not substantially greater than under the NorthA-SouthA configuration. This is the case for the seine and t ro l l fleets. For the gil lnet fleet licenced for the NorthB-WestB (84%) and SouthB-WestB (80%) licence combinations, the potential catches are greater than under the NorthA-SouthA area licence configuration (64%) (Table 8). C. S.E.P. Configuration Under the S.E.P. area licence configuration the potential catch for vessels licenced for two areas displayed a wide range in percent values: Gillnet ranged from 64% to 99% with mean of 86%; Seine 61% -99% with mean of 84%; and Troll 60% - 100% with a mean of 82% (Table 9). These values are the summary of all the possible licence combination under this configuration in Tables 10-12. Relative to the NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB - 52 -configurations the percent of potential catch for vessels licenced for two areas is greater under the S.E.P. configuration. If the mean value under the S.E.P. configuration is compared to the values under the NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB, the forementioned values are greater. However, some of the values for the licence combination under the S.E.P. configuration are less than under the forementioned configurations (Table 10-12 and Table 8). D. Small Area-Part of the Coast/Whole Coast Configuration Under these configurations the value of potential catch for vessels licenced for two areas ranged from: 64% to 91% with a mean value of 81% for gi l lnet; 75% to 99% with a mean of 89% for seine; and 60% to 99% with a mean of 89% for tro l l (Table 9). These figures are the summary of the values in Tables 13 to 15. The potential catch figures are similar to that under the S.E.P. area configuration. However, i t should be noted that for the small area-whole coast configuration, al l the possible two licence combinations were not analyzed. Also, the degree of overlap varies over time. Though the supporting data are not provided, one can logically argue that in some years the stock strength and species mix of the harvests in the different areas varies over time. Hence, this could affect the extent of the contribution of catches from the two areas to the overall catch from both. Depending on the biological factors, the degree of overlap could be strong or weak. - 53 -Table 8 - Percent of Potential Catch for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas under NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB (1971-1980).* Area Licence Configuration Gil lnet Seine Trol l NorthA-SouthA NorthA-SouthA Licence combination 64% 74% 76% NorthB-SouthB-WestB NorthB-SouthB Licence combination NorthB-WestB Licence combination SouthB-WestB Licence combination 61% 73% 61% 84% 76% 71% 80% 74% 76% *The percent figure connotes the degree of overlap in the timing of the runs. If the figure is 100% this means that there is no overlap in the timing of the runs. Hence, i f a fisherman has a licence for both harvest areas, under a specific area configuration, they will be able to harvest 100% of the potential catch from both areas. If the figure is 50%, this means that 50% of the runs overlap in the timing of the runs. Thus, the fishermen with licences for two harvest areas, will be able to only harvest 50% of the potential catch from both areas. This note.applies to Tables 8 to 15. - 54 -Table 9 - Percent of Potential Catch for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under the SEP and Small Area Configurations (1971-1980). Area Licence Configuration Percent Range Mean Value SEP Gil lnet - Two Licences 64% - 99% 86% Seine - Two Licences 61% - 99% 84% Trol l - Two Licences 60% - 100% 82% Small Area - Part of the Coast (e .g . , River-Smith, Barkley, Nass and Rest of the Coast) Gil lnet - Two Licences 64% - 91% 81% Seine - Two Licences 75% - 99% 99% Trol l - Two Licence 66% - 99% 89% Table 10 - Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for two Licence Configurations - Gil lnet (1971-1980). Areas Under SEP Area North Central Coast Coast NW Van. SW Van. Island Island Johnstone Strait Georgia Strait Fraser River Juan de Fuca North Coast 50% 64% 99% 78% 84% 99% 72% 91% Central Coast 50% 99% 75% 84% 99% 66% 89% NW Vancouver Island 50% 95% 93% 91% 97% 89% SW Vancouver Island 50% 73% 97% 75% 77% Johnstone Strait 50% 96% 74% 70% Georgia Strait 50% 98% 93% Fraser River 50% 83% Juan de Fuca 50% Table 11 - Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for two Areas Under SEP Area Licence Configurations - Seine (1971-1980). North Coast Central Coast NW Van. Island SW Van. Island Johnstone Strait Georgia Strait Fraser River Juan de Fuca North Coast 50% 63% 0% 74% 80% 94% 0% 81% Cerftral Coast 50% 0% 79% 78% 95% 0% 77% NW Vancouver Island 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SW Vancouver Island 50% 89% 95% 0% 91% Johnstone Strait 50% 98% 0% 78% Georgia Strait 50% 0% 93% Fraser River 0% 0% Juan de Fuca 50% Table 12 - Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for two Areas Under SEP Area Licence Configurations - Troll (1971-1980). North Central NW Van. SW Van. Johnstone Georgia Fraser Juan de Coast Coast Island Island Strait Strait River Fuca North Coast 50% 60% 61% 70% 80% 82% 0% 99% Central Coast 50% 60% 77% 75% 79% 0% 99% NW Vancouver Island 5Q% 70% 80% 84% 0% 99% SW Vancouver Island 50% 90% 89% 0% 100% Johnstone Strait 50% 70% 0% 96% Georgia Strait 50% 0% 96% Fraser River 50% 0% Juan de Fuca 50% - 58 -Table 13 - Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under Small Area Configuration - Gil lnet (1971-1980). Rivers-Smith Barkley Nass Rest of the Inlet Sound River Coast Rivers-Smith 50% 76% 64% 90% Inlet Barkley Sound 50% 72% 93% Nass River 50% 91% Rest of the 50% Coast Table 14 - Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under Small Area Configuration - Seine (1971-1980). Rivers-Smith Barkley Nass Rest of the Inlet Sound River Coast Rivers-Smith 50% 90% 93% 99% Inlet Barkley Sound 50% 77% 95% Nass River 50% 90% Rest of the 50% Coast Table 15 - Potential Catches for Vessels Licenced for Two Areas Under Small Area Configuration - Trol l (1971-1980). Rivers-Smith Barkley Nass Rest of the Inlet Sound River Coast Rivers-Smith 50% 96% 66% 99% Inlet Barkley Sound 50% 96% 75% Nass River 50% 99% Rest of the 50% Coast - 59 -When interpreting this data i t is important to take into account, the following. F i r s t , where harvest areas are large, the potential harvests may overstate the true conditions. Under such area licence configurations, fishermen may fish within specific areas in each harvest area. For example, there are fishermen that may fish the Skeena and the Fraser Rivers. The degree of overlap is small under the NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB area configurations. The overlap is overstated and the potential catches for double licencing could be understated. Second, the analysis does not take into account the logis t ics of travel between two harvest areas. This could have a major effect on the harvest levels . Third, extent of overlap could change due to enhancement projects. The enhancement of specific stocks could be such that the contribution of a second area to gross revenue could be effected . 4.4 Possible Loss of Revenue Due to Labour Disputes The potential loss in gross revenue, due to a two week s tr ike , increases as the coast is disaggregated into smaller harvest areas (Table 16). The percentage loss in gross revenue in some of the areas is greater under the area licence configurations with smaller harvest areas (e .g . , Small Area and S.E.P. configurations) than the area licence configurations with large harvest areas (e .g . , NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB area licence configurations). The relative difference in percentage loss in gross revenue, between the least and the most affected f leet , also increases as the coast is disaggregated - 60 -into smaller harvest areas (Table 16). Depending on the timing of the strike - early season, i . e . , 21-22 weeks (mid-July) or late season, i . e . , 24-25 weeks (mid August) - the different fleets will be effected unequally. If a strike takes place in the early season, the fleets in the NorthA Region (e .g . , harvest areas within the NorthA harvest area) will be more adversely affected than the f leet in the SouthA Region (e .g . , harvest areas in the SouthA area) This can be attributed to the timing of the runs. The majority of the runs in the Northern Region peak before the runs in the Southern Region, the exception being the early sockeye runs in Barkley Sound, and Rivers and Smiths Inlet in the Southern Region. With a late s tr ike , the fleets in the areas that have late runs (or i f the catch is dominated by later runs), will be affected more than the previously mentioned areas. These areas are primarily in the Southern Region and the Central Coast. The effect for the fleets in the S.W. Vancouver Island and N.W. Vancouver Island areas may not be as great, for the bulk of the fleet catch is from the early sockeye fisheries and fa l l chum f isheries . Generally, the percent loss in gross revenue increases, as the coast is disaggregated into smaller harvest areas (Table 17). The percentage loss varies, with a high of 46% for the g i l lnet fleet under the Small Area licence configuration; 82% for the seine under the S .E.P . configuration; and 37% for the t r o l l under the S.E.P. The loss in gross revenues due to a two week strike depends on: the timing of the strike; the gear type; and the area within the licence Table 16 - Loss of Revenue Due to a Two Week Strike During Periods of Greatest Abundance for Each Gear Group and for Each Area - Percent of Gross Revenue (1971-1980). Gear Type and Weeks Area Licence Configurations Gillnet Week Seine Week Troll Week NorthA-SouthA NorthA 30% (20--21) 37% (21-22) 17% (21-22) SouthA 21 (22--23) 29 (24-25) 20 (23-24) NorthB-SouthB-WestB NorthB 30 (20--21) 37 (21-22) 17 (21-22) SouthB 22 (23--24) 31 (24-25) 19 (24-25) WestB 12 (28--29) 28 (25-26) 21 (23-24) SEP North Coast 40 (20--21) 41 (21-22) 18 (21-22) Central Coast 23 (19--20) 38 (20-21) 20 (23-24) NW Vancouver Island 15 (18--19) 82 (32-33) 32 (23-24) SW Vancouver Island 25 (19--20) 33 (20-21) 17 (22-23) Johnstone Strait 20 (21--22) 32 (24-25) 24 (24-25) Geogia Strait 26 (24 -25) 45 (24-25) 15 (18-19) Fraser River 29 (23--24) - ( - ) 37 (24-25) Juan de Fuca 27 (24--25) 48 (24-25) 33 (24-25) Small Areas Rivers-Smith Inlet 46 (18--19) 77 (19-20) 21 (23-24) Barkley Sound 29 (18--19) 41 (20-21) 15 (24-25) Nass River 32 (23--24) 49 (21-22) 25 (26-27) Rest of Coast 26 (22 -23) 28 (24-25) 20 (23-24) iThe percent values have been rounded off to nearest whole number. Table 17 - Loss of Revenue Due to a Two Week Strike During Early and Late Season in Percent of Gross Revenue (1971-1980).* Early Season, 21-22 Week Late Season, 24-25 Week Gear Type Gear Type Area Licence Con-figuration Gillnet Seine Troll Gillnet Seine Troll NorthA-SouthA (1:2) (1:3) (1:1) (1:1.25) (1:2) (1:1) NorthA 29% 37% 17% 13% 17% 16% SouthA 15% 12% 15% 17% 29% 17% NorthB-SouthB-WestB (1:6) (1:4) (1:2.5) 1:1.43 1:2 (1:1) NorthB 29% 37% 17% 13% 17% 16% SouthB 16% 13% 12% 17% 31% 19% WestB 5% 9% 7% 12% 24% 17% SEP (1:34) (1:41) (1:9) (1:26) (1:13) (1:5) North Coast 36% 41% 18% 9% 12% 15% Central Coast 22% 34% 17% 20% 20% 21% NW Vancouver Island 2% - • 17% - - 22% SW Vancouver Island 13% 22% 15% 9% 3% 14% John.Strait 20% 12% 10% 13% 32% 25% Geog. Strait 4% 1% 9% 26% 45% 7% Fraser River 13% - 2% 27% - 33% Juan de Fuca 8% 5% 2% 27% 40% 33% Small Areas (1:7) (1:2.5) (1:1.5) (1:74) (1:1) Rivers-Smith 13% 16% 16% 11% 5% 19% Barkley 4% 21% 13% 3% - 15% Nass 22% 49% 10% 11% 8% 18% Rest of Coast 23% 19% 16% 16% 28% 17% *The ratio is the comparison between the area with least loss in revenue and the area with the greatest loss in revenue. Also, the percentage figures have been rounded off to the newest whole number. - 63 -configuration. When a strike takes place i t is important, for the timing of period of greatest abundance of stocks varies in the different areas. If the harvest area is large in geographic extent, the potential loss in revenue is not as great as i t would i f the harvest areas are smaller (e .g . , S .E.P. and Small Areas, area licences configurations). Generally, the larger areas have a greater diversity in the number of stocks: The major exception being Johnstone Strait which is an area where many bypassing stocks are harvested. Also, the fleet in the NorthA Region, is heavily dependent on a single run, the Skeena River sockeye. Thus, i f a strike takes place in these areas, there will be greater losses than in the other large areas. Gear type is an important factor to take into account when assessing potential loss in revenues. That i s , the net and t ro l l fleet generally fish for different species and the ava i lab i l i ty of the species varies . The results of this analysis must be tempered by the following: 1. The losses are averages for the 1971-81 period, but during particular years the harvest levels may be greater or less than the average. That i s , there is var iab i l i ty in abundance (refer to Section 4.2). 2. Due to averaging, the potential effects of a strike during period of high abundance of specific runs, e .g . , Adams River Sockeye, is not demonstrated. For example, i f a two week strike takes place from the second or f i r s t week in August, the fleets in Johnston S tra i t , Juan de Fuca Strait and West Coast of Vancouver Island will be affected under the - 6 4 -NorthA-SouthA configuration. Under the NorthA-SouthA area licence configuration, the pure trol lers and seine fleet will be adversely affected, but the gil lnet fleet may not, for they will be able to access the stocks in the Gulf of Georgia ( i . e . , mouth of the Fraser River). 3. The data does not take into account changes in management regulations and structural changes in the fleet ( i . e . , composition of the f leet); and the development of fisheries through stock enhancement. 4.5 Salmon Enhancement Opportunities The enhancement potential for salmon and the species mix of the enhancement opportunities varies for each region under different area licensing configurations. Under the NorthA-SouthA configuration, the enhancement potential for all species is greater in the SouthA harvest area. The enhancement potential of the higher valued species (e.g. , chinook and sockeye) is also greater in the SouthA region (Table 18). Under the NorthB-SouthB-WestB configuration, the difference in enhancement potential between the different regions is reduced. However, the enhancement potential of the higher valued species is greatest in the SouthB region (Table 18). Under the S.E.P. configuration, the difference in enhancement potential is reduced. However, in certain regions, there is greater enhancement potential for the following reasons: Table 18 - Enhancement Opportunities in Different Areas Under Various Area Licence Configurations - Production in the Number of Piece in Thousands.* Gear Type and Weeks Areas Chinook Sockeye Pink Even Pink Odd Chum Coho Year Year NorthA-SouthA NorthA 294 23 3,645 1,060 2,168 650 SouthA 2,470 8,937 4,460 3,984 6,732 1,831 NorthB-SouthB-WestB NorthB 294 23 3,645 1,060 2,168 650 SouthB 1,740 8,699 4,110 3,984 2,616 1,138 WestB 730 237 350 - 2,348 693 SEP North Coast 240 176 956 60 841 515 Central Coast 61 179 2,689 1,000 1,727 155 NW Vancouver Island 440 - 350 - 1,157 379 SW Vancouver Island 290 237 - - 1,191 315 Johnstone Strait 520 170 4,110 3,589 1,484 447 Georgia Strait 75 - - 57 64 68 Fraser River 1,139 8,227 - 338 668 1,138 Juan de Fuca - - - - - -*The figures presented in this table are based on the data in the Summary Report on Manageable Enhancement Opportunities, by the Enhancement Opportunities Sub-Committee, Salmon Enhancement Program, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region (Geographic Working Group, 1982). - 66 -1. The Fraser River has a substantially greater enhancement potential for the higher valued species (e.g. , chinook, sockeye and coho) than all other regions; 2. The enhancement of even and odd year pinks is substantially greater in Johnstone Strai t ; and 3. In Juan de Fuca Strai t , the enhancement opportunities are not as great as the other regions. Though the analysis was not conducted for the Small Area-Whole Coast configuration, but based on the trend with the other configurations i t can be argued that the distribution of enhancement opportunities under this configuration are unequal. As the coast is disaggregated into smaller harvest areas the distribution of enhancement opportunities become unequal. Summary In the above section the result of the data analysis was provided. The information on fleet mobility, running timing over lap, variabi l i ty of catch, loss of revenue due to strikes; and salmon enhancement opportunities will be used in chapter five to evaluate and compare the five area licence configurations. This quantitative information will be used to complement, wherever possible, the qualitative assessment, in the next chapter. - 67 -CHAPTER 5 - EVALUATION OF AREA LICENCE CONFIGURATIONS 5.1 Introduction In this chapter the five area configurations will be assessed and ranked, applying the evaluative cr i t er ia in chapter two, in terms of four broad subject areas: management operations, socio-economic effects , biological effectiveness, and economic eff iciency. The evaluation and ranking makes use of the quantitative information generated in chapter four and other supporting information. The result of this section should be interpreted acknowledging the assumptions stated in this study and that the reader's values and perceptions may di f fer from that of the author's. 5.2 Management Operations The purpose of this section is to assess the five area licence configurations addressing the following subject areas: implementability of plans; and f l e x i b i l i t y of the plan. 5c2.1 Irnplementabi1i t y The purpose of this section is to evaluate the five area licence configurations in terms of whether they will result in management plans that are complex, and their social and po l i t i ca l acceptabil i ty. Socio-economic factors could affect the social and po l i t i ca l acceptabil ity of the management plans, but this will not be addressed in this section. - 68 -NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast Configurations These area licence configurations will not result in more complex management system than the other schemes for the following reasons. F i r s t , they are similar to the status quo. It will not be necessary to introduce other management tool(s) , and existing regulatory mechanisms wil l be compatible with these configurations. Under the NorthA-SouthA configuration an inter-harvest area allocation system wi l l not be necessary for existing regulatory mechanism (e .g . , time, gear, area and species-harvest-regulations) could be adopted to minimize inter-area harvest problems. The Small Area-Part of the Coast configuration wil l not pose any major complexities, for existing policy and regulatory mechanisms wil l be sufficient to address management problems. If problems do arise i t will not be a major issue, for the harvesters will elect to fish in the harvest areas that are smaller in geographic extent, knowing the circumstances they would be exposed to. Also, the number of harvesters affected under this configuration is less than other configurations, thus i t wi l l be more acceptable. The NorthA-SouthA and the Small Area-Part of the Coast area configurations wil l be more readily accepted than the other schemes for the following reasons. F i r s t , these area licence configurations wil l be least disruptive of fishermen's current harvest patterns. As indicated in chapter four (section 4.1), these configuration will have the least impact on the mobility of the f leets . Second, these area licence configurations will have less uncertainty associated with them. They are closer to the status quo - 69 -t h a n t h e o t h e r a rea c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , hence i t w i l l be e a s i e r f o r t h e user-groups t o c o n c e p t u a l i z e t h e s h o r t - and l o n g - t e r m consequences o f t h e s e schemes. Under t h e o t h e r schemes t h e economic , d i s t r i b u t i o n a l and b i o l o g i c a l r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e management p l a n s c o u l d be d i f f i c u l t t o c o n c e p t u a l i z e , and o t h e r p o l i c y t o o l s and r e g u l a t i o n s may be n e c e s s a r y . T h u s , t h e r e w i l l be g r e a t e r u n c e r t a i n t y and r i s k a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e m . T h i r d , t h e s e g r e g a t i o n o f a few s t a t i s t i c a l a reas ( e . g . , B a r k l e y Sound, R i v e r s - S m i t h I n l e t and Nass R i v e r ) w i l l no t r e s u l t i n t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f a l a r g e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e c a t c h f r o m t h e p r o v i n c i a l t o t a l (see T a b l e 1 9 ) . A l a r g e area o f t h e coas t w i l l be a v a i l a b l e t o t h e f l e e t s t h a t do no t e l e c t t o f i s h i n t h e smal l h a r v e s t a r e a s . Thus t h e y w i l l have maximum f l e x i b i l i t y t o a d j u s t t h e i r h a r v e s t s t r a t e g i e s . A l s o , t h e f i s h e r m e n t h a t e l e c t t h e smal l a reas assume t h e r i s k s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h : s t r i k e s , enhancement o p p o r t u n i t i e s , b i o l o g i c a l v a g a r i e s , and v a r i a b i l i t y i n v a l u e o f s p e c i e s . The f i s h e r m e n t h a t choose t h e l a r g e a rea w i l l no t be s u b j e c t t o new r i s k s , f o r t h i s a rea a p p r o x i m a t e s t h e s t a t u s q u o . Nor thB-Sou thB-WestB T h i s area l i c e n c e c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i l l r e s u l t i n a management p l a n t h a t i s more complex t h a n under t h e p r e v i o u s c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . F i r s t , i t may be necessa ry t o i n t r o d u c e a program t o a l l o c a t e t h e a l l o w a b l e c a t c h e s by gear group and by a r e a . A l s o , changes i n e x i s t i n g h a r v e s t r e g u l a t i o n s may be n e c e s s a r y . T h i s i s t h e case because o f t h e d i v e r s i o n o f s t o c k s t h r o u g h J o h n s t o n e S t r a i t v e r s u s Juan de Fuca S t r a i t ( I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commiss ion , 1 9 8 4 ) , w i l l r e s u l t Table 19 - Catch Contribution of Small Areas to Larger Areas.* NorthA-SouthA NorthB-SouthB--WestB S.E.P. NorthA SouthA NorthB SouthB WestB North Coast Central Coast All B.C. Rivers-Smith Inlets 1% 3% 4% 1% Nass River 25% 25% 39% 12% Barkley Sound 10% 20% 5% N.W. Vancouver Island 12% 24% 6% *Note: The percentage value were calculated using average value of catch for the gi l lnet-seine catches for the 1979-1980 period. This table identifies the percent of the catch each of the small areas (e .g. , Nass River) contribute to the B.C. salmon fishery and to the harvest areas under the different area configurations. - 71 -in fishermen having different opportunities of access to the surplus production. These changes ( e .g . , permit the net fisheries to take place in areas that were tradi t ional ly closed to them and allow the seine fleet in areas that were exclusively fished by the g i l lnet fleet) and other policy tools will increase the uncertainties. The result wi l l be gear confl icts and biological problems (e .g . , increased mixed stock f ishery, hence increased risk of over harvesting stocks). Second, the information requirements will be greater under this configuration. If an area-gear allocation scheme, accurate in-season and pre-season information on the strength of the runs, wil l be necessary, to ensure that area-gear allocations are not exceeded and harvest areas are not over, or under-subscribed. This configuration will not be as readily accepted as the NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations, because of the following: F i r s t , the NorthB-SouthB-WestB area configuration will restr ict the mobility of the f leets , more than the latter schemes (see Chapter 4, Section 4.1). The fleets will be restricted in their North-South movement, and movement between the Inside waters (e .g . , Fraser River and Johnstone Strait) and the West Coast of Vancouver Island. Second, the level of uncertainty wil l be greater because the coast will be factored into smaller harvest areas. The uncertainty will be related to the biological var iab i l i ty in each area (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2); the distribution of the fleet between the different - 72 -harvest areas; and complexity for other management tools and regulations will be necessary for an orderly harvest of the resources. Also, there is the risk of some harvest areas being over-subscribed and other areas under-subscribed: an area is under-subscribed i f the average catch is greater than the provincial catch average for the gear group. S.E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast Configurations These configurations, relative to the above configurations will result in more complex management plans. This will be the case for the following reasons. F i r s t , these schemes are considerably different from the status quo. Due to the nature of the resource and existing harvest/gear regulations, i t will be necessary to introduce other management tools and other harvest/gear regulations. For example, an allocation system will be necessary to address inter-area (transboundary) problems and problems related to the allocation of the resource by gear group and by area. To achieve this it will be necessary to change the harvest and gear regulations. These problems are greater under the S.E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast configurations for the coast will be factored into a more harvest areas. Second, related to the above there will be a greater need for different institutional arrangements. A system must be established to manage the transboundary problems. It will be necessary to establish a mechanism where the fishermen from each harvest area can communicate and work effectively with each other and with fisheries managers to draw up management plans. - 73 -Third , with an allocation system, the "gauntlet" nature of the f isheries , and the var iab i l i ty in catches, the information needs wil l be greater. An accurate predicative mechanism wil l be needed for pre-season and in-season management, to ensure that stocks are not over-harvested and to ensure that each gear group in each harvest area will realize their share of the catches. Thus, under these schemes, the fishery management plan will be more complex than other schemes. With the other configurations the biological information is not as c r i t i c a l , for the coast is not factored into small harvest areas. The S .E .P . and Small Area-Whole Coast configurations will not be as readily accepted as the previously mentioned schemes, for the following reasons. F i r s t , a larger percent of the harvesters' fishing pattern will be adversely affected. As indicated in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1) the mobility of the fleets will be constrained as the coast is disaggregated into smaller harvest areas. Second, these schemes are considerably different from the status  quo; biological var iab i l i ty will be greater (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2) ; and other management tools or harvest regulations wil l be necessary. Fishermen will not readily accept these configurations for they will have greater d i f f i cu l ty conceptualizing the short- and long-term consequences of the management plans. Thus, relat ive to the other configurations the fishermen wil l preceive that these schemes will result in greater risk and uncertainty. - 74 -Summary In terms of the implementation c r i t e r i a , the area configurations can be ranked, in decreasing level of acceptability as follows: 1. NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast; 2 . NorthB-SouthB-WestB; 3. S . E . P . ; and 4. Small Area-Whole Coast. 