The Daily of the University of Washington

UW professors explore economics of overfishing


It is on the rare occasion that the interests of conservationists and businessmen align, but that is what happened in the fishery industry, according to an article published in Science Magazine.

“Economics of Overexploitation Revisited,” co-authored by Ray Hilborn, a professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the UW, contends that it is more economically advantageous to pursue preservation efforts in fisheries than attempt to maximize profits, causing fish to go extinct.

Approximately 25 percent of the world’s fisheries have been depleted past the maximum sustained yield (MSY), the amount of fish that can be harvested without damaging their ability to replenish, according to the paper.

Hilborn and his co-authors propose emphasizing a strategy economists dub maximum economic yield (MEY) instead. In this scenario, fishermen form a cooperative, and are allotted a fixed percentage of a total quota of profits, eliminating the skirmish to catch fish.

Daniel Huppert, who specializes in marine affairs and economics at the UW, pointed out the profitability of such a strategy.

“In general, a fishery exploitation regime that maximizes economic yield will provide more total net income to the fishing fleet than would a MSY-based strategy,” Huppert said. “If the fishing fleet forms a cooperative, in which the vessel owners are engaged in selecting a joint harvest strategy, they will tend to keep costs low and product quality high, resulting in higher profits overall.”

Fisheries professor Tim Essington is working on a research project evaluating Hilborn’s hypothesis. His research thus far has also served to corroborate his colleague’s premise regarding MEY.

He cited cooperative Alaskan fisheries as evidence for the effectiveness of this method.

“The shining example has been the North Pacific halibut fishery,” he said, which has a ‘dedicated access privilege’ program, where harvesting rights are clearly defined and the fishing season has been lengthened.

In addition, a variety of marginal expenses have been reduced through practices like “ghost fishing,” where fishermen recover lost equipment.

Both professors are less optimistic when it comes to the logistics of putting a program into practice by converting competitive fisheries into cooperatives.

“Unfortunately, the amount of economic yield from a fishery is far more dependent upon the institutional regime than it is on the choice between MSY or MEY as a management objective,” Huppert said.

The prospect of improving earnings is a major motivator, Huppert said.

“There is a major push to implement these types of management systems throughout the U.S., though it’s not clear that they will always work,” Essington said. “The jury is still out.”

[Reach contributing writer Sara Grimes at development@thedaily.washington.edu.]


2 Comments

#1 Lorie Beall
(Oakland, CA | Unverified Name)

on March 10, 2008 at 2:25 p.m.
Report this comment

Well done - well run co-ops would solve many of the problems of incompetent bureuacracies and greedy corporations.

#2 douglaskarlberg@yahoo.com
(Sedro Woolley, WA | Unverified Name)

on March 18, 2008 at 9:07 a.m.
Report this comment

Hillborne's theory is not new, indeed it is a old unproven theory.

Ownership of living resources like fish is even older than the current authors, and there lies the real threat to proving, this unproven theory.

The Hudson Bay Company was given ownership of all the fur animals, and this resulted in the demise of fur bearing animals.

Again when Congress with issued a monopoly on fur seals in the Pribilof Islands.

The monopoly wiped out the seals, it enslaved the Aleuts for over a century. This enslavement was not lifted until 1964. This monopoly was the Alaska Commercial Company. The profits were huge. Leveraging this monopoly into monopoly positions in salmon canning, local village stores, shipping, and insurance as well.

The profits of this adventure, did not go unnoticed. Congress removed this monopoly, but the effects of this monopoly effected the residents of Alaska, and were felt for decades afterwards.

Congress never noticed the enslavement of the Aleuts. To capture the huge profits that this slave ownership position produced, they gave this monopoly to another large greedy organization. No visitors were allowed on the Pribilofs.

This greedy organization was the Bureau of Fisheries. After this unconscionable situation was revealed, this organization changed its name to the ... National Marine Fisheries Service, which controls Americas fisheries today.

In Alaska, the U of W graduates have populated the upper management ranks of the National Marine Fisheries Service and it slave holding predecessor.

This simple thesis is being played out again in the North Pacific, and I suspect the result will be another generation of people who are economically handicapped by the academic world which proposes systems which favor those with capital and power in Washington DC.

So who is too blame for the demise in fisheries? My view that is simple. It is government managers who too often have been corrupted, when they should have simply said no.

Fishermen only fish when the government allows them to. Weak managers are the culprit, but this theory is too "sensitive" for professors like Mr. Hillborne to criticise.

I have been a fisherman for 35 years. This scheme has been implemented in the Bering Sea; No quotas given to fishermen, only to processors and vessel owners. Hillborne mistates this.

The Aleuts territory is full of valuable fish, but they get none, and their school system is failing.

That is the downside of the current system, that academics do not recognize. This is not academic honesty.


Post a comment

Name:


(None, None | Unverified Name)
Login to verify your name

Email:


Required, but not shown.

Comment: