|! OTA ~~ tlifa@ . (one 77) Working Papers i: Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone (Implementation of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976) e yr: CONGRESS OF ee THE UNITED STATES U 5 Office of Technology Assessment Jun e 41977 — WASHINGTON, D. C. 20510 Office of Technology Assessment att, CONGRESSIONAL BOARD Senator EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Mass., Chairman Representative MARJORIE S. HOLT, Md., Vice Chairman SENATE HOUSE ERNEST F. HOLLINGS OLIN E. TEAGUE South Carolina Texas HUBERT H. HUMPHREY MORRIS K. UDALL Minnesota Arizona CLIFFORD P. CASE GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. New Jersey California RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER CLARENCE E. MILLER Pennsylvania Ohio TED STEVENS LARRY WINN, JR. Alaska Kansas EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Ex Officio s : : \ 7 DIRECTOR’S OFFICE EMILIO Q. DADDARIO Director DANIEL DE SIMONE Deputy Director ADVISORY COUNCIL JEROME B. WIESNER = HAZEL HENDERSON Chairman . . M. LEATHER EDWARD WENK, JR. J ‘ ES Vice Chairman JOHN T. McALISTER, JR. RONALD DAVENPORT EUGENE P. ODUM GILBERT GUDE FREDERICK C. ROBBINS ELMER B. STAATS NE | 1207 Working Papers a Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone (Implementation of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976) OTA OCEANS PROGRAM STAFF Robert W. Niblock, Program Manager Peter A. Johnson, Project Director Prudence S. Adler Emilia L. Govan Kathleen A. Beil Richard C. Raymond Thomas A. Cotton Judith M. Roales Renee M. Crawford Bennett L. Silverstein ’ & j y : \ CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES Office of Technology Assessment WASHINGTON, D. C. 20510 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-600021 r=} = = al 2 = 0 0301 O008&be5 ? OWA QUIOMAN0 AUNT 70 S2aROnOS eaTATe GNTWY SHT ‘A a jtece a wes’ ‘a i a 3} y x y: = Ait inemaneazs vzgolonisesl le 2m a i) & TSQD00-TF weloze bis) poigiald ne po rRdingAyw vertp) Yo FOREWORD The six working papers included in this document contain background data and detailed analysis prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment in the course of its study of problems and opportunities that may be encountered in establishing a 200-mile fisheries zone for the United States and implementing other provisions of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. These working papers do not represent a complete bibliography of materials used by the assessment staff during its study. Interviews and other published data were also used and these are cited in the footnotes to the Assessment Report. No attempt has been made here to reproduce such material, much of which is available through established information channels. The OTA analysis found that most of the problems and opportunities of establishing a 200-mile fisheries zone relate to: 1) the need for new types of data which will be required to draw up and maintain fishery regulations and management programs, and 2) the need for new enforcement techniques and equipment to be used by agencies responsible for patrolling the zone. These subjects are discussed in detail in the Assessment Report, a separate document which summarizes the OTA findings and recommendations. That document, entitled "Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone," is for sale for $2.45 through the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. A third document, containing classified portions of the discussions about remote sensing technology as an enforcement tool, has also been prepared. iii ih ws seit ial ob <7 e ad bexiat eae r. "ine creenysi evant 403 40 Bote ly wistqe? & Jasaeyst Jah ob « ts native mel viele aot aytknadi 3k sc0enenuen Say cs Bo 8) ba ses an > thgks ote dunaia bein irvtes cinta orgie mind boda in “aee0 i a) 6 an 7 7 7) f ha olf 7 ‘ F thin pubes: ad-otert Simei aed sist tee) ts snot emt By 7 wobnnerro ter’ bedwlfdures Ayiwortits etek! Cave yi) A5h0 ta hou gibt ’ ane sehttvarsae bre sbietiotq odd So Jeom Jad ‘iu éiny lane ill yaeneti ctaintew bri ae ward os battupes of Litw doliw agelk. to mae Saeesax0tcs wea sot bean ory (8 bon ,zemterny Jnsemasradt, ep anol as ey $02 sidlentyes) scionege qd hedu 4 67 Jeenqtupe) hed adeosad i ots i mokitoniag in, 190K OR Sosenadeed mis ol Etwtah-w) nssaunel> «6 wad ia : 2c; daallee tala bak’ egnttnet Arey" ol aoc Dimemm fh Lie src ‘wad? 497 Hb" onoS eabgamelt offM-O0L © yrbttalldase” bo tedane humntom ue inaenteven .¢1) ,sareiseet %. Jielieomieene wil) dnuord (a A Bao LOOOk 0.0), eet un dle eons ie | rhe enolyaise)> ad= 3h bol isie beldicuets entailed sl nema _™ A jead oula aan ean > Tose yl ge be Nyedentoos awbynayy ode List of Working Papers Working Paper No. l Economic Data Needs in Fisheries Management Under Extended Jurisdiction by John M. Gates Working Paper No. 2 Social Data Needs in Fisheries Management Under Extended Jurisdiction by James M. Acheson University of Maine Working Paper No. 3 Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment: Issues and Needs by Development Sciences Inc. Working Paper No. 4 A Short Analysis of Stock Enhancement Possibilities for Certain Commercially Important Marine Species by John Vernberg University of South Carolina Working Paper No. 5 Survey of the Potential of Remote Sensing Technology to Support Enforcement of the 200-Mile Fishing Zone by Stanford Research Institute we ; SS laterentist ab abe a rs 7 : > perp owhtaried St s iene abe Jetoe 7 petiohbel tol sabenie® ngiay av iso ™ ndor . tas i dah tout pobpatee > y gopeelad 4 geet wl i : onan % vo csovebatt | goyest isimmuge@ub 207 ast taslet? want hoes SAR © ont saaebed sespy level ad seenn cin sigused Th eh SV 409A the F C{odeceara® wise Sia! aerariadi aah re gciguet ati Me sansa qed, yroantul mitt, vA ead (ores (oul? te eri arowis) by fulmvaroW ata lo yevene é | svogu oF * polonitod? Ao ats init ad -O0t . esugisant dotesest trrolaeié yd qi aur eh oe oeed * ado 1) Jem Working Paper No. l ECONOMIC DATA NEEDS IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UNDER EXTENDED JURISDICTION Prepared for OTA by J. Mo Gates, *Ph.D. September, 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS UST ROS TABS rem wis llc ter yo Nil ie cemton tev MOM MCREEL IRA) Fail Uee Wein MeL) oy) Lele ne TENERODUGTHONGT: fetes) lotic) Fett oO Tei. © eloneretero mtb mereiemeietmatererm lel cineh vs ea I. ifbe BACKGROUND! Wek. Kms! adel) sm sole. loth GPMPom Es tc Rep velmes, wee cer Serta A. B. THE Theseropliem=.. i ' ceeo -Roheeeee Ee ene «ioe Scopesot the Reported .noosovnsaar.. Serer Methodsmand Procedures! <2 5) as ernie se) Economic Information Implications of the Art .... DsIb (Gowmiareen bala Yves Geo) GM Sl omada 56 o o 5 6 (CaN DOMES C 12) Piktwe Soe cish ee ect lo eee Coe (|), Optimum sustainabilelydelldi@). 3 5 3. - (ii) National standards for fishery conservation and management ... . (iii) Fisheries development . (b)) SForedien, 3 % s « . e SCROTAL 0A. TRA (i) Foreign allocation (ii) Conditions of access for foreign vessels D.2. Recreational Risherieshbar tieuiiv isnt .& 2a Species and Fisheries Most Likely to be Affected by the Act loll. SySieslS Gy. SG OG [oO Moy ooo §G (a 0 6 E.2 Fisheries . GUID TUM ROM EMEMON, RYN 6°16 6G G95 OG obo oo a 6 OD National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. Regional Economic Data Base B.1 New England Fisheries . BeZeeeactrice EiSHDeELES@ oa: ste en se) 8 we We es 26 26 TelsTes IV. VI. VIL. DEFICIENCIES IN THE CURRENT INFORMATION BASE . A. General Considerations . B. Commercial Fisheries... . B.1. Established Fisheries (a) Vessel inventories and characteristics . (b) Domestic capacity (c) Cost and earnings data . (d) Vessel construction costs (e) Price analysis data (f) Employment opportunities and skills of the labor Loney sais Beas Poth eke trol, el eared al en ber tc (g) Technology transfers . B.2. Underutilized Species and Fisheries Development (a) New England species (b) Pacific species C. Recreational Fisheries . D. Summary of Section III . DATA COLLECTION TASKS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS APPENDICES . SEL Go Oa SME EEN ss roe rcaed ens, s Appendix A: pee and Fisheries Most Likely to be Affected by thevActe. eiaisWne: Moe Teniter Gale o> «Vi koy ecto OM URotmrepa re) tc Apprndix B: Individuals and Agencies Contacted COMMENTS FROM REVIEWERS aa 31 31 31 31 31 33 34 SY 38 40 40 41 41 45 46 54 56 65 68 69 72 7/3} ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is indebted to the many individuals in Federal and State agencies who were most helpful in their suggestions for this report. Special thanks are due to R. Siegel and B.G. Thompson of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. This report would not have been possible without the assistance of A. Holmsen, V. Norton, K. McConnell and W. Jensen who served as consultants. ate GL Table 10. LIST OF TABLES Retail Price Data for Selected Fish Products . Wholesale Price Data for Selected Fish Products Ex-Vessel Price Data for Selected Groups of Species Production and Cold Storage Holdings for Selected Fish Products Import-Export Data for Selected Fish Products Landings Data for Selected Species . Foreign Statistics . Supply Utilization and Stocks Selected Economic Studies Summary of Projected Program Costs for Economic Data Collection iv 27 64 INTRODUCTION Working Paper No. 1 is a survey of the economic data which will be needed in order to implement The Fishery Management and Conservation Act of 19/76. The paper presents a broad background to the subject, including an analysis of the problem and the economic information implications of theAct as it applies to domestic commercial and recreational fisheries and foreign fisheries. It also looks at the existing infor- mation base compiled largely by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce and analyzes how that data is deficient for new needs outlined in the Act. (It should be noted that the National Marine Fisheries Service recently has made several organizational changes which are not specifically covered in this paper. These organizational changes have not, to date, however, effected the findings in this paper regarding deficiencies in the current fisheries information base.) Also included in the paper are a series of data collection tasks and a rough estimation of the funds necessary to carry out such tasks. Excerpts from reviewers substantive comments are included at the end of the paper. “als 88 a OSes —_ Tyan eam tarde magnate Hana teedangss Lncowae shes Will U9m—De/ Med magne, Terolieetangz0 24eT \togeg StAd at berevor UElesttLobge: 7 ay “Polbssyex weqay etd nt egnital’s wD borsello , reveward weteb 03 omy : (.seed agtsemvotat esbvnlead daexius” eda 0 metsaetsbtob’! . otaost tos stub 20 wehtes + exe ragag mitt pl debulon! Gobh . S tdion du0-3300: 7 Quapesonn alin’ elk Ye eokiant ies aust hed cient au habylont hth S3nomn0o evi Tpasadiod ateOLVOs mori esqgesed ahead a at Sem abt ° a ae te I. BACKGROUND A. The Problem The Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 is potentially the most significant institutional change in the history of U.S. fisheries management.! Under the provisions of the Act, regional management councils are created with broad authority to recommend fisheries management plans to the Secretary of Commerce for approval and implementation. The Act specifies certain broad national standards and purposes, including fisheries development and management for "optimum sustainable yield" (OSY) # which are to be pursued. The exact meaning of OSY will presumably evolve over time through the decisions of Regional Councils; but is to reflect maximum sustainable yield as modified ''by any relevant economic, social or ecological factor" (Section 3(18)). In conjunction with congressional testimony and statements of Congressional intent it is clear that Congress intended implementation of the Act to reflect economic factors. In order to do this it is imperative that certain minimal economic information requirements be defined and measures implemented to ensure that they are met as soon as is practicable. The objectives of this Report are: 1. to identify economic information requirements under the Act; 2. to describe the current economic data base; 3. to specify additional data needed to meet the requirements identified in objective 1; 4. to project program costs to acquire the data identified in objective 3. lg4th Congress, H.R. 200, Public Law 94-265, April 13, 1976. Here- after, the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 is referred to simply,as. "the Act../ *Throughout this paper, the author refers to "optimum sustainable yield" rather than the term "optimum yield" as used in the Act. This is to emphasize that allowable catch is to be taken without future depletion of parental stocks. B. Scope of the Report The scope of this Report is limited in several ways. First, it is restricted to economic information requirements; it does not consider biological, ecological or sociological information needs. Second, it does not attempt to specify all economic data needs; only those which can be directly related to the information requirements of the Act. Third, the Report focuses on the additional economic data needs of the New England and Pacific Regional Councils.! This geographic restriction was necessitated by available time and personnel. | The Report does not address conceptual or modeling issues. While very real issues do exist in these areas, a more pressing problem with fisheries is that the economic data base is inadequate to implement even the simplest models or to permit empirical tests of concepts and models. Finally, the Report addresses long run issues and is not concerned with the immediate economic data needs for formulating Preliminary Manage- ment Plans (PMP). Thses plans must be completed in such a short time horizon that there is little that can be done to augment the existing data base in time for its inclusion in the Preliminary Management Plans.? Given the restricted scope of this Report, it should be recognized that it is not a comprehensive statement of economic data needs in U.S. fisheries policy. 1In the interest of simplicity the terms "New England" and "Pacific" Fisheries will be used to denote fisheries under the New England and Pacific Regional Councils, respectively. 2Section 201(g) of the Act specifies that the Secretary of Commerce shall prepare Preliminary Management Plans for fisheries in which foreign participation has been requested and for which no fishery management plan will be prepared by the Regional Councils before March 1, 1977. It is rather, one component of the Fisheries Technology Assessment Project of the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. C. Methods and Procedures As indicated earlier, the Act requires that economic factors be reflected in fisheries development management and conservation. In order to include economic factors the Councils must have access to certain minimal economic information. This Report contains an interpretive analysis of the Act in terms of what these informational requirements are expected to include. The current economic data base is then described and compared with needs to identify data deficiencies and program needs. Visits were made to Washington, D.C., and Regional Offices of the National Marine Fisheries Service and to several State Capitals to obtain descriptions of current economic data bases through interviews with appropriate Federal and State personnel. In these interviews an attempt was made to elicit opinions with respect to the subject of data needs as well as descriptions of the status quo.} D. Economic Information Implications of the Act The discussion below attempts to define certain information implica- tions of the Act in very general terms. More specific discussion of data needs is deferred to Section III of this report. D.1. Commercial Fisheries (a) Domestic (i) Optimum Sustainable Yield (Section 2(b) (4)) (Section 3(18) (A) and (B)) 14 list of individuals and agencies contacted is contained in Appendix B of this Report. These sections specify that among the purposes of the Act is the achievement of optimum sustainable yield (OSY) from each fishery. OSY is defined as: (1) the amount of fish which maximizes national benefits and (2) as maximum sustainable yield (MSY) as modified by relevant economic Social or ecological factors. The implication of these sections is that the information base avail- able to the Councils must be adequate to permit determination of OSY. The required biological data would include sustainable yield relationships and the rate of stock replenishment in response to incremental surpluses of sustainable yield over catch. The economic data requirements would include cost and returns, price projections and regional employment considerations for a range of management options. Whenever management plans will cause variations in the quantities of fish which reach markets, these plans will have impacts on prices and hence on incomes of people employed in the various sectors of the fishing industry. These price effects can be pro- jected through price and market structure analyses. The direct impacts of changes in landings and prices can also induce changes in expenditures and employment in other sectors of the economy; especially those with strong linkages to the fishing industry. These induced or secondary income and employment effects can be important; especially from a regional viewpoint. (ii) National standards for fishery conservation and management Section 301 specifies broad national standards for fishery conserva- tion and management. Among these are consideration of economic concentra- tion in the harvest sector if domestic allocation schemes are implemented, and promotion of efficiency. Consideration of efficiency requires a formal integration of biological and economic concepts and an adequate data base to express these concepts in quantitative terms. The economic data required include cost and earnings information by vessel and gear type, demand relationships and the potential non-fishing employment and earnings opportunities of fishermen. (111) Fisheries development Sections 2(a)(7) and 2(b)(6) express the intent of Congress to encourage development of fisheries not utilized or underutilized by U.S. fishermen. Thus, the Act is concerned with fisheries development as well as with conservation and management of stocks on which established fisheries are based. The information implications of fisheries development differ in certain respects from those of fisheries management. For fisheries manage- ment, many decisions are repetitive and most information needs are therefore continuous to permit effective monitoring of economic variables. This implies a continuing program for periodic collection of economic statistics for established fisheries. Fisheries development decisions are more discrete or ''one shot" in nature and since creation of an industry is the issue at stake there is no established industry for which economic statistics can be collected. Both fisheries development and fisheries management plans must involve an inten- sive and integrated examination of all facets of a potential fishery; reSource assessment, harvest and processing technologies and costs, market potentials and institutional factors including artificial barriers to trade. While there is much similarity in the types of economic data needed, the absence of an established industry in many cases will force reliance on special studies to collect data and project economic effects of development. ! 1The most probable procedure may, however, frequently entail extra- polation of economic data for harvesting and processing sectors in established fisheries. These studies become part of the bench mark data for management if the fisheries development effort is successful. Fisheries development efforts are best viewed as special purpose studies, the details of which must be dictated by the specific biological, technological, economic and institutional facts which exist at the time of the study. This is especially true when there is only a small number of fisheries with significant development potential. As will be discussed later, this is the case with U.S. fisheries. While the number of fisheries with significant development potential is not large, some of the under- developed fish stocks are quite large. For examples, the combined annual yields of the New England herring and mackerel stocks, Pacific hake and Alaskan pollock have been estimated at 5.6 billion pounds or 2.5 million metric tons.1 To put these figures in perspective, note that the U.S. com- mercial catch of all species in 1975 was 2.2 million metric tons. Thus, at least in terms of physical or biological yields, the potentials of these stocks are quite significant; being of the same magnitude as total U.S. commercial landings of all species in 1975. (b) Foreign (i) Foreign allocation Section 201(d) specifies that the foreign catch allocation of any fishery covered by the Act shall be that portion of OSY which will not be harvested by U.S. vessels. Thus, the foreign allocation is to be a resi- dual after projection of domestic catches. Domestic catches depend, how- ever, on new investments which are influenced by the economic returns of IThe reader is cautioned that yield estimates are often very imprecise; especially for undeveloped fisheries where little data has been collected. fishermen. These catches, therefore, cannot be reliably projected without a knowledge of the cost and revenue relationships of the U.S. fleets. In addition to the normal free-market forces which impinge on them, there are various domestic and foreign policies which affect cost and revenue rela- tionships. Among these are vessel construction subsidies, marketing pro- grams, fisheries development policies and trade barriers to U.S. exports. (ii) Conditions of access for foreign vessels Section 204(b) specifies the terms under which foreign fleets may fish in waters under U.S. jurisdiction, including mandatory information which must be supplied by such fleets and a residual clause covering "any other pertinent information and material which the Secretary may require."' Foreign fleets employ harvest technologies which differ in varying degrees from those employed by U.S. fishermen. Some of these differences include vessel construction, vessel size, and gear characteristics. Given the physical data collected for management purposes it may be possible to measure technical efficiency by analysis of variances in catch per unit effort. Indices of technical efficiency are, however, only one of the com- ponents which affect cost and earnings. For economic analyses, data would have to be compiled directly on major inputs and costs of foreign fleets. If this information is collected, it should be reported in a form which permits isolation of operating costs in transit to waters under U.S. juris- diction vs. operating costs while in such waters. It should also include information on capital construction costs and foreign subsidies. Economic information on foreign fleets is of importance where the fish harvested affect international trade of U.S. importers or exporters. On the import side fish may be caught in U.S. waters, processed in a foreign nation and exported to U.S. markets with obvious implications for domestic prices, employment and incomes. A more subtle import market effect may also take place. Let us assume that a foreign nation has inventories of fish products produced partly from fish caught in U.S. waters and partly from waters outside U.S. jurisdiction. Foreign suppliers could fill U.S. import demands with products produced from fish caught outside U.S. jurisdiction and satisfy their own domestic demands or other world markets with fish caught from U.S. waters. Note here, that identical species are not necessary for this type of market substitution. All that is required is that the fish be close substitutes in meeting final product demands. Under these circumstances the foreign nation could claim, correctly, that the fish captured in U.S. waters are not entering U.S. markets. Note however that by using U.S. fish to satisfy its domestic and other world markets, the foreign nation is able to allocate other stocks to U.S. markets. The end effect in U.S. markets is the same as if the U.S.-caught fish had been directly exported to U.S. markets. In terms of U.S. exports, domestic exporters must be able to deliver products at prices competitive with foreign producers. One of the factors affecting the competitive status of domestic exporters is the level of subsidies received by foreign fleets and/or processors. Thus, to assess the international trade aspects of U.S. fisheries, information on the economics of foreign fleets operating in U.S. waters may, in some cases, be necessary. It is important to recognize that this is a very complex area because of the complex social accounting problems involved in sorting out costs and returns of foreign fleets. Government intervention and subsidization is widespread and in some cases buried among more general social welfare policies. Despite the complexities, it is an area which may have to be addressed. In international trade negotiations for example, offsetting tariff schedules can be invoked where foreign subsidization can be shown. This issue has arisen in the past but the existence and levels of foreign subsidies must be established to invoke such tariffs. D.2. Recreational Fisheries Sections 2(b)(3), Section 3(2) and Section 3(18) express Congressional purpose or intent with respect to recreational fisheries. Although the Act is conspicuously vague on details, it is clear that recreational uses are to be considered. In particular, the definition of OSY is to include recreational opportunities. Section 3(18) defines OSY so as to provide "the greatest overall benefit to the Nation with particular reference to food production and recreation."' There is a substantial literature on recreational benefits; a subset of which deals with recreational fishing benefits. In general there are substantial conceptual gaps in measurement techniques which need exploration before one can devise a rational, compre- hensive economic data collection system for recreational fisheries. E. Species and Fisheries Most Likely Affected by the Act E.1. Species The resources most immediately affected by the Act may be classified by species or type of gear and vessel used for its harvest. The species or species group classification is most relevant for biological data collec- tion and research. Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2 list the species which are likely candidates for management plans under the New England and Pacific Councils, respectively. These species are candidates at least for pre- liminary management plans under Section 201(g) of the Act. It is assumed 10 that the Councils will continue these plans, with modifications, and will, in all probability, add other species to the list. E.2. Fisheries In most cases it is not possible to define fisheries, in economically relevant terms, based on species. This is because multiple species fisheries are involved. Provided gear or vessel modifications are not prohibitively expensive, the same vessel can be employed in fishing for several species. Indeed, in many cases the same vessel catches several species simultaneously. Marginal adjustments in the species composition are possible by altering fishing strategies or timing. Fundamentally, however, one must for economic purposes classify many fisheries by type of vessel and gear. Appendix Table A.3 provides such a classification for the New England and Pacific fisheries. As indicated in this table, the number of fisheries under this classification is much less than under a species classification scheme. It may be noted that these fisheries generally consist of aggregations of the species listed in Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2. II. THE CURRENT INFORMATION BASE A. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. The two divisions of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) primarily responsible for the collection of economic data are the Economics and Marketing Research Division and the Statistics and Market News Division. These two divisions differ in terms of functions. The Statistics and Market News Division (SNMD) is specifically charged with the collection of data and preparing periodic statistical reports, of which the principal series are discussed later. The Economics and Marketing Research Division (EMRD) is, as its name implies, oriented toward economic research and analyses which may be based in part or in total on the data base available from the SNMD. In addition, the EMRD collects data of its own as needs may dictate. Various publica- tions of the EMRD may reflect either or both data bases. For the purposes of this report the functional distinction between these two divisions can therefore be ignored and a common data base assumed. A recent decision to phase out the EMRD is worth noting at this juncture. In view of the new economic information requirements under the Act, this decision raises ques- tions about the sources of data and analyses to meet these requirements. The NMFS collects, either directly or from state agencies, data on the landings by species, value, area of capture, depth, fishing effort and days absent from port for each vessel trip in the New England offshore fisheries. These data are stored on computer tape and are available at the Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, Mass., and at the Washington, D.C., office of the SMND. This data series is used to compile the Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island Bulletins (see below). Similar data are collected on the Gulf 12 of Mexico shrimp fishery and are stored on magnetic tape and used in pre- paring the two shrimp bulletins (see below). The NMFS collects and publishes several series of direct interest for fisheries management. These include the following: 1. Commercial Fisheries Data a. Current Fishery Statistics (CFS) Series (1) (2) (3) (4) (GS) Commercial Landings by States- This series is issued for each state as a preliminary bulletin on commercial landings by species. They are issued monthly and annually for Atlantic and Gulf Coast states. They do not cover the Pacific Coast states or Alaska. The data reported include catch by species by month and landed value by species by month. Regional Summaries These are sectional summary bulletins which are published later in Fishery Statistics of the U.S. (Statistical Digest) in some- what more detail and with a text. The regions covered in this series are New England Fisheries, Middle Atlantic Fisheries, Chesapeake Fisheries, South Atlantic Fisheries, Gulf Fisheries, Hawaii Fisheries, Great Lakes Fisheries and Mississippi River Fisheries. The data contained in these bulletins are annual data on U.S. commercial landings, fishermen and operating unit data (catch by gear type), and production of processed products by States. Processing Sector and Foreign Trade Bulletins This series includes various bulletins which report on a monthly, quarterly and/or annual basis such processing sector data as freezings and holdings, canned products, fish sticks and portion, imports and exports of fishery products and data such as employment and output by product in the processing sector. Fisheries of the United States This series is published annually as a preliminary report on the fisheries of the U.S. It is designed to provide timely information; more complete information is contained in Fishery Statistics of the U.S. (see below). The latter publication is typically two years late in publication. Fishery Statistics of the United States These annual reports contain reviews of fishery statistics including data on volume and value of landings of fishery 13 products, employment, quantity of gear operated, number of fishing craft employed, volume and value of processed fishery products, freezing and cold storage holdings and foreign trade. Although published annually, there is a lag of about two years between data collection and publication. Historical Statistics This series is published sporadically to summarize historical data. The latest in this series is ''Prices Received by Fishermen, 1939-74. - Current Economic Analysis Series This series of publications contains analyses of prices for commer- cial fishery products. Included in this series are: i. Shellfish Market Review and Outlook ii. Food Fish Market Review and Outlook iii. Industrial Fishery Products Market Review and Outlook Basic Economic Indicators This series of statistical reports contain demand analyses, domestic production employment, fishing effort, biological stock assessment, U.S. trade, etc., for certain species. These include American and Spiny Lobster, Atlantic and Pacific Groundfish, Blue Crab, Clams, Halibut, King and Dungeness Crabs, Menhaden, Oysters, Salmon, Scallops, Shrimp and Tuna. Their utility stems from the fact that they summarize a great deal of data on a species or fishery basis. These data are available elsewhere but assembling them on a species basis can be time-consuming and tedious. Market News Report This series gives current market intelligence data for selected cities in the U.S. The cities covered are Boston (Blue sheet), New York (Green sheet), New Orleans (Goldenrod sheet), and Seattle (Pink sheet). This series contains data on landings, market receipts cold storage holdings, ex-vessel prices, wholesale prices, foreign trade data, and current market developments. It is issued tri-weekly with a weekly summary on a subscription basis ($35 per year). This series at one time was summarized and monthly and annual summaries were published. Due to budget reductions, these summaries are no longer done and few users can devote the requisite time to prepare their own summaries. A few larger companies which have electronic data processing capabilities do prepare such summaries for their proprietary use. Market News Message Centers Recorded current market information is available around the clock at message centers in Boston, Chicago, Gloucester, Mass., New Bedford, Mass., Hampton, Va., and New York City. 14 2. Recreational Fisheries a. Current Fishery Statistics (CFS) Series (1) Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics This series is published on an irregular basis. The informa- tion included in this series is numbers of participants in marine recreational fishing by state of residence and coastal area fished, marine recreational catch of finfish by species and region and expenditures by marine fishermen by year and by coast. The data series involved are several and the frequency rather erratic beginning in 1955 with the National Survey of Fishing and Hunting by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This series was updated with re-surveys in 1960, 1965 and 1970. In 1960, 1965 and 1970, the National Marine Fisheries Service (Commerce) and the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted salt water angling surveys. Excluded are recreational catches of crustaceans, mollusks and other invertebrates which are sig- nificant quantities in some coastal areas. (2) Participation in Marine Recreational Fishing, Northeastern United States 1973-74: Current Fishery Statistics No. 6236 A more complete report of results from the survey on which this report was based is currently undergoing an internal editing process prior to its publication. A survey similar to the Northeast survey was conducted for the Southeastern and Gulf States and will probably be available about September 1976. Plans call for a similar Pacific Coast survey and a national sampling program in the future. The published data series just described are in many cases likely to be of limited value to the Regional Councils because of the time lag between collection and publication. One of the most useful series on economic data would be the Basic Economic Indicators, if completed for each fishery to be managed, and maintained in an up-to-date status. Unfortunately the decision to eliminate the EMRD places the future of this series in limbo. The NMFS collects more data than are reflected in the publications just described. In the discussion which follows some of these data are described briefly. Most of these data are accessible with varying degrees of ease. Some appear in the publications series and are readily available but with a lag. Others exist on computer tapes or on market report sheets and are not 15 likely to be useful to the Regional Councils in that format. The data series collected are retail, wholesale and ex-vessel price data, production and cold storage holdings, import-export data, landings, and some foreign statistics. Retail price data for major products in New York are collected (Table 1). The frequency of these data on retail prices varies somewhat. Most are com- piled on a monthly basis; some are compiled weekly. The base period for these data varies somewhat from 1949 for flounder fillets to 1973 for others. Wholesale price data are also collected for selected fish products on a monthly basis, and for many products, on a weekly basis. The base period for the data series varies from 1947 for oysters to 1974 for canned King Crab (Table 2). Ex-vessel price data are generally compiled on a monthly basis for base periods ranging from 1950, for Ocean Perch, to 1974 for certain shrimp series (Table 3). Production and Cold Storage holdings for many fish products are com- piled on a monthly basis for base periods which range from 1939 for scallop cold storage holdings to 1971 for certain crab species (Table 4). Import-export data for various fish products are collected from the Bureau of Customs and are compiled on a monthly basis for base periods rang- ing from 1939 for Maine lobsters to 1965 for Anchovy (Table 6). A limited amount of foreign statistics is available (Table 7). As indicated in this table, the series are limited to crustaceans (specifically lobsters and shrimp), scallops and Peruvian meal prices. For many fish products current landings and imports are only partial market indicators because of changes in cold storage stocks. Because of this, series have been prepared on supply, utilization and stocks for selected fish products (Table 8). These series are compiled monthly and yearly for base years ranging from 1950 to 1965. 16 Table 1 Retail Price Data for Selected Fish Products EEE eeeeeeEeeeEeeEeee_ Eee Frequency Base ProGuce Week ly-Monthly Period Cod Fish fillets N.Y. x x 1962 Cod Fish steaks N.Y. x 1962 Crab, Blue x 1949 Crab meat x 1971 Flounders, drawn N.Y. x x 1950 Flounder fillets N.Y. x se 1949 Haddock x 1960 Haddock fillets N.Y. x 1953 Halibut steaks N.Y. x x 1960 Oysters since 1968 x x 1950 Salmon steaks N.Y. x 1967 Scallops x 1950 Shrimp x 1960 Whiting H&G N.Y. X x 1951 Raw Frozen: Cod fillets x 1973 Flounder fillets x 1973 Haddock fillets x 1973 Halibut steak x 1973 Ocean Perch fillets mx 1973 Turbot fillets x 1973 Whiting fillets x 1973 Shrimp, peeled and deveined x 1975 Shrimp, raw and headless xX 1973 King Crab meat x 1973 Lobster tail x 1973 Canned Fish: Salmon, series for Chum, Pink and Red x 1973 Sardines, series for Maine and Norway x LOTS Tuna, series for chunk light and solid white x 1973 Canned Ham: x 1973 Fresh Fish: Bass (rd) x 1973 Butterfish (fl) x 1973 Cod (fl) x 1973 Croaker (fl) x 1973 Flounder (f1) x 1973 Grouper (f1) x LOS Haddock (f1) x 1973 Mullet (rd) x. 1973 Ocean Perch (fl) x 1973 Red Snapper (fl) x 1973 Rockfish (f1) x 1973 Salmon (sk) x 1973 Shad (rd) x 1973 Table 1 -- continued 17 Product Fresh Fish: con't. Smelt (rd) Sole (f1) Whiting (f1) Processed: Breaded Shrimp Fish portions Fish sticks Frequency Weekly-Monthly rad tad Base Period 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 Table 2 Wholesale Price Data for Selected Fish Products 18 Product Anchovy 0il Anchovy 0il (Peruvian) Clams: Hard Clams Soft Clams Cod blocks Cod fillets Cod fish portions Cod fish sticks Crab: Blue Crab King Crab King Crab, canned Snow Crab Snow Crab, canned Flounder blocks Flounder fillets, frozen Haddock blocks Haddock fish portions Haddock fish sticks Halibut steaks Lobster, American Lobster tails Menhaden meal Menhaden oil Menhaden solubles Oysters Ocean Perch blocks Peruvian fish meal Pollock blocks Pollock fillets Pollock portions since 1965 Salmon, canned, series for Alaska Red, Pink, Scallop, sea Shrimp Tuna, canned Tuna, raw Tuna and Mackerel meal Tuna and Mackerel oil Whiting, H & G Whiting blocks Chum, Chinook, Coho Frequency Week ly-Monthly ~ O mM mK OM OM x Ke KK mK OM mK OOOO mm mK KK KO OOK OOK KOO OOOO OK Base Period 1970 19 Table 3 Ex-vessel Price Data for Selected Groups of Species Frequency Base Reocuce Weekly-Monthly Period Clam, hard x 1954 Clam, soft x 1959 Clam, surf x 1956 Cod x 1958 Crab, Blue (hard) x x 1960 Cusk x 1966 Flounder, 6 species x 1960 Haddock x 1958 Halibut x 1960 Lobster, American (northern) x 1939 Lobster, Spiny x 1962 Ocean Perch Xe 1950 Oyster x 1960 Pollock Xs 1966 Salmon, King x 1960 Sardines x 1959 Scallop Xs 19 39 Shrimp x 1960 Shrimp x 1974 Tuna BR 1952 20 Table 4 Production and Cold Storage Holdings for Selected Fish Products TE Frequency Base pegeuct Monthly-Yearly Period Production Fish blocks and slabs x 1959 Fish meal x 1959 Fish oil x 1959 Fish portions x 1958 Fish solubles x 1959 Fish sticks x 1958 Canned Pack: Salmon x 1960 Shrimp 5 1950 Tuna x 1960 Cold Storage Holdings Crab, all x 1948 Crab, Dungeness x 1971 Crab, King Xs 1971 Crab, unclassified x 1971 Lobster tails x 1950 Oysters x 1950 Scallops x 1939 Shrimp x 1957 Table 5 Import-Export Data for Selected Fish Products Product Imports Blocks and slabs Clam Cod Crab Fish meal Fish oil Fish solubles Fish sticks and portions Flounder blocks Flounder, fresh and frozen Fresh and frozen fillets Freshwater fish Haddock blocks Haddock, fresh and frozen Halibut Lobster, live Lobster tail (Rock) (total and by country of origin) Lobster tail (3 product type series §& country of origin) Ocean Perch Oysters (country of origin) Pollock, Cusk, and Hake and other blocks Saltwater fish (total) Salmon, canned Salmon, fresh and frozen Sardines, canned Scallops (by state of origin) Shrimp Tuna, canned Tuna, fresh and frozen Exports Crab, King Fish meal Fish oil Groundfish, fresh and frozen Salmon, canned Salmon, fresh and frozen Sardines Shrimp Frequency Monthly OS Ph OOOO OOOO OOOO pa al ot ot oo oa 21 Base Period 1955 1960 1956 1966 1958 1960 1959 1965 1964 1956 1956 1966 1958 1958 1960 1960 1960 1960 1956 1960 1967 1962 1957 1956 5) 7/ 1960 1960 1955 1955 1970 1971 1959 1965 1960 1960 1966 IS)557/ 22 Table 6 Landings Data for Selected Species Species Frequency Base Monthly Period Anchovy x 1965 Clam Landings (all) x 1960 Hard clam (by state and total) x 1960 Soft clam (by state and total) x 1960 Surf clam (by state and total) x 1960 Cod x 1960 Crab, Blue x 1960 Crab, Blue, Hard x. 1960 Crab, Dungeness x 1960 Crab, King x 1964 Crab, Snow (Tanner) Xx 1967 Flounder x 1960 Halibut x 1960 Haddock Xi 1958 Herring x 1959 Jack Mackerel (California) x 1962 Lobster, American (Northern) Re 1960 Lobster, Maine X 1939 Lobster, Spiny x 1962 Menhaden x 1959 Ocean Perch x 1950 Oysters (by state) x 1960 Pollock, Cusk x 1966 Salmon (by species and by port) x 1964 Shrimp x 1960 Tuna x 1960 23 Table 7 Foreign Statistics® ooo ee Se Canada Lobster (landings) x 1960 Canada Scallop (landings § cold storage x 1954 holdings + prices) Lobster Tail (wholesale prices) x x 1960 Peruvian Meal (prices) x 1959 Peruvian Meal (production exports and stocks) x 1962 Shrimp x X 1970 United Kingdom (landings §& wholesale scallop prices) x 1970 *Includes items maintained by NMFS. In addition, foreign nations collect statistics for which NMFS does not maintain series but which can be obtained from the respective nations if needed. 24 Table 8 Supply Utilization and Stocks Frequency Base Eoocuct Monthly-Yearly Period Blocks and slabs x X 1955 Cod, fresh and frozen xX x 1960 Fillets and steaks x x 1954 Flat fish, fresh and frozen x x 1950 Flat fish fillets, fresh and frozen x x 1950 Haddock, fresh and frozen x Re 1950 Haddock fillets, fresh and frozen x x 1950 Halibut, fresh and frozen Xe %) 1950 Halibut fillets and steaks, fresh and frozen x x 1950 Ocean Perch, fresh and frozen xe x 1960 Ocean Perch fillets, fresh and frozen X x 1960 Lobster, Spiny x x 1965 Lobster, Tails x x 1950 Oysters x x 1960 Salmon, canned x x 1950 Sardines, canned x 1950 Scallops x x 1951 Shrimp x x 1950 Sticks and portions x x 1958 Tuna, canned xX 1950 25 The data series referenced in Tables 1 through 8 are accessible. A problem is likely to exist, however, in terms of the ease of accessibility and the utility to Regional Councils, as opposed to researchers, of the information in its current format. The information should be assembled in a useful format and on a timely basis. An excellent medium for this would be the Basic Economic Indicators series referenced in Section IIA of this report. This series should be extended and maintained in an up-to-date status. A limited number of costs and earnings studies exists. These studies have generally been based on special purpose or "'one-shot'' surveys or are not representative. For example, vessels constructed under the Federal Vessel Construction subsidy program are required to supply such data to NMFS. Such data cannot be presumed representative of whole fleets of rather heterogeneous vessels. An additional dimension of the economic data base which must be thought through is the conditions of access which should be applied. Section 303 (d) of the Act specifically directs the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe regulations to preserve confidentiality. As long as the data made available are in such a form that individuals cannot be identified there is no problem. If NMFS or the Councils contract with a non-federal agency, such as a university, for research involving disaggregated data, the data could be made available but the contractor would be responsible for the data in much the same way as federal employees are under various federal statutes. It is the understanding of this writer that language to this end can be incorporated as part of the contract. Other research may involve second or third parties. Suppose, for example, that a Sea Grant funded research project is proposed or a research 26 project is requested by a Regional Council and is to be executed by a private firm or a university. If disaggregated data are necessary for the research they should be accessible subject to restrictions that the user maintain confidentiality. The author received conflicting opinions in this area and since it involves legal issues did not feel competent to pursue it further. It is an issue which requires clarification, however, because it is anticipated that such situations will arise. Unless it is clarified, federal employees may be reluctant to supply disaggregated data to re- searchers. This would not be conducive to effective functioning of the Act. B. Regional Economic Data Base l. New England Fisheries Various economic studies have been done from time to time on New England Fisheries (Table 9). Most of these were done by universities. Some have been based on primary data; others are based on the Federal data base just described. No regional comprehensive, continuing economic data collec- tion program exists which augments the Federal data base. The current regional economic information requirements must be constructed from the Federal data base and/or piecing together an assortment of ad hoc studies done in the region. The data in such studies are often not current by the time they are published. Table 9 contains a selected list of such studies. The criterion for selection was empirical originality. Various theoretical papers have deliberately been excluded. 2. Pacific Fisheries Data on landings and landed value are collected by the respective states in the Pacific Region. From this information ex-vessel prices can 27 Table 9 Selected Economic Studies* Bell, Frederick W. and Jared E. Hazelton. 