5.2.2 F l e x i b i l i t y The purpose of this section is to evaluate and rank the area licence configurations, based on whether they are amenable to change when unexpected biological and/or economic events occur, and whether they foreclose management options. Before evaluating the area licence configurations a brief discussion of the factors, that highlight the need for f l e x i b i l i t y , will be provided. Most salmon fishermen make in-season adjustments in response to var iab i l i ty in abundance of salmon. That i s , depending on their catch-per-unit-effort in one area relative to others, harvesters make decisions on where they will f ish at a particular time during the season. Adjustment in harvest strategy was exemplified by harvesters' response to the 1983 prediction for a above average returns, for the Skeena River sockeye runs. Due to the closure of the Fraser River ( i . e . , Fraser River was closed for the early July fisheries) and restrict ions on the Rivers-Smith Inlets sockeye fishery, many harvesters targetted on the Skeena run. When this run did not materialize, the - 75 -harvesters focused their efforts on the Central Coast chum runs and the Fraser River sockeye runs. This problem is an example of var iab i l i ty of catch by fleet in different areas (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2). The runs that return to the Fraser River pose a special problem because of the annual var iab i l i ty in abundance and areal var iab i l i ty due to the diversion of stock through Johnstone S t r a i t , e .g . , the diversion of sockeye runs through Johnstone Strai t ranged from 27% to 83%, during the 1978-1983 period (International Pacif ic Salmon Fisheries Commission, 1984). Year-to-year variations of relative abundance of stocks in different geographic areas is another factor that should be considered. That i s , in some years some areas will have high abundance, where other areas will experience low abundance, and the following years the trends could be reversed. Depending on the distribution of fishing ef fort , as well as the ab i l i t y to predict the strength of runs (plus whether area harvesting rights are permanent or whether choices are made annually) a reduction in the harvesters' f l e x i b i l i t y to adjust to abundance levels could pose major distributional and economic problems. These problems are compounded by var iab i l i t y in species mix of catches in various harvest areas and var iab i l i t y in the ex-vessel value of the f i sh , i . e , the value of salmon harvested by each gear type and by area has varied within season, inter-regional ly , and between season. The possible effects of the five area licence configurations against this c r i t e r i a will be assessed as follows. The degree to which management f l e x i b i l i t y will be restr icted, wi l l be assessed by - 76 -addressing: the mobility of the fleet; the var iab i l i ty in catches; and diversity in stocks in each harves area. To assess the potential in terms of the foreclosure of future management options, the focus will be on the degree of complexity of the management plan. A complex management system wi l l result in a fishery that will have greater iner t ia , for fishermen wil l make investment to adjust to the structure. NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast These area licence configurations offer the greatest f l e x i b i l i t y , to address inseason and season-to-season management issues. A number of factors enhance the f l e x i b i l i t y of these configurations. F i r s t , the harvest areas are large enough to provide diversity in runs. This wil l enable fishery managers to impose time, area and/or gear res tr ic t ions , for fishermen will have the f l e x i b i l i t y to harvest other runs. Also, a large percent of the fleets are stationary ( i . e . , not mobile to relative to the status quo s i tuat ion) , thus fishermen will be able to make adjustment in their harvest strategies within the harvest areas under these schemes (see Chapter 4, Section 4.1). Second, the Small Area-Part of the Coast configuration is similar to the status quo, hence maximum management f l e x i b i l i t y will be maintained. The small harvest areas alienated from the whole coast will not pose; a major management problem, for the harvester will be given the option to elect to fish in these small areas or the large harvest area. In the large harvest area the diversity in runs will be such that fishermen have alternative of runs they can fish i f harvest restrict ions are placed on some stocks. - 77 -Third , the problems related to the diversion of Fraser River stocks through Johnstone Strait or Juan de Fuca Strait wil l not pose any major problem. The fishermen can move within the SouthA harvest area to adjust to the var iab i l i ty in abundance in this area. Thus, f isheries managers will have the f l e x i b i l i t y to make adjustments to manage the different stocks. Fourth, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will have greater f l e x i b i l i t y in their choice of sites or stocks to enhance. This will be the case because unlike the other area configurations, where the mobility of the fleet will be restricted and the areal extent of the harvest areas smaller, fishermen will be able to access the production from enhancement projects. Thus, there will be less po l i t i ca l pressure to pursue enhancement projects on a regional basis to accommodate the distr ibution of the f leet . In terms of foreclosure of future management options, these configurations will offer greater f l e x i b i l i t y relative to others. Under the NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations, the i n i t i a l plan will not be inst i tut ional ly and structurally complex. Thus, i t will be easier to change or withdrawal the i n i t i a l plans and/or change them. F i r s t , in terms of withdrawing the i n i t i a l plan, these configurations do not pose a major problems, for the harvesters will not be induced to invest capital in the industry. For example, double l icensing will be minimized for the advantages of doing so are not great (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2). - 78 -Second, i f the desired end is to further disaggregate the coast into smaller harvest areas, these configurations offer the greatest f l e x i b i l i t y . The contribution of small areas to the total catches in the harvest areas, under these configurations, is small relative to the other configurations (Table 3). Thus, i f the coast is to be factored into smaller harvest area there will be less opposition from fishermen under these configurations than under the others. Third, in terms of long-term changes in area, time and gear regulations these area configurations offer the greatest f l e x i b i l i t y . Under these configurations, fishermen have a number of options to access surplus production. Thus, this condition offers the fisheries managers greater f l ex ib i l i ty to make changes in the harvest regulations. NorthB-SouthB-WestB This area configuration will not offer as much in-season f l ex ib i l i ty as the NorthA-SouthA and the Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations, for the following reasons. F i r s t , other than the NorthB harvest area (it is the same as the NorthA harvest area), the harvest areas under this configuration are smaller than under the NorthA-SouthA configuration. This means that the fishermen will have less runs to harvest, which could restrict the degree to which area, time and species regulations can be changed. This will be the case for fishermen in the SouthB and WestB harvest areas have less options. Second, under this configuration the fishermen will be unable to move between the West Coast of Vancouver Island region and the Fraser - 79 -River-Johnstone Straight region. Thus, management f l e x i b i l i t y to deal with the diversion of Fraser River stocks through Juan de Fuca Strait and Johnstone Strait will be reduced. Third , with the restr ict ion in the mobility of the f leet , and the disaggregation of the coast into smaller harvest areas, management f l e x i b i l i t y in terms of sites or stocks to enhance wil l be reduced. There will be greater pressure to pursue enhancement project on a regional basis to accommodate fleet distribution in l ieu of the most feasible projects. In terms of the foreclosure of future management options, this configuration offers less f l e x i b i l i t y relative to the NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations, for the following reasons. F i r s t , this configuration will result in a management plan that is much more complex, e .g . , the allowable catch will be allocated amongst the gear types in each area and by area. Also, more harvesters will invest in a second licence because the advantages of this strategy wil l be greater (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2). These structural and industry changes means that i t will be more d i f f i c u l t to withdraw the management plan or to change the i n i t i a l plan. Second, except in the NorthB harvest area, i t wil l be d i f f i c u l t to alienate small areas from the harvest areas under this configuration. The small areas will contribute more to the total catches in the harvest areas under the NorthB-SouthB-WestB, configuration than under the previously mentioned configurations. This wil l reduce management f l e x i b i l i t y in the withdrawl of the i n i t i a l plan or to change the plan. - 80 -Third, expect the NorthB harvest area, the harvest areas under this configuration are smaller in geographic extent, thus the diversity in stocks will be less relative to the NorthB-SouthB and Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations. Fishermen will have less options i f harvest restrictions are imposed. Thus, fisheries managers may lose some f l ex ib i l i ty in terms of making long-term regulatory changes. S.E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast These area configuration offer the least f l e x i b i l i t y in relation to in-season and season-to-season management for the following reasons. F i r s t , under these configurations the diversity in runs is small: this situation is greater under the Small Area configuration than the S.E.P. configuration. This could restrict fisheries managers in introducing harvest restrict ions, for the fishermen will not have very many options in the runs they can harvest. Second, because the coast is factored into a number of small harvest areas that are limited in geographic extent, fishermen will not have the f l ex ib i l i ty to respond to temporal and spatial variabi l i ty in abundance. This is a major problem in terms of the variabi l i ty in the rate of diversion of Fraser River,stocks through Johnstone Strait and Juan de Fuca Stra i t . Thus, management f l ex ib i l i t y will be reduced to address problems related to stock abundance, for fishermen will strongly oppose any harvest restrictions. Third, because the coast will be factored into small harvest areas, f l ex ib i l i t y in terms of sites or stocks to enhance will be - 81 -reduced. There will be greater pressure placed on management to enhance stocks on a regional basis in lieu of the best opportunities. This will be the case for these configurations restrict the mobility of the fishermen. Thus, the enhancement project must be adjusted to accommodate the distribution of fleet. In terms of the foreclosure of future management options, these configurations offer less f l e x i b i l i t y than the others for the following reasons. First these configurations will result in a more complex management system. The harvesters will respond to such situations by investing in the industry to maximize their returns, e .g. , purchase and/or lease a second vessel/licence (see Chapter 5, Section 5.4). The number of fishermen that will be involved in such behavior will be greater under these configurations than under the others, for the advantage of doing so will be greater (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2). This means that i t will be more d i f f i cu l t to withdraw or change the i n i t i a l plan. Second, under the S.E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast configurations the harvest areas are smaller in geographic extent, than under the other configurations. Thus, the diversity in runs will be less under these configurations. F lex ib i l i ty in terms of long-term changes in time, gear and area restriction will be less. It will be d i f f i cu l t to make such change, for the fishermen's mobility will be restricted, hence, their f l ex ib i l i t y to adjust to changes in the regulations will be reduced. Thus, the harvesters will pressure to prevent changes. - 82 -Third, i t will be d i f f i cu l t to alienate small areas from the harvest area under the S.E.P. configuration. This is the case for the small areas will contribute a large percent of the total catch in the harvest areas, under this configuration. This means that management f l e x i b i l i t y will be reduced i f the small areas is the desired end, for fishermen will strongly oppose the removal of fishing areas from the harvest areas. Under the S .E.P . configuration this problem is greater for the geographic extent of the harvest areas is smaller than the other area licence configurations. Summary In terms of management f l e x i b i l i t y , the area licence configurations can be ranked in decreasing order as follow: 1. NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast; 2. NorthB-SouthB-WestB; 3. S .E .P . ; 4. Small Area-Whole Coast. It may be important to maintain f l e x i b i l i t y so that the i n i t i a l plan can be adjusted to unexpected biological , economic or social events or to meet future objectives. 5.3 Socio-Economic Effects The purpose of this section is to assess the distributional and employment effects of the different area licence configurations. The focus of the distributional effects are as follows: effect - 83 -on the harvesters' access to the resource; effect on the harvesters' access to enhancement production; effect on fishermen's e l i g i b i l i t y for unemployment insurance benefits; and economic effects due to strikes (labour disputes). The focus of the employment effect cr i ter ia is whether the area configurations will displace fishermen. 5.3.1 Distributional Effects In this section the five area licence configurations will be assessed and ranked. This section is presented as follows. F i r s t , the assessment of the effects on harvesters' access to the resource is presented. This is followed by the assessment of the harvesters' access to production from enhancement projects. The following section focuses on the effects of the configurations on fishermen's e l i g i b i l i t y for unemployment insurance benefits. In the final section the effects of labour disputes under the different configurations are presented. The effect the configurations will have in terms of the harvesters access to the resource to realize catches that approximates the provincial catch average by gear group will be assessed in the following manner. First i t will be assumed that the fleet will be distributed among the harvest areas, under the different configurations, such that the theoretical provincial catch average will be realized. Then, the information on fleet mobility and variabi l i ty in catch will be used to determine how the area configurations will effect whether this catch level could be realized. Also, in this analysis factors such as existing harvest regulations and abi l i ty to predict stock strength will - 84 -be taken into account. The effect on the different area licence configuration in relation to the harvesters' access to production from salmon enhancement projects will be assessed as follows. The information on the distribution of enhanced opportunities, and the mobility of the fleet will be taken into account to determine the access of the different gear group in the harvest areas under the different area configurations. To determine the effects of the configurations on the fishermens' e l i g i b i l i t y for unemployment benefits the following information was used. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans catch statist ics was used to determine the number of weeks of fishing the different gear groups would realize in each harvest area under the different configurations. To determine the economic effects of the configurations due to labour disputes the information generated in Chapter 4 (Section 4.4) was used. Information on the revenue losses by gear group and by area under the different configurations is provided. The focus of the employment cr i ter ia is to assess the configurations in terms of their effect on the displacement of fishermen. The information on the number of fishermen displaced due to double licensing or leasing of second licence is used to determine th is . A. Effect on Harvesters' Access to Resources The purpose of this section is to assess the different configurations and rank them in terms of their effect on fishermens access to the resources. - 85 -NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast These area configurations will have the least effect on harvesters realizing a fair access to the resource (e .g . , realize catches that approximate the provincial catch average for their gear group). F i r s t , assuming that the vessels will be distributed between the harvest areas such that the different gear groups will have the opportunity to realize catches that approximate the provincial catch average, there will be no problems in attaining such catches. However, there may be a perceptual problem, for the tro l l fleet will be subjected to a three area system, under the NorthA-SouthA configuration: this will be due to the inside-outside A-licensing regulations, whereas the net fleet will have two harvest areas to select from. The tro l l fleet in the SouthA harvest area may not realize the provincial catch average due to the diversion of Fraser River stocks through Johnstone Strait and Juan de Fuca S tra i t . If a large percentage of these stock migrate through Johnstone Strait , the t ro l l fleet in the outside area of the SouthA harvest area may not have access to the Fraser River stocks. Second, under the Small Area-Part of the Coast configuration, there will be no major distributional problems. The majority of the fishermen will be in the harvest area outside of the small harvest areas. The fishermen will be able to adjust to variabi l i ty in stock abundance over space and time, for they have alternatives. Third, the gil lnet and t ro l l vessels that are capable of functionally operating as a combination vessel ( i . e . , capable of using two types of gear) will have greater access to the resource. The seine - 86 -vessels, the inside tro l l fleet and other single gear vessels, will have less access to the resource. NorthB-SouthB-WestB Under this configuration, the distributional effects will be greater than under the above configurations, for the following is a l i s t of reasons. F i r s t , the seine and the tro l l fleets in the SouthB and the WestB harvest areas may not realize the provincial catch average. If a large percent of the Fraser River runs are diverted through Johnstone Strai t , the seine, gi l lnet and tro l l fleet in the WestB harvest area will not be able to access the f ish. However, i f the stocks are diverted through Juan de Fuca Strai t , the seine fleet in the SouthB area will not realize their provincial catch average. This will be the case, for they are not permitted to harvest the stocks near the mouth of the Fraser River. The gil lnet and tro l l fleet in the SouthB harvest area will have access to the stock, for they are permitted to harvest the stocks near the mouth of the Fraser River. Second, access problems could occur, for the combination vessels will have greater opportunity to harvest the stocks. This will be a problem unless a single gear regulations is introduced. This problem is greater under this configuration relative to the previous mentioned ones for the harvesters' alternatives will be reduced. To off-set th is , expansion in the use of two gear will be greater. Third, i f the resource is allocated by gear and area, the harvesters may not realize the provincial average catches, due to the - 87 -different regulations for each gear group, and the limited predictive capability in determine stock strength, gear. For example, i f the pre-season stock strength prediction is greater than the in-season estimation, certain gear groups will not realize their catches. If the Fraser River stocks are diverted through Juan de Fuca S tra i t , the gi l lnet and tro l l fleets in the SouthB harvest area will bear the cost of ensuring that escapement targets are realized: The fleet at the beginning of the "gauntlet fishery" will be permitted to harvest the stock based on the l iberal estimate, but with in-season corrections in stock strength estimates the harvest levels will be reduced. The fleets at the end of the "gauntlet fishery" wil l be forced to conserve the resource. Thus, they will not realize their provincial catch average. S .E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast Configurations The access issues identified under the previous area licence configurations will be exacerbated under the S.E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast configurations, for the following reasons: F i r s t , under these configurations the variabi l i ty in catches in each harvest area will be greater (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2) and the mobility of the fleet will be restricted (see Chapter 4, Section 4.1). The fleets in the area that display high degree of variabi l i ty in catch will not be able to adjust their harvest strategy i f the abundance is low, for their mobility will be restricted. Under such conditions some fleets will not realize the provincial catch average. Second, under these configurations the access problems due to - 88 -combination vessels will be greater than under the other configurations. In the small harvest areas fishermen will have less opportunities to harvest fish using a single gear, hence to increase their access a second gear will be used. Third, with a resource allocation system, the potential for the different fleet not realizing the provincial catch average is greater under these configurations. This is the case i f the stock strength is over-estimated. Fleets that harvest the stocks at the end of the "gauntlet fishery" will bear the cost of realizing escapement targets. Also, i f the pre-season estimates are conservative, the fleets near the end of the "gauntlet fishery" will realize catches greater than the provincial catch average. This problem is greater under these configurations than the others, for the coast will be factored into smaller harvest areas and their opportunity to access the stock is l imited. The fleets under the other configurations have two or three points where the runs can be harvested. Summary In general the area licence configurations can be ranked as follows, in order of increasing distributional problems: 1. Small Area-Part of the Coast and NorthA-SouthA; 2. NorthB-SouthB-WestB; 3. S .E .P . ; and 4 . Small Area-Whole Coast. - 89 -B. Access to Salmon Enhancement Production The purpose of this section is to assess the possible consequences of area licensing, in terms of the distribution of benefits ( i . e . , access harvesters have to the production) from salmon enhancement opportunities. Two factors are important: 1) mobility of the fleets; and 2) the geographic distribution of enhancement opportunities. These are important, for the enhancement opportunities are not evenly distributed on the coast and to access the production the fleet needs to be mobile. NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast These configurations pose the least distributional problems compared to the other area licence configurations, for the following reasons. F i r s t , though the production from the manageable salmon enhancement opportunities is not equally distributed among the harvest areas (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.5), the fleets within each harvest area will have access to the production from the enhancement projects within their area. This is the case for the vessel can move from one fishery to another. Second, i t may be necessary to restrict the NorthA fleet from harvesting stocks that originate from the SouthA region. This could adversely effect the access the NorthA fleets will have to increased production from the enhancement projects based in the SouthA area. This is not a major problem,, relative to the other area configurations, for it does not entail major changes in existing harvest or licensing regulations. - 90 -Third, under the Small Area-Part of the Coast area licence configuration the harvest regime is similar to the status quo. The majority of the fleet, except those who elect the small harvest areas, will have access to the production from enhancement projects, for their mobility will not be restricted. NorthB-SouthB-WestB Under this area licence configuration the distributional problems could be greater than for those discussed in the previous section, due to the following reasons. F i r s t , the production of the different species is unequally distributed among the different harvest areas. With the fleet confined to smaller harvest areas, fishermen will not be able to access production from enhancement projects as readily under the NorthA-SouthA configuration. Second, the problem related to access of the stocks from the SouthA and WestB region by the NorthB fleet will exist under this configuration. However, changes to existing regulations will not be great i f the NorthB fleet is not permitted to harvest stocks that originate from the SouthB and WestB regions. However, i f the WestB fleet is restricted in harvesting enhanced stocks from the SouthB region the distributional problems will be greater. This will be the case for a large percentage of the enhancement potential is in the SouthB region. Third, due to the different rate of diversion of Fraser River stocks through Johnstone and Juan de Fuca Straits; the different harvest regulation for each gear type; and restriction on the mobility of the - 91 -f leets , the fleets and gear group in each harvest area may not have equal access to the production from enhancement projects. This problem is similar to that discussed in the previous section, on the harvesters' access to the resource. S .E.P. and Small Area - Whole Coast Under these configurations the distribution of the benefits from the enhancement projects will be less equitable compared to the forementioned schemes, for the following reasons. F i r s t , the distribution of enhancement production ( i . e . , total number of pieces and species mix) is not equal for each harvest area (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.5). With the harvesters' mobility restricted, the distribution of benefits from the enhancement projects will not be equitable. This problem will be greater i f the vessels are distributed among the different harvest areas, and there is a failure to take into account enhancement opportunities. Second, i f funds for enhancement projects are allocated based on efficiency cr i ter ia distributional problems will surface. With the fishermens' mobility constrained, they will not be able to access production from enhancement projects. Relative to the other configuration these two configurations pose the greatest problem, for the coast will be factored into small harvest areas. Third, with a greater number of areas from which stocks originate, i t may be necessary to develop a complex allocation scheme. This may result in changes in existing harvest regulations, which in - 92 -turn will effect the harvesters' access to the production from non-enhancement projects. Fourth, the distributional problem related to diversion of stock will be greater, for the fleet is restricted in i t mobility. With limited capability in predicting stock strength, problems could arise in the distribution of catches. Summary The area licence configurations can be ranked in increasing order of disproportionate distribution of production from salmon enhancement projects. 1. NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast; 2. NorthB-SouthB-WestB; 3. S . E . P . ; and 4. Small Area - Whole Coast. C« Unemployment Insurance E l i g i b i l i t y The purpose of this section is to assess and rank the different area licence configurations in term of their effects on the harvesters' e l i g i b i l i t y for Unemployment Insurance Benefits. Fishermen are el igible to receive Federal Unemployment Insurance benefits, i f they f u l f i l l the e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a . This depends on the nature of the individual's legal arrangement, i . e . , whether or not the fishing operation is incorporated. To be e l ig ib le , the number of weeks an individual must work is as follows: 18 weeks for repeaters, i . e . , individuals who claim on an annual basis, and 20 weeks for new claimants. - 93 -The length of a fishing season under the present system, depends on: (1) the timing of the opening and closure of the fisheries; and (2) the harvest strategy of the individual fishermen. The timing of the opening and closure of each fishery, is determined based on: (1) the strength or abundance of the stocks; (2) the timing of the runs; (3) the amount of fishing capacity involved in each fishery; and (4) other biological and fleet considerations. For the tro l l f leet, the length of the season is determined considering the forementioned factors. However, the season is closed when the fleet has harvested its alloted quota, or when there is potential for over-harvesting the stocks. To evaluate the effect of area licensing on the fishermens' e l i g i b i l i t y for unemployment benefits, the following procedure was used: 1. For each gear group, in each harvest area under each area licence configuration, the value of their catch for the length of the season was computed. The 1977-1980 Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region catch stat ist ic was used, and this period was selected for i t reflects current fishing conditions. 2. For each group in the harvest areas, the weeks where $100,000 catches where realized was considered as a week for unemployment. This figure was selected for i t is the minimum amount the fleet would have to harvest, to ensure average catch, where the individual fisherman would qualify for a "weekly work stamp." - 94 -NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB Under these area configurations the fleets are not at great risk of losing unemployment insurance benefits. However, the net fleet in the NorthA region is at slight risk of not qualifying (Table 2 0 ) . The seine fleet is at greater risk of losing the benefits for their abi l i ty to switch gear within season, is restricted compared to the gil lnet and tro l l f leet, due to the physical layout of the vessel, economics of inseason gear changes, and the organizational nature of the operation ( i . e . , seine operation employs 5-6 people and the tro l l operation employ a maximum of 3 people). Also, the number of harvest areas available to the seine fleet is less than the gil lnet and tro l l f leet . Harvest regulations are such that seine fleets are permitted to fish in specific areas, but such restrit ion do not exist for the tro l l and g i l lnet . S .E.P. and Small Area - Whole Coast Under the S .E.P. configuration, the number of harvest areas where the fishermen do not fish enough weeks to be el igible for unemployment insurance benefits is greater than the NorthA-SouthA and NorthB-SouthB-WestB configurations. However, the tro l l fleet is at less risk than the net fleet (see Table 2 0 ) . By implication the Small Area-Whole Coast configuration will provide even fewer weeks of fishing, hence increase the risk of fishermen not qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits. - 95 -Table 20 - Length of the Fishing Season in weeks 1977-1980 Averages.* Harvest Area Gillnet Seine Troll NorthA-SouthA Configuration NorthA 16 SouthA 28 15 24 25 33 NorthB-SouthB-WestB Configuration NorthB 16 SouthB 27 WestB 23 15 21 21 25 28 31 S.E.P. Configuration N. Coast Central Coast N.W. Van. Island S.W. Van. Island Johnstone Strait Georgia Strait Fraser River Juan de Fuca Strait 17 17 2 22 18 4 22 15 15 11 3 15 19 6 14 24 21 28 30 25 25 3 Small Areas Configurations Rivers-Smith Inlet Barkley Sound Nass River Rest of Coast 11 17 14 27 3 10 12 22 11 31 9 33 *The length of the season is based on the number of weeks the areas was opened for fisheries and the average annual catch for a given week was greater than or equal to $100,000 for all gear groups for a given area, These figures were computed using the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region, catch ta t i s t i c s . - 96 -Small Area - Part of the Coast Under the Small Area-Part of The Coast configuration, the fishermen at greatest risk of being inel igible for unemployment insurance benefits will be those that elect to fish in the small areas. For example, i f Rivers and Smith Inlets, Barkley Sound and Nass River are alienated from the rest of the coast, the fishermen that elect to fish there will be at risk of not qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits (Table 20). However, this may not be a major problem for fishermen have a choice under this configuration; to fish in an area where their mobility is restricted, or to fish in areas where their mobility is not restricted. The risks associated with qualifying for the benefits will be less. Unlike the other configurations this scheme places the least number of fishermen at risk of not being el igible for benefits. Summary Based on the information used in this analysis, the area licence configurations, that will result in least risk to fishermen of not qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits are: Small Area-Part of the Coast; NorthA-SouthA; and NorthB-SouthB-WestB. The area licence configurations that will have the highest risk are: S .E .P . ; and Small Area-Whole Coast, particularly the latter configuration. When interpreting these results, one must be careful because the analysis is based on the 1977-1980 data. This period was chosen because i t reflects the nature of the existing management system. Also, only - 97 -the weeks where $100,000 catches were recorded for each gear group was considered a week. There are a number of limitations to this analysis. F i r s t , in some areas the weeks could be longer or shorter, depending on the cycle year. For example, under the NorthB-SouthB-WestB, S.E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast configurations, the net fleets seasons could be shorter i f the Fraser stocks are routed through Johnstone S tra i t . The fleet will not be able to respond to variabi l i ty in abundance due to the restriction in mobility imposed by the management plan. Second, i f the management trend is to harvest stocks when escapement can be attained, the seasons could be shorter, though the opening could be longer in duration. This has been the recent strategy adopted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans particularly, in areas where there is a terminal fishery. Third, i f the coast is factored into small areas, and the vessels are distributed in an optimum manner ( i . e . , the capacity in each area is such that the gross catch for each vessel in all areas is equal or close to the provincial average), the length of the season may not be restricted so that the fishermen may not be at risk of being inel igible for unemployment benefits. In some of the areas, the season could be extended for the risk of over-harvesting stocks could be reduced. D. Effects of Labour Disputes Though the whole fishing industry is not unionized, strikes can effect the gross income of fishermen. The purpose of this section is to - 98 -assess and rank the area licence configurations in terms of the potential effects of two week strikes. This analysis was carried out using the quantitative information generated in Chapter 4, Section 4.4. NorthA-South A-Small Area-Part of the Coast The effects due to a two week strike is not as great under these area configurations as it will be under the other schemes, for the following reasons. F ir s t , the loss of gross revenue by all gear groups in the harvest areas is not as great as it is under the other configurations (refer to Chapter four, section 4.4). This is the case for strikes in the early and late season, and for periods when maximum loss could be realized. Second, under the Small Areas-Part of the Coast area configuration, the loss of gross revenue by fleets in small harvest areas, though great, should not be a major concern, for fishermen that elect these areas do so assuming the risks associated with their decision. Under this configuration the difference in revenue losses by each gear group in the different harvest areas, for both the early and late strikes ranged from: 1:1 for the t r o l l ; 1:2 for the g i l lnet ; and 1:3 for the seine fleet (Table 17). If the labour disputes take place in the early season the net fleet in the NorthA area will lose more than the fleet in SouthA area. The reverse occurs i f the labour disputes take place later in the season. Also, under this configuration, the different gear groups could - 99 -be effected differently i f the strikes take place during periods when each gear group, in the different harvest areas, will experiences the greatest loss in revenue (Table 16). The t ro l l fleet will be least affected, then the g i l lnet , and they will be followed by the seine f1eet. NorthB-SouthB-WestB Under this area configuration the effect of strikes will be greater than under the aforementioned configurations, but not as great as under the S.E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast schemes. F i r s t , the loss of revenue is greater for each gear group and in some cases the percentage loss in revenue is greater relative to the loss under the NorthA-SouthA configuration (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.5). However, relative to the other area licence configurations the losses are not as great. Also the difference in revenue losses are not as great. Second, under this configuration the difference in revenue losses, by each gear group in the different harvest areas, for both early and late strikes, ranged from: 1:1 for the tro l l fleet; 1:2 for the seine fleet; and 1:6 for the gi l lnet f leet. If an early strike takes place, the NorthB fleet will be effected more than the WestB f leet . Also, the least affected group will be the tro l l fleet, followed by the gillnet fleet and then the seine f leet . If a late strike takes place the SouthB fleet will be affected the greatest, but the difference in revenue loss by the fleets in the different harvest areas will not be - 100 -substantial, the differences ranged from: 1:1.43 for g i l lnet; 1:2 for seine; and 1:1 for tro l l (Table 17). If the strikes take places during the period when the gear groups would experience the greatest loss in revenue, the t ro l l fleets will be least affected (e .g. , maximum loss of 22% of gross revenue), followed by the gi l lnet fleet (e .g . , maximum loss of 30% of gross revenue) and then the seine fleet (e .g . , maximum loss of 37% of gross revenue). S .E.P. and Small Area - Whole Coast Strikes will have the greatest effect on the gross revenue of the fleets under these area licence configurations, for the following reasons. F ir s t , the loss of revenue for all gear types, in the different harvest areas is greater than the aforementioned configurations (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.4). Under the S .E.P. configuration, the loss in revenue due to an early strike showed the following ranges: 2% to 38% for the t ro l l fleets; 2% to 36% for the gil lnet fleets and 1% to 41% for the seine fleet (Table 17). Similar trends existed i f a late strike took place during this period (Table 17). The timing of the labour disputes effects the fleet differently. If the strikes takes place early in the season, the fleets in the harvest areas that have earlier runs (e.g. , North Coast and Central Coast) will be most adversely effected. If the strikes take place later in the season, the fleet in the harvest areas with latter run (e .g . , Johnstone Stra i t , Georgia S tra i t , Fraser River and Juan de Fuca Strait) will be affected the most. - 101 -Second, the percentage loss in the gross revenue is the greatest under these configurations than under the above schemes (Table 17). This is the case for an early or late strike and i f a two week strike takes place when the potential for maximum loss will be realized. If strikes take place when the gear groups in the different harvest areas will experience the greatest losses, this configuration will result in losses greater than under the other configurations. For example, under the S .E.P. configuration the loss in revenue ranged from 15% to 37% for the t ro l l fleet; 15% to 40% for the gilnet and 32% to 82% for the seine. These losses are greater than under the other configurations except the Small Area-Whole Coast configuration (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.4). Third, similar trends should exist for the Small Area-Whole Coast configuration. Though this analysis was not conducted for this configuration the analysis for the small harvest areas under Small Area-part of the Coast indicate such trends would exist. This will be the case for the small areas under this configuration are areas within the harvest areas under the S.E.P. configuration. Thus, factors that affect these harvest areas under the S .E.P. configuration will affect the harvest areas under the Small Area-Whole Coast configurations. Summary Based on the effect that a two week strike will have on the gross revenue of fleets, under the different area licence configurations, the schemes can be ranked in order of increasing effects: - 102 -1. Small Area-Part of the Coast and NorthA-SouthA; 2. NorthB-SouthB-WestB; 3. S . E . P . ; and 4. Small Area-Whole Coast. 