1967. Recent Developments in Fisheries Economics. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, Inc. Brown, William G., Ajmer Singh and E. N. Castle. 1965. '"'Net Economic Value of the Oregon Salmon-Steelhead Fishery," Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 29: 266-279. Farrell, Joseph F. and Harlan C. Lampe. 1965a. ''The New England Fishing Industry: Functional Markets for Finned Food Fish I,'' Economics of Marine Resources, No. 2, Bulletin 279, U.R.I. Agricultural Experiment Station, Kingston. 1965b. "The New England Fishing Industry: Functional Markets for Finned Food Fish II,"' Economics of Marine Resources, No. 3, Bulletin 380, U.R.I. Agricultural Experiment Station, Kingston. Gates, J. M. and J. M. D'Eugenio. 1976. "Costs and Returns of Fishermen in the Massachusetts Inshore Lobster Fishery," U.R.I. Sea Grant Marine Reprint No. 60, University of Rhode Island, Kingston. Holmsen, Andreas. 1967. '"'Economics of Small Trawlers.'' Recent Deve lop- ments and Research in Fisheries Economics. Edited by F. W. Bell and J. E. Hazelton. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, Inc. 1970. "Economics of Offshore Lobster Trawling,'' Economics of Marine Resources, No. 10, Bulletin 406, U.R.I. Agricultural Experi- ment Station, Kingston. and Hiram McAllister. 1974. ''Technological and Economic Aspects of Red Crab Harvesting and Processing," University of Rhode Island Marine Technical Report No. 28, Kingston. Johnston, Richard S. and W. Robert Wood. 1974. "A Demand Analysis for Canned Red Salmon at Wholesale: A Progress Report,'' Oregon State University Sea Grant Program Publication No. ORESU-T-74-001, Corvallis. Liao, David S. and Joe B. Stevens. 1975. "Oregon's Commercial Fishermen: Characteristics, Projects and Incomes in 1972,"' Oregon State University Sea Grant Publication No. ORESU-T1-75-001. Agricultural Experiment Station circular of information 649, Corvallis. 1975. "Oregon's Dungeness Crab Fishing: An Economic Analysis of Productivity Profitability," Oregon State University Sea Grant Publi- cation No. ORESU-T-75-005. Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report No. 441, Corvallis. Marchant, A. and A. Holmsen. 1975. '"'Harvesting Rock and Johnah Crabs in Rhode Island: Some Technical and Economical Aspects," Resource Economics/NOAA Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island, Marine Memo- randum No. 35, Kingston. 28 Table 9 -- continued Matthews, Stephen B. and Gardner M. Brown. 1970. "Economic Evaluation of the 1967 Sport Salmon Fisheries of Washington," Technical Report No. 2, Department of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle. Noetzel, Bruno G. and Virgil J. Norton. 1969. ''Costs and Earnings in the Boston Large Trawler Fleet,'' Bulletin 400, U.R.I. Agricultural Experi- ment Station, Kingston. O'Rourke, A.D. and D. B. DeLoach. 1971. "The California Fresh and Frozen Fishery Trade,'' California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 580, University of California, Davis. Perrin, William F. and Bruno G. Noetzel. 1970. "Economic Study of the San Pedro Wetfish Boats,"' Fishery Industry Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, U.S. and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. ~ Rettig, Bruce and Kenneth J. Roberts. 1971. ''Commercial Seafood Industry of Oregon: A Comparison with Other Regions of the U.S.," Studies in Marine Economics, Oregon State University Sea Grant Special Report 331, Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oregon. Rock, Robert C. and Arthur O. Flechsig. n.d. ''42 Ft. Swordfish Boat," Marine Briefs, No. 12, Extension Sea Grant, University of California, San Diego. Smith, Frederick J. 1972. "Pricing and Marketing Oregon Seafoods ," Studies in Marine Economics, Special Report 289, Agricultural Experi- ment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 1973. “Marine Economic Data Sheets," Extension Service, Marine Advisory Program, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Note: this series comprises some 50 data sheets covering costs and returns for various fisheries, gear types and vessel sizes. MEDS-1 32-Foot Port Orford Troller and Crabber MEDS-2 40-Foot Brookings Troller and Crabber MEDS-3 28-Foot Astoria Salmon Gillnetter MEDS-4 52-Foot Westport Troller and Crabber MEDS-5 50-Foot Coos Bay Shrimper and Crabber MEDS-6 50-Foot Eureka Troller and Crabber MEDS-7 62-Foot Eureka Dragger MEDS-8 48-Foot Bodega Bay Troller and Crabber MEDS-9 74-Foot Seattle Dragger MEDS-10 72-Foot Seattle Halibut Schooner MEDS-11 66-Foot Seattle Dragger MEDS-12 60-Foot Seattle Dragger MEDS-13 68-Foot Seattle Dragger MEDS-15 77-Foot California Tuna Bait Boat MEDS-17 118-Foot California Tuna Seiner MEDS-41 30-Foot Astoria Salmon Gillnetter MEDS-42 60-Foot Rhode Island Dragger MEDS-43 80-Foot Rhode Island Lobster Trawler MEDS-49 150-Slip Connecticut Marina MEDS-50 150-Boat Connecticut Boat Yard 29 Table 9 -- continued Stevens, Joe B. 1966. ''Angler Success as a Quality Determinant of Sport Fishery Recreation Values," Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol. 95: 357-362. U.S., Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Economics and Marketing Research Division. Working Paper Series. Washington, D.C. A listing for this rather large series of papers is obtainable from the above source. U.S., Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1973. 1970 Salt Water Angling Survey. Current Fishery Statistics No. 6200. . 1974. Marine Recreational Fishing in Northeastern United States 1973-1974. Current Fishery Statistics No. 6236. White, Donald J. 1954. The New England Fishing Industry: A Study in Price and Wage Setting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. "Economics of the Dungeness Crab Industry," Circular of Information 627, Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis, December 1967. “The data base on which studies are based in typically one or more years older than the date of publication. 30 be calculated by simple division. A small number of economic studies exist (Table 9) which together with the above price data, constitute the existing economic data base. The basis for inclusion in the list is a significant contribution to an economic data base. Other studies exist which emphasize conceptual economic aspects of fisheries management. These have not been included in the above list. It is very important to recognize that even the studies which are listed in Table 9 may be deficient when viewed as part of a data base. They are by their nature unique or ad hoc studies. The retrievability and validity of the raw data on which the studies are based can be expected to decay over time because continuity is lacking and the institutional context of these studies generally favors research but is not favorable to maintaining continuing data bases. Because they are not current, most of the regional studies which have been done are of limited use to Councils. State (i.e., non-university) supported studies relating to economic data collection were found to be unknown to persons inter- viewed in both the New England and Pacific Regions. III, DEFICIENCIES IN THE CURRENT INFORMATION BASE A. General Considerations To facilitate the reader in the discussions which follow, statements of some general considerations and perspectives are in order. The first of these is that many fisheries have both commercial and recreational user groups. Between fisheries with amixture of user groups, one can anticipate that the relative catches of commercial and recreational users will vary greatly. Moreover, even within such a mixed fishery one can expect to find a continuum ranging from purely commercial users to purely recreational users. Consquently, while a commercial/recreational dichotomy is useful it is potentially misleading. The important point however is that the Act requires consideration of both commercial and recreational benefits in establishing OSY. For this reason, the discussion which follows is parti- tioned first of all into commercial vs. recreational uses of fisheries. A second distinction is made between data needs for monitoring and management decisions, which are repetitive and continuous, versus data needs for various isolated problems which arise and which involve more or less unique, non-repetitive decisions. This distinction appears repeatedly in the discussions which follow. B. Commercial Fisheries 1. Established Fisheries (a) Vessel inventories and characteristics Sample design for collecting data by vessel type presupposes a current inventory of vessels from which strata can be designed and samples drawn. It is imperative that such inventories be compiled and maintained current 32 and accurate. To achieve this, vessels in offshore fisheries should be identified by a number which stays with the vessel even if name or owner- ship changes. The Coast Guard vessel documentation number is a logical choice for vessel identification. The minimum data which should be a part of this vessel inventory are: —documentation number —fishery in which vessel is engaged (see Tables 1, 2 and 3) —length —gross tonnage —horsepower —construction (wood or steel) —name and address of owner —home port (particularly important if the skipper is not the owner) —navigational equipment —sonar devices —year of construction —refrigeration system While a current vessel inventory is feasible and imperative for the offshore fisheries, such an inventory for the inshore fisheries is more difficult. The large number of vessels and small size of many individual operations would make a vessel inventory an expensive proposition. Survey samples can be drawn from a list of license holders instead of a vessel inventory list. It should be noted that the “inshore''/"offshore' dichotomy can be defined in different ways. Many of the larger "offshore" vessels also fish inshore at least part of the year. The best criterion for classification is probably vessel length. Certain fisheries will be characterized by small vessels almost exclusively and can be considered inshore fisheries. A good example would be the New England lobster fishery. With the exception of Rhode Island landings, the lobster landings of New England are largely caught in inshore waters by boats not exceeding forty feet in length. 