5.3.2 Effect on Employment The purpose of this section is to assess and rank the different area licence configurations in terms of the possible effects they will have on the displacement of fishermen. Area licensing could result in the reduction of the number of fishermen employed in the industry. With area licensing the catches by the fleets will be more variable within each harvest area (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.3). To minimize the var iabi l i ty in their catch, fishermen could pool their catches ( i . e . , work with other fishermen licensed for different harvest areas) or purchase or lease a second 1icence/vessel. The latter approach would reduce the variabi l i ty in catch and could result in an increase in catches (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.2). These strategies will result in fishermen being displaced from the industry. This analysis was based on the 1980 fleet mobility data. To determine the number of fishermen that would be displaced from the fishery the following assumptions were made: one gil lnet vessel equals one person; one tro l l vessel equals two people; and one seine vessel equals six people. Also, 50% of the mobile vessels will buy or lease a second vessel, and the owners of the stationary vessels ( i . e . , any vessel that harvest 80% to 100% of their catch from a single area) will not purchase or lease a second licence. - 103 -Based on the advantages of acquiring a second licence and the above assumption, the different configuration can be assessed and compared in terms of this cr i ter ia as follows. NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast Under these area licence configurations the number of fishermen that will be displaced will be less than under the other configurations. There are two major factors to consider: F i r s t , the var iabi l i ty in catch (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2) and advantages of holding a second licence/vessel (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3) will be least under this configuration. Thus, there will be fewer fishermen effected under the NorthA-SouthA configuration (Table 21). For example, 332 people in the gillnet and 816 in the seine fleet will be displaced under the NorthA-SouthA configuration, and 637 people in the gil lnet and 1,174 people in the seine fleet under the S .E.P. configuration. Second, under the Small Area-Part of the Coast configuration, the number of vessels that elect the small harvest area will be small, hence the number of fishermen that will purchase or lease a second 1icence/vessel will be less than the other area licence configurations. NorthB-SouthB-WestB Under this area licence configuration the number of fishermen that will be displaced could be greater than the above area licence configurations, but less than the S.E.P. and Small Area - Whole Coast schemes. - 104 -Table 21 - Number of Fishermen that could be Displaced Under Different Area Configurations. Gil lnet Seine Troll NorthA 240 432 SouthA 92 384 Total 332 816 NorthB 227 360 SouthB 117 441 WestB 77 126 Total 421 927 North Coast 200 186 Central Coast 186 435 N.W. Van. Island 13 9 S.W. Van. Island 105 25 Johnstone Strait 35 456 Georgia Strait 12 15 Fraser River 68 -Juan de Fuca Strait 18 48 Total 637 1,174 *Note: This analysis is based on the 1980 fleet mobility data. In calculating the figures the assumptions were; one gi l lnet vessel equals one person; one tro l l vessel equal two people; one seine vessel equals six people. 50% of the mobile vessel owners will buy or lease a second licence; and the owners of the stationary vessels will not purchase or lease a second licence (a stationary vessel is any that harvests 80% - 100% of i ts ' catch in a single area). - 105 -The variabi l i ty in catch under this configuration is greater than NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations, but less than the other configurations (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2). Also, the advantage of holding a second licence/vessel is greater under this area configuration than the NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations, but less than the S.E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast schemes (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3). Thus, the number of fishermen that will be displaced will be greater under this configuration than the NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast configuration but, less than the other configurations (see Table 21). S .E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast Under this area licence configurations, the number of fishermen that could be displaced will be greater than under the other area licence schemes. The variabi l i ty in catch (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.2) and the advantage of acquiring a second licence/vessel (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.3) will be greater than the other configurations. Hence, the number of fishermen that will be displaced will be the greater under these configurations (Table 21). Summary Due to the trends in catch variabi l i ty and the potential gains in catches by leasing or purchasing a second licence, the area licence configurations can be ranked in the following increasing order in terms of the displacement of fishermen: - 106 -1. Small Area-Part of the Coast and NorthA-SouthA; 2. NorthB-SouthB-WestB; 3. S .E .P . ; and 4. Small Area - Whole Coast 5.4 Biological Effectiveness The purpose of this section is to evaluate and rank the five area licence configurations in terms of the following c r i t e r i a : (1) will they result in sufficient escapement; (2) will the plans minimize the harvesting of multiple stocks; (3) will the plan fac i l i ta te the enhancement of stocks at low productive levels; and (4) will the plans reduce the fleet concentration? To assess the configurations against the forementioned c r i t e r i a , the quantitative information on the variabi l i ty of the stocks will be used along with qualitative assessments. For example, with the "gauntlet fishery" under a resource allocation system, the risk of over-harvesting is greater i f the pre-season stock estimates are greater than the actual strength of the returns. In the case of the Johnstone and Juan de Fuca Straits f isheries, the risk of over-fishing of the major stock and lesser stock is greater, and multiple stock fisheries will not be reduced. In terms of fleet concentration, the area configurations will be qualitatively assessed, considering the size and number of harvest areas under each area configuration. - 107 -NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast These configurations offer the greatest opportunity in terms of realizing the biological goals, for the following reasons. F i r s t , in terms of attaining sufficient escapement, area, time, gear, and species regulations can be applied. Under these configurations these regulations will meet less pol i t ical resistance than the others. This is the case for the fishermen will have greater harvest opportunities under these configurations than they would under the other schemes. Thus, they will have more f l ex ib i l i t y to adjust their harvest strategies. Second, in terms of minimizing multiple stock harvests, these configurations offer the greatest f l e x i b i l i t y . Due to the large geographic extent of the harvest areas—the diversity in stocks will be greater, and area to harvest the stocks will be greater—harvest restrictions can be imposed with a minimum impact of the harvesters' access to the resource. Thus, under these configurations there will be less pol i t ical pressure against such changes, than under the other configurations. Third, under these configurations, low productive stocks can be protected by applying different harvest regulations. There will be less pol i t ica l pressure against such changes for the geographic extent of the harvest areas, hence the diversity in stocks, will be greater under these configurations than under the other configurations. This means that the fishermen will have other options to realize their catches. - 108 -Fourth, problems related to fleet concentration, though less than under the status quo situation, will be greater than under the other configurations. Under the NorthA-SouthA configuration the effect of fleet concentration will be reduced for the fishing fleet will be distributed among the two large harvest areas. The Small Area-Part of the Coast configuration will not offer any major advantage for this configuration is similar to the status quo: fleet concentration will be reduced in the small harvest areas. NorthB-SouthB-WestB In terms of the biological effectiveness c r i t e r i a , this area licence configuration will have the following effects. F i r s t , some problems could be encountered in realizing escapement targets. Under this scheme i t may be necessary to introduce a system to allocate the resource by area and by gear group. If the pre-season stock estimates are greater than the actual return, fishermen may apply pol i t ica l pressure to ensure they attain their allotment. This problem will be greater in the harvest areas that target on the Fraser River stocks: with the varying rate of diversion of these stock through Johnstone and Juan de Fuca Straits , the opportunity to access the resource will vary. Second, in terms of reducing fishing effort on multiple stocks, this area configuration offers less f l ex ib i l i ty than the previous configurations. This is the case for the harvest areas under this configuration are smaller, in particular the NorthB and the SouthB areas, hence the fishermen's options to harvest the resources will be - 109 -reduced for the stock d ivers i tywi l 1 be less. Thus, i f regulatory changes are to be introduced, to minimize multiple stock fisheries, there will be greater pol i t ical pressure against such changes under this configuration. S .E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast Configurations Under these configurations the problems in terms of realizing escapement goals, minimizing mixed stock harvests and enhancing low productive stocks will be exacerbated, but there will be a reduction in the effects of fleet concentration, for the following reasons. F i r s t , with the reduction in the geographic extent of the harvest areas (in particular the Small Area-Whole Coast configuration) fishermen will have less harvest opportunities. To realize these biological goals, harvest restrictions will be necessary, but such regulatory changes will be po l i t i ca l ly opposed, for the fishermen will not have the f l e x i b i l i t y to adjust to such changes. Second, these problems will be exacerbated i f a resource allocation scheme is adopted in the industry. If the pre-season stock strength estimate is greater than what is estimated based on in-season harvest levels, stocks could be over-harvested. The fleets at the beginning of the "gauntlet fisheries" will realize their allotment, but fleet at the end of such fisheries will have to bear the cost of attaining the biological goals, unless stocks are to be over-harvested. Under such circumstances there will be pol i t ical pressure to extend fishing time at the risk of over-harvesting to ensure the fleets catch - 110 -their fair share of the resource. This is a major problem under these area configurations for the mobility of the fleet will be severely restricted, for the coast will be factored into a number of small harvest areas. Also, the abi l i ty of fisheries managers to predict stock strength is not accurate. Third, under these configurations, the problem related to fleet concentration will be reduced. This is the case for the fishing fleet will be distributed among a number of harvest areas. This could pose some biological problems, for i f an areas is over-subscribed ( i . e . , more vessels than what the catches can economically support) fishermen may apply pol i t ical pressure to have a fishery at the risk of over-harvesting the stocks. The pressure will be greater under these configurations, for the fishermen will not have the f l ex ib i l i t y to adjust their harvest strategy to accommodate periods of low abundance. With the reduction in fleet concentration, there is the potential for a "husbandry ethic" to be established. Under such conditions i t could be in the best interest of fishermen to protect the resources within their harvest area, to ensure a sustainable revenue. This type of behavior would only be possible in the harvest areas where the fleet has sole acces to the resource. Under such situations the biological goals could be effectively realized. Summary In terms of attaining biological goals the different area licence configuration will have varying effects. The area licence - I l l -configurations can be ranked in decreasing order of realizing the biological goals as follows: 1. Small Area-Part of the Coast and NorthA-SouthA; 2. NorthB-SouthB-WestB; 3. S .E .P . ; and 4. Small Area-Whole Coast. In general, as the coast is factored into smaller harvest areas, the greater the problems in attaining the biological goals. However, under the configurations with smaller harvest areas fleet concentration will be reduced. Area licensing could pose problems in realizing the biological goals, unless a "husbandry ethic" is established. 5.5 Economic Efficiency (Vessel Fleet Efficiency) The focus of the following section will be the efficiency of the harvest sector, as i t relates to area l icensing. The efficiency aspects that will be assessed are the effects of area licensing on the fixed and variable costs of the f leet . The analysis will be conducted in the following manner. The different area configurations will be qualitatively assessed in terms of their effect in reducing capital investment. Equipment and fuel costs, in terms of economic effects of vessel cannibalization ( i . e . , purchase or lease of a second licence to allow for double licensing) the quantitative information on advantage of such investment will be used (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3). - 112 -NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast Configurations The economic efficiency gains under these configurations will not be as great as the gains under the other configurations that factor the coast into smaller harvest areas, for the following reasons. F i r s t , efficiency gains could be attained by the cannibalization of vessels through the purchase or lease of a second licence/vessel. This will be the case i f the cost of purchasing or leasing is less than the revenue generated during the capitalization period. The efficiency gain through such investments will not be as great under these configurations, as it will be under other configurations, for the advantages of double licensing are not as great (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3). Second, i t may not be necessary for fishermen to invest in gear and equipment to engage in a number of f isheries. The NorthA seine fleet need not invest in power skiffs to engage in the Juan de Fuca fishery, and the SouthA fleet need not invest in equipment for the fishery in the NorthA region. The gi l lnet fleet, which requires specialized gear (in particular the physical dimension of the meshes and twine), will not need to purchase gear for a number of f isheries. Since the fleet mobility will be restricted, the NorthA and SouthA fleet would purchase gear specific for the fishery in their harvest area. For example, the NorthA fleet will not invest in nets for the Juan de Fuca, Barkley Sound, Fraser River and Johnstone Strait f isheries. Third, there will be a reduction in the variable costs of f ishing, in particular fuel , for inter-area mobility will be restricted. However, the fleets that have had strategies that focused - 113 -their fishing effort within the NorthA or SouthA harvest areas may not realize any reduction in the fuel costs. Fourth, under the Small Area-Part of the Coast area licence configuration there could be a reduction in the size of vessels. This would take place in the harvest areas where the local conditions do not warrant a vessel for heavy seas. This will result in the reduction in the fixed cost of harvesting f i sh . However, the number of vessels involved under this configuration will be less than the other configurations. NorthB-SouthB-WestB Under this area licence configuration the potential for the reduction in harvest costs, hence the increased efficiency of the f leet , will be greater than the previous configurations, for the following reasons. F i r s t , the number of vessels/licences that could be cannibalized will be greater under this configuration than under the Small Area-Part of the Coast and the NorthA-SouthA configurations (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.3). This will mean that the fixed and variable costs will be less under this configuration than the above schemes. This assumes that the fixed and variable costs of the new operation does not exceed the costs under the old operation, during the amortization period. Second, with the reduction in the geographic extent of the harvest areas, fishermen will not need a diverse inventory of fishing gear. Thus, there will be a reduction in harvesting cost under this - 114 -configuration, compared to the NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations. For example, gi l lnet fishermen licensed for the WestB harvest area will not need nets for the Fraser River, Johnstone Stra i t , and Rivers-Smith Inlet f isheries. And fishermen licensed for the SouthB harvest area will not need net for the fisheries in the WestB harvest area. Third, the harvest areas under this configuration will be smaller in geographic extent relative to the above configurations, hence there will be less movement within these harvest area. Thus, the fuel cost will be less under this configuration relative to the NorthA-SouthA and the Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations. Fourth, i f the older vessels are replaced, capitalization costs could be less. Under this configuration, relative to the above mentioned configurations, the harvest areas are smaller in geographic extent. In some harvest areas the vessel will be designed for local harvest conditions in l ieu of building vessels to meet the tonnage limit of the licence. This means that the fixed and variable cost of harvesting will be less. S .E.P. and Small Area - Whole Coast Under this area licence configuration the reduction in the fixed and variable cost could be greater, than under the forementioned area licence configurations, for the following reasons. F i r s t , vessel/licence cannibalization could be greater than under the above - 115 -mentioned area configurations (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.2), which in turn means that the fixed costs of harvesting fish will be reduced upon completion of the amortization period. Second, the regulatory, biological and aquatic conditions will be less diverse in each harvest area, for the areal extent of the areas will be substantially reduced. This would mean that there will be a reduction in the investment in fishing gear because there would be less need for diversity in fishing equipment. This will be greater under this configuration for the harvest areas will be smaller than under the other configurations. Thus, the efficiency gains will be greater under these configurations. Third, with reduction in the areal extent of the harvest areas, mobility will be constrained, hence the amount of inter-area movement will be reduced. Also, the intra-area movement will be reduced for there will be less fisheries in each area. This will result in a reduction in the variable costs ( i . e . , fuel and other cost related to the number of hours logged on the vessels). Fourth, under these area licence configurations the fleets in some areas will not be exposed to harsh oceanic conditions. Thus, fishermen may down size their vessels to suit the needs for the areas they may select. This investment strategy will take place i f the harvesters recapitalizes, and the benefits of such activity will only be realized i f the fixed and variable cost of the new vessel is less than the fixed and variable cost of the previous one. - 116 -Summary Economic efficiency of the harvest sector can be affected by area licensing in a number of ways. Based on the above discussion of the effects on fleet efficiency, the area licence configurations can be ranked in the following order of least to greatest increase in efficiency: 1. NorthA-SouthA and Small Areas-Part of the Coast; 2. NorthB-SouthB-WestB; 3. S . E . P . ; and 4. Small Area-Whole Coast. - 117 -CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 6.1 Summary Statement In this study five area licence configurations were assessed, using quantitative and qualitative approaches. The area configurations assessed, ranged from where the coast was factored into large harvest areas to small (statist ical area) harvest areas: NorthA-SouthA, NorthB-SouthB-WestB, S . E . P . , Small Areas-Whole Coast and Small Areas-Part of the Coast. The evaluative cr i t er ia used to assess the different area licence configurations included four broad subject areas: (1) Management Operations; (2) Socio-Economic Effects; (3) Biological Effectiveness; and (4) Economic Efficiency. Each subject area was factored into related sub-criteria . It was based on the review of the fisheries management l i terature, and the key issues identified in the B.C. salmon fishery. Table 22 summarizes the effects of the area licence configurations according to the evaluative c r i t e r i a . The effects, in brief are as follows. Management Operation was broken down into two cr i t er ia : Implementation (social acceptability and complexity of the management plan); and F lex ib i l i ty of the management plan. The potential distributional effects and uncertainties that fishermen may be subjected to will increase as the coast is disaggregated into smaller harvest Table 22 - Summary of Relative Effects Under Different Areas Licence Configurations.! Area Configurations Smal1 Area-Part of Coast NorthA-SouthA NorthB-SouthB-WestB S.E.P. Small Area-Whole Coast A. Management Operation 1. Effect on Implementation (Complexity and Acceptability) 2. Effect on Management Flexibi l i ty B. Socio-Economic Effects 1. Distributional Effects C. D. 1. Manageability of Harvest Capacity (Fleet Concentration) 2. Attain Biological Goals Economic Efficiency 1. Attain Vessel/Fleet Efficiency Gains Low Low a. Effect on Harvesters' Low Access to the Resource b. Effect on Harvesters' Access Low to Enhancement Production c. Effect on Unemployment Low Insurance E l i g i b i l i t y d. Effect of Strikes Low 2. Effect on Employment a. Increase in Unemployment Low Biological Effectiveness Low High Low Low Moderate High High Low Moderate High High Low Moderate High High Low Moderate High High Low Low- High High Moderate Low Low-Moderate High High Low Moderate High High Low Moderate High High High Low Moderate Moderate High/Low High High/Low High l ln reading this table, the effects are a subject comparison of the different area configuration in terms of the different cri terion. Hence, they are relative weight within each cr i ter ion . For example, in terms of management f l ex ib i l i ty , i t is high under the Small Area-Part of the Coast and NorthA-SouthA configuration, relative to the other configurations; moderate for NorthB-SouthB-WestB relative to the other configurations; and for the S.E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast configuration relative to other configurations. - 119 -areas. Hence, as the management plan becomes more different from the status quo, the plan will be less acceptable to the user groups. Also, the area licensing management plan will be more complex, as the coast is factored into smaller harvest areas, for other regulations and policy tools may be necessary. As the coast is disaggregated into smaller harvest areas the harvesters abi l i ty to respond to spatial and temporal variabi l i ty in abundance will be reduced, hence reducing their operational f l e x i b i l i t y . Thus, in-season management f l ex ib i l i ty will be reduced. From a management perspective, options may be foreclosed making i t d i f f i cu l t to refine or change the i n i t i a l management plan in the future, thus reducing management f l e x i b i l i t y . The Socio-Economic Effects subject area was broken down into two broad areas: Distributional Effects; and Employment Effects. The Distributional Effects were factored into the following sub-criteria: harvesters' access to the resource: the harvesters' access to enhancement production; effect on e l i g i b i l i t y for unemployment insurance; and economic effects of strikes. The constraints on the harvesters' access to the resource will be greater as the coast is disaggregated into smaller harvest areas, for the following reasons: The reduction in mobility of the fleets; spatial and temporal variabi l i ty in stock abundance; and harvest regulations. Due to the uneven distribution of the enhancement opportunities and the restriction in the harvesters' f l ex ib i l i ty to adjust to the abundance of f i sh , area licensing will lead to unequal distribution of salmon - 120 -production from enhancement projects. The access to the production from enhancement projects will be increasingly restricted as the coast is factored into smaller harvest areas. The fishermen's e l i g i b i l i t y for unemployment benefits will be eroded i f area licensing is introduced. The effects will be greater under the area licence configurations with the small harvest areas. Fishermens' gross incomes will be affected by strikes. The loss in income for specific fleets will be greater under the area licence configurations that factor the coast into smaller harvest areas. The Employment Effects - focused on the effects area licensing may have on the employment levels in the harvest sector. The number of fishermen that will be displaced will be greater under the area licence configurations with smaller harvest areas. This will be the case assuming: double licensing takes place; and vessels would be cannibalized for their licences. The Biological Effectiveness was be factored into two c r i t e r i a : manageability of harvest capacity; and attainment of biological goals. As the coast is disaggregated into smaller harvest areas, the amount of harvest capacity in an area will be set. The potential for fleet concentration will be reduced, thus reducing the risk of overfishing. This is the case assuming strength of runs are accurately predicted, the allocative issues are resolved; and an area is not over-subscribed. Biological objectives (e .g. , maintain existing runs, minimize multiple stock fishery, and enhance weaker stocks), will be more - 121 -effectively realized under the area licence configurations with smaller harvest areas, but only where other fishing management goals can be met. This is the case i f mixed stock fisheries issues are resolved; allocation problems minimized; and stocks strengths accurately predicted. However, i f these issues cannot be resolved or reduced, area licensing will pose problems in attaining biological goals. These problems will be greater under the area licence configurations with small harvest areas than large harvest areas. The focus of Economic Efficiency criterion was vessel and fleet efficiency. Vessel and fleet efficiency will be enhanced under area l icensing. The fixed and variable costs of harvesting fish will be reduced with area l icensing. The reduction in costs under the area configurations that factor the coast into smaller harvest areas will be greater than the configurations with large harvest areas. 