33 (b) Domestic capacity As indicated earlier, determination of foreign allocations of stocks is ostensibly based on OSY less projected domestic catch. In some fisheries this residual may represent OSY minus domestic harvesting "capacity." In other fisheries the capacity bottleneck may lie inthe processing sector in terms of seasonal plant capacity available or processing costs or market restrictions. For example, fisheries development may be predicated on ex- port markets which are subject to tariffs or import quotas in the receiving nation. Current domestic/foreign shares in such cases may reflect neither technical or cost efficiency of the domestic fleet but international trade barriers. The economic data needed to evaluate such situations include relative cost structures of domestic and foreign fleets, foreign vessel subsidies, processing technology and costs, product transport costs, whole- Sale product prices in the importing nation, and trade barriers. It is worth noting, however, that this type of decision-making situation has a low recurrence frequency which implies that the economic data requirements are best handled via an international market statistics program plus special Studies rather than as part of a continuing economic data base for OSY Management. It does illustrate, however, the types of economic complexities inherent in implementation of the OSY concept. For the major established fisheries, it is questionable whether one can anticipate major gains in productivity from extended jurisdiction in the immediate future. This is because the stocks in question are currently at low levels relative to historical levels and/or foreign fishing pressure is modest or even non-existent. Recovery of stocks will take time. There is, currently, considerable underutilization of capacity in harvest and process- ing sectors and hence capacity bottlenecks are not anticipated in the short 34 run. As stocks recover the processing sector should have little difficulty in expanding. This is especially true since stock recovery can be predicted sometime in advance from relative year class strength data. This lag pro- vides a partial cushion against bottlenecks in the processing sector. In the harvesting sector some additional capacity may be necessary if stocks recover. The history of exploited fisheries suggests that such addi- tional capacity will materialize through normal investment decisions. The problem is likely to be to avoid excessive investment in harvest capacity. For fisheries with development potential (see Appendix Table A.3) the adequacy of harvesting and processing sector capacities is more problematic. Several factors are involved. First the vessels and/or gear are in some cases distinctly different from vessels and/or gear in established fisheries. Second, the stocks are large relative to the current domestic industry and third, the markets are very different and are not familiar. Thus, the capacity question is intimately connected with development of underutilized stocks; which is discussed later in this section. (c) Cost and earnings data The most general or pervasive need for additional economic data is that of costs and earnings data. Since fisheries management will be aimed at the OSY rather than at the MSY, the need for economic data on the per- formance of the U.S. fishing fleet is obvious. The need for relatively up-to-date cost and earnings records for vessels in different fisheries has existed for a long time, as demonstrated by the large number of requests received by government and universities for such information. The supply has been scarce, however, and one even finds reports published based on antiquated cost and earnings data collected a decade earlier by a university. It is a commentary on the data base that such reports can honestly cite the 35 data as "'the most recent data available.'' Not only is the need for such Studies obvious but there are few studies of this type in existence and none is part of a continuing, comprehensive program. The depreciation component of costs and earnings poses some problems. Basically, there is no non-arbitrary method of calculation. For example, does one use book value, market value or current replacement cost as the basis of asset valuation? The choice depends on the use to which the data is to be put. Ideally the data base would include all three bases. It is desirable, however, that the methods chosen be standardized. The details of stratification frequency, etc., for cost and earnings surveys should be developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service on a regional basis but with some guiding principles to facilitate standardiza- tion of methods, procedures and results. It is possible, for example, that certain operating costs (e.g., fuel, ice) may eventually be collected and expressed in terms of physical units per trip as well as in dollar units. To support the collection of annual cost and returns data on major components of the fishing fleet on a continuing basis is properly a function of government, and governments in a large number of countries have done so for a long time. The methods of collection, sampling analysis, etc., vary from country to country; however, to secure vessel owners' cooperation in supplying the information required they are generally given an incentive. In Canada, submission of cost and earnings records in the Maritime Provinces were required for all vessel owners receiving construction subsidies. Now, it is understood that cost and earnings records in Canada have to be sub- mitted to receive the government fish price subsidy. In Iceland submission of the data is required by law and since most of the fuel cost, insurance cost and food on board are paid by transfer funds 36 from fish processors and exporters there is a strong incentive to comply. In Norway submission of cost and earnings records (for vessels over 40 feet in length) is voluntary, but the vessel owners are paid 300 Norwegian Crowns ($55 U.S.) for each usable record. This has resulted in a rate of response of about 40 percent. It is not only in foreign nations that one finds collection of cost and returns data for an atomistic industry. In the U.S. and Canada there is a long history of public support for this activity in agriculture where collection of data was intimately connected with farm management research and extension programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Land Grant Colleges. These programs have evolved over time into computerized systems which furnish monthly summaries and comparative analyses for parti- cipating farmers. Through these programs farmers benefitted from a built-in feedback of summaries and analyses. Public agencies, especially the USDA and Congress, have been able to make more informed decisions with respect to various agri- cultural programs. One possible drawback is that such a system may not provide a representative data base in that participation would probably be biased toward larger, full-time fishermen. Therefore the Federal government may have to supplement such a program by mail survey questionnaire, standardized to suit all vessel categories. The U.S. has no built-in "carrots" in its fishery policy to secure cooperation. To argue that it is necessary for fishery management purposes, or by making it compulsory to submit the records, might for many be more of a dis- incentive than an incentive. However, to pay the vessel owner for his time and labor involved in filling in the questionnaire, would be an incentive and would be appropriate. A $100 payment, for example, for each usable record would be an inexpensive way to obtain cost and earnings data, and 37 possibly a sufficient incentive to obtain the sample required. Payment of the fee could be conditional on the completed questionnaire being of accept- able quality. There are numerous possible ambiguities which can exist in the best of questionnaires. To discover these the program should include random personal interviews and analyses of business records. It should also include an extension education effort based on analyses of questionnaires so that respondents receive managerial assistance based on comparative analyses of business performance. In these ways a costs and earnings information program generates reciprocal benefits for the Regional Councils and for questionnaire respondents. While the questionnaire with incentive approach to obtaining cost and earnings data has much merit there are disadvantages. For example, such a program may obtain good information from full time, commercial fishermen but a poor response from part timers and/or commercial fishermen who move between fisheries seasonally. For this reason, supplemental surveys of these fisher- men may be necessary to obtain a valid description of the harvest sector. This problem of bias may be particularly severe for some of the smaller inshore fishermen. (d) Vessel construction costs In discussing costs and returns studies it was noted that asset valua- tion poses some