6.2 Planning Recommendations Given the biological , soc io-pol i t i ca l , economic, management and physical aspects of the fishery, and the multiple-objective nature of fisheries management, i t is d i f f i cu l t to identify the appropriate area licence configuration for the B.C. salmon fishery. Regardless of which area licence configuration is viewed as optimal, trade-offs will be necessary. Under the area licence configurations with Targe harvest areas, e .g . , NorthA-SouthA, Small Areas-Part of the Coast and NorthB-SouthB-WestB, the problems associated with management operations, - 122 -distributional effects and biological effectiveness cr i ter ia will be minimized. However, in terms of achieving the economic efficiency goals and biological objectives (in particular managability of fishing effort) these configurations are not optimal. The area licence configurations with small harvest areas, e .g . , S .E.P. and Small Areas-Whole Coast, the problems and issues associated with management operations, socio-economic effects and biological effectiveness c r i t e r i a , will be greater. In terms of biological effectiveness, the problems is related to stock strength prediction and the allocation of surplus biological production to the different fleets will be greater. In terms of achieving economic efficiency and some biological effectiveness ( i . e . , manageability of fishing effort) , these area licence configurations could be viewed as being optimal. Given the complex nature of the B.C. salmon fishery; the uncertainties due to the status of knowledge of the biological resource; the dynamic nature of the fishery and its environment (e.g. , market, fishermen investment behavior and others); and the need to take into account short-term and long-term consequences of the plan, an incremental planning approach should be adopted. Also, the changes should be complimentary to the existing management system. This means that the management plan should not result in complex and comprehensive changes, for such a plan often results in the failure to attain the desired objectives. The S.E.P. and Small Area-Whole Coast area licence configurations would be least desirable in terms of the above management approach. - 123 -They will require major changes in existing regulations and management system, as well, i t will be necessary to introduce new regulation(s) and other policy tools . The NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations would be the most desirable configurations in terms of the incremental approach to resource management. They are similar to the status quo, in that new regulations or policy tools are not required. Also, under these configurations management f l ex ib i l i t y will be maintained. It will be easier to factor the coast into smaller harvest areas or to adopt other policy tools under these area configuration than under the S.E.P.., NorthB-SouthB-WestB and Small Area-Whole Coast schemes. The NorthA-SouthA and Small Area-Part of the Coast configurations will minimize most negative consequences of area l icensing. Also, they will result in low gains in increased the economic efficiency of the fleet and enhancing the manageability of the f leet . These schemes offer the greatest f l ex ib i l i ty such that the i n i t i a l plan can be refined or changed to adjust to new information or to changes in the fishery. In the future, i t may be possible to factor the coast into smaller harvest areas, and thus, realize the economic efficiency and biological goals. Also, these configurations would enable the fishermen and fisheries managers to gradually experience and understand the ramifications of area l icensing. Thus, after its i n i t i a l introduction, industry adjustments could be made which could lead to adaptations which may make i t easier to introduce changes in the future. - 124 -6 .3 Concluding Remarks The area licence configurations appropriate for the B.C. salmon fishery are the NorthA-SouthA or Small Area-Part of the Coast schemes. This is based on the study cr i ter ia used to evaluate five configurations (e .g . , NorthA-SouthA, Small Area-Part of the Coast, NorthB-SouthB-WestB, S . E . P . , and Small Area-Whole Coast), and the problem environment. The cr i ter ia included: management operations (social acceptability and f l e x i b i l i t y ) ; socio-economic effects (distributional effects and effect on employment); biological effectiveness (manageability of catch capacity and attaining biological goals); and economic efficiency (vessel and fleet eff iciency). When interpreting these conclusions, the following points should be considered. F i r s t , al l the possible area licence configurations were not evaluated. Only those that represented, as close as possible, the range of options suggested by fishermen and fisheries managers were considered. Second, a l l the cr i ter ia l isted in the l iterature was not applied in the evaluation—the cr i ter ia that were viewed as salient to the fishermen's interests, as well as the fisheries managers were applied in the assessment. Third, the assessment was conducted assuming that other policy tool(s) would not be introduced. This is important for i f they are considered, the results of the study could d i f fer . This would be the case for the effects of each configuration for each criterion could differ and the policy tool(s) could have some effect in terms of the c r i t e r i a . Fourth, depending on the readers' value set, perspective(s), and/or motives, the results of this study could diverge from their findings. - 125 -In light of the above i t would be appropriate to conduct one or more of the following: F i r s t , to evaluate area licensing taking into account one or more of the fore-mentioned points. Second, generate quantitative information where i t is not provided in this study. For example, generate figures for the economic efficiency gains that will be realized under the different configurations. Third, i f an area licence configuration is introduced, the management plan should be such that monitoring is introduced. This could be conducted by introducing area licensing as an experiment and/or by adopting an incremental strategy (e .g. , management plan that differs sl ightly from the status quo). This is important for both managers and the industry, for information on the consequences of area licensing can be generated and assessed, and the in i t i a l management plan changed to take into account the findings. - 126 -REFERENCE Anderson, Lee G. 1977. The Economics of Fisheries Management. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Anderson, Lee G. 1980. A Comparison of Limited Entry Fisheries Management Schemes, in ACMR Working Party on the Scientif ic Basis of Determining Management Measures. Rept. of ACMMR Working Party on the Scientif ic Basis of Determining Management Measures. Hong Kong, 10-15 December, 1979. FAQ Fish, Rept. (236): 47-74. Bishop, R . C . , D.W. Bromley and S. Langdon. 1980. "Implementing Multiple-Objective Management of Commercial Fisheries: A strategy for Policy Relevent Research." In Lee G. Anderson (ed.). Economic  Analysis for Fisheries Management Plan. Ann. Arbour, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publisher Inc. pp. 197-218. Christy, F .T . J r . 1982. Terri torial Use Rights in Marine Fisheries: Definitions and Conditions. F.A.O. Fish. Tech. Paper. (227): 10 p. Cicin-Sain, Bil iana. 1978. "Evaluative Cri ter ia For Making Limited Entry Decisions: An Overview." In R. Bruce Retting and Jay F .C . Ginter (eds.). Limited Entry as a Fishery Management Tool — Proceedings of a National Conference to Consider Limited Entry as a Tool in Fisheries Management, Denver, July 17-19, 1978. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press, pp. 230-250. Clawson, Marion. 1980. "An Eclectic and Inclusive Approach to Resource Policy Analysis." in Peter N. Nemetz (ed). Resource Policy:  International Perspective Montreal, Quebec: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, pp. 57-68. Crutchfield, J . A . and A. Zellner. 1962. "Economic Aspects of the Pacific Halibut Fishery." Fishery Industrial Research: 1(1): 1-173. Crutchfield, James A. 1977. "The Fishery: Economic Maximization." in Derek V. E l l i s (ed.). Pacific Salmon: Management For People. Western Geographical Series, Vol , 13. Victoria , B .C. : University of Victoria pp. 1-33. Crutchfield, James A. 1979. "Economic and Social Implications of the Main Policy Alternatives for controlling Fishing Effort." J_. Fish.  Res. Bd. Can. 36: 742-752. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1983. Base Map from Commercial Fishing Statist ical Catch Book. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1983. 1982 Survey of B.C. Commercial Fishermen's Income and Expense. Vancouver, B .C . : Regional Planning and Economic Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region. - 127 -Dickie, L.M. and S.R. Kerr. 1982. "Alternative Approaches To Fisheries Management." in M.C. Mercer (ed.). Multi-species Approach to Fisheries Management Advice. Can. Spec. Pub!. Fish Aquat. S c i . 59: 18-23. E l l i s , D.W. 1981. Exhibit #20—Submission To Royal Commission on Pacific Fisheries. April 22, 1981. Fisheries and Marine Services. 1976. Policy for Canada's Commercial  Fisheries. Ottawa, Canada: Fisheries and Marine Services, Dept. of Environment. Fleet Rationalization Committee (1982). Report By Fleet Rationalizaton  Committee. Fox, I.K. 1977. "Institutions for Water Management in a Changing World." Nat. Res. J . 16 (4): 743-759. Fraser, G.A. 1979. "Limited Entry: Experience of The B.C. Salmon Fishery." J . Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 37(6): 754-763. Geographic Working Group. 1982. Salmon Enhancement Opportunities. Vancouver, B.C: Geographic Working Group, Department of fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region. Gordon, H. Scott. 1954. The Economic Theory of a Common Property Resource: The Fishery. J . Pol i t ica l Economy 6: 124-142. Healey, M.C. 1982. "Multi-species, Multi-stock Aspects of Pacific Salmon Management." in M.C. Mercer (ed.). Multi species Approaches to Fisheries Management Advice. Can. Sec. Pub!. Fish Aquat. Sc i . 59: 119-126. Ingram, H.M. and D.E. Mann. 1980. "Policy Failure: An Issue Deserving Analysis." in N.M. Ingram and D.E. Mann (eds.). Why  Policies Succeed or F a i l . Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publisher, pp. 11-32. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. 1984. Annual  Report: 1983. New Westminster, Canada. Langdon, Steve. 1982. "Managing Modernization: A Critique of Formalist Aproach To The Pacific Salmon Fisheries." in John R. Maiolo and Michael Orbach (eds.). Modernization and Marine Fisheries Policy. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, pp. 95-114. Ledbetter, Max and R. Hilborn. 1981. A numerical Overview of Salmon  Run Timing in Brit ish Columbia Catch Area. Co-operative Fisheries Research Unit-Report No. 1. Vancouver, B .C. : Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, U.B.C. - 128 -MacDonald, L. Douglas. 1982. The Public Regulation of Commercial  Fisheries in Canada. Case Study No. 4A. Regulating Pacific  Salmon—The Alternatives Reviwed. Technical Report No.24. The Economic Council of Canada. McHugh, J . L . 1978. "Limited Entry as a Conservation Measure." In R. Bruce Retting and Jay F.C. Winter (eds.). Limited Entry as a Fishery  Management Tool. Proceedings of a National Conference to Consider Limited Entry as a Tool in Fishery Management, Denver, July 17-19, 1978. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press, pp. 175-187. Moloney, D.G. and P.H. Pearse. 1979. "Quantitiative Rights as an Instrument for Regulating Commercial Fisheries." J . Fish Res. Bd.  Can.: 36 (7) 859-866. Nickel, Paul and Jol S inc la ir . 1982. "Foreward." In Gordon S. Gislason, James A. MacMillan and Jack W. Caven (eds.). The Manitoba  Commercial Freshwater Fishery: Winnipeg, Manitoba: The University of Manitoba Press, pp. xv-xx. Pearse, Peter H. 1979. Property Rights and Regulations of Commercial  Fisheries. Resource Paper No.42. Dept. of Economic U.B.C. Pearse, Peter H. 1980. Regulation of Fishing Effort: Special Reference to Mediterranean Trawl Fisheries. F .A.O. Fish. Tech. Pap. (197): 82p. Pearse, Peter H. 1981. Conflict and Opportunity; Toward a New Policy  For Canada's Pacif ic Fisheries. A Preliminary Report of the Commission on Pacific Fisheries Policy. Pearse, Peter H. 1982. Turning The Tide: A new Policy for Canada's  Pacific Fisheries. The Commission on Pacific Fisheries Policy—Final Report. Canada: Minister of Supply and Services. Rettig, R. Bruce and Jay F.C. Ginter (eds.). 1978. Limited Entry as a  Fishery Management Tool - Proceedings of a National Conference to Consider Limited Entry as a tool in Fishery Management, Denver, July 17-19, 1978. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press. Scott, A.D. 1955. "The Fishery: The Objective of Sole Ownership." J . of Pol i t ica l Economy. 63: 116-124. Scott, A.D. 1979. "Development of Economic Theory on Fisheries Regulation." J . Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 36: 724-741. Scott, A.D. A. Neher (eds.). 1981. The Public Regulation of  Commercial Fisheries in Canada. The Economic Council of Canad a. Ottawa, Canada: Supply and Services Canada. - 129 -S inc la ir , Sol . 1978. A Licencing and Fee System For The Coastal  Fisheries of B.C. A Report Under Contract for Department of Fisheries and Oceans Government of Canada. Vancouver, B.C. 115p. S inc la ir , Sol and Paul Nickel, 1977. "Forewards" in G.S. Gislason, L.A. MacMillan and J.W Craven (eds.). 1982. The Manitoba Commercial  Freshwater Fisheries: An Economic Analysis. Manitoba, Canada: The University of Manitoba Press. S inc la ir , William F 1978. Management Alternatives and Strategic Planning for Canada's Fisheries. J . Fish . Res. Bd. Can. 35: 1017-1030. Stokes, Robert L. 1982. Limited Entry in The Pacific Halibut Fishery:  The Individual Quota Option. Final Report to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council-Council Document No.20. Seattle, W.A: Northwest Resources Analysis. Walters, C . J . 1975. Foreclosure of Options in Sequential Resource  Development Decisions^ International Institute for Applied System Analysis. Luxemburg., Austria. RP. -75-12. Weitzman, M.L. 1974. Price Versus Quantities. Rev. Econ. Stud. 41: 477-491. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096278/manifest

Comment

Related Items