problems and that ideally one should have book value, market value and replacement cost measures. It is desirable therefore to have a data series on capital cost construction for new vessels entering fisheries. With such information it would be possible to project economic returns for new vessels by meshing costs and returns information for recently constructed vessels with current capital construction costs for new vessels. Such re- turns can differ radically from average returns from samples for a fleet as 38 awhole. It is these returns to new entrants which is most relevant for evaluating investment opportunities and various public policy measures. (e) Price analysis data For any given fisherman, the price received for his catch is typically unaffected by the magnitude of his catch. In the aggregate, however, fluc- tuations in aggregate catch, whether random or policy induced, will induce fluctuations in price. Measuring the relationships between aggregate catch and price is the objective of demand or price analysis. By incorporating such relationships in analysis of management alternatives, projecting the economic effects of management measures is made more realistic. Demand relationships, especially those between landings and prices, have direct implications for net economic returns to fishermen. In addition, they provide the quantitative basis from which economic gains and losses to consumers of fish products can be measured. Much of the requisite data base for demand analyses already exists and is described in Section II-A of this report. There are areas, discussed below, where some improvements would be desirable. An area of demand analysis which has received very little attention to date concerns the effects of qualitative attributes of the fish landed. A grading system to reflect quality is lacking in fisheries. This is in distinct contrast to agricultural products against which fish must compete. It is widely believed that a standards program would be beneficial to fisher- men and to consumers. A first step in remedying this situation would be a statistically valid demonstration of the benefits, if any, which might be derived from a grading system. Another determinant of prices to fishermen is the age class structure of the catch. Age class structure can be significantly influenced by certain 39 management measures that rarely consider the price effects which may be induced. This is a qualitative dimension which has rarely been considered in demand analysis but which could be quite readily by an integrated analysis of biological and economic data. Major determinants of domestic fish prices are the magnitudes and composition of fish imports. In the last two decades U.S. imports of fish have increased very rapidly. Approximately two-thirds of edible fish con- sumption in the U.S. is currently supplied by imports. The corresponding proportion in 1950 was only one-quarter. It would be naive to ignore the implications of jurisdictional extensions elsewhere and their potential im- pacts on U.S. markets. Demand analyses should therefore treat imports as endogenous and include an investigation of probable supply shifts in major fish exporting nations. Another area of demand analysis in which the data base is quite poor is that of cross-sectional data on consumption patterns of households both at home and in restaurants. The existing time series data base is best suited to estimating short run demand relationships. It is not suitable for estimation and projection of long run demand relationships for reasons which are somewhat technical. For long run relationships, cross-section data are more suitable. Long run demand relationships are particularly critical in connection with product development, market expansion and changes in pro- duct form. It is probable that any substantial increases in supplies of fishery products would necessitate frozen product forms and development of new markets. The only comprehensive (national) survey data which could be used in this area was conducted by NMFS several years ago and was restricted to consumption patterns at home. A similar survey but more comprehensive should be conducted at five-year intervals as is done by the USDA for agricultural products. 40 (f) Employment opportunities and skills of the labor force In applying the concept of OSY, cost and earnings studies are an in-~ adequate indicator of the economic well-being of fishermen because one must have a reference point in judging how much is enough. An adequate income in one region of the country may be regarded as poverty in another. Moreover, fishing income may be only part of a fisherman's total annual income. The benchmark should be related to the non-fishing employment alternatives and incomes of fishermen. In addition, if measures of economic efficiency are to be considered, the lay systems common in most fisheries may yield a biased indication of the social productivity of investments. If maximum economic efficiency (MEE) were the sole objective, management plans would seek to promote a rough parity between returns in fishing and non-fishing alternatives. Such a standard would be consistent with regional and seasonal adjustments to general plans because non-fishing employment opportunities vary regionally and season- ally. Since MEE will not be the sole objective in management, the above parity may rarely be achieved, but management decisions should be cognizant of any disparity and how the disparities respond over time to management plans. Consequently, to supplement cost and earnings studies for domestic fishermen, there should exist a continuing series on labor force character- istics and the non-fishing employment opportunities of fishermen. Such a series need not necessarily be an annual one and the most practical method for obtaining information would be periodic systematic samples. (g) Fisheries development In Section I of this report it was noted that the Secretary could re- quire foreign vessels to supply certain information relevant for assessing the feasibility of technology transfers. In general, however, successful 41 technology transfers tend to be highly specific and technical so that it is impossible to specify at this time what data, if any, should be collected. Given this high degree of specificity, such questions are best addressed by special purpose studies. There are, for example, specific studies which should be conducted in connection with developing herring and squid fisheries in New England. In general, fisheries development studies must be inte- grated. Aspects to be addressed may include the resource base, available harvest and processing technology, marketing and trade barriers (see subse- quent discussion of fisheries development). In some fisheries, development efforts might begin by bilateral agreements for U.S. vessels to harvest fish and offload on foreign factory ships. 2. Underutilized Species and Fisheries Deve lopment (a) New England species The question of data needs to determine the potential domestic utili- zation of fish stocks currently harvested by foreign fleets, or to determine the residual which according to law has to be allocated to foreigners, do not differ in kind from the data needed for domestic management of traditional food fish species. However, the absence of an established fishery may force different methodologies and analyses as discussed earlier. Extension of the United States fisheries limit to 200 miles, will have different impacts on the fishing industry in the various regions of the country. New England fishermen may be excluded from the eastern section of Georges Bank if this section becomes Canadian '"'territory,' but will have exclusive access to most of the great resources of ICNAF-area 5, which in years past have been heavily exploited by foreign fleets. Many of these fish stocks have been heavily overfished, however, and considerable time may be required for stocks to rebuild to previous levels. 42 Of traditional food fish species (such as haddock, pollock, cod, ocean perch and all flounders) the U.S. now has 85 percent of the total quota from Virginia north to Maine. These stocks should slowly improve under U.S. Management, but exclusion of the foreign fleet may not result in an imme- diate significant increase in landings of traditional food-fish. For fisheries development potential, the U.S. must examine the large fish stocks which the foreigners currently utilize, and determine whether these can be utilized by domestic fishermen, or what might be necessary to stimulate a domestic interest in these stocks. The stocks in question are the following five: squid, herring, mackerel, whiting, and red hake. (i) Squid Another factor which can be intimately connected with fisheries develop- ment and technology transfer is institutional barriers. A barrier to domes- tic development of the New England squid resources, for example, is a 30 percent tariff on imports to the Spanish market. The current squid quota in the Northeastern U.S. is 60 thousand metric tons (about 132 million lbs). The squid stocks are currently harvested by Spain, Japan, and the USSR; by the latter country particularly for export purposes. The squid resource consists of summer squid and winter squid which are distinct species. The United States does not have a directed fishery for squid in the Atlantic; what is landed is basically an incidental catch. The domestic market is rather small and price inelastic. Consequently, when landings are low the price is high while in early summer "the bottom falls out of" the market. In the Mediterranean area, particularly in Spain and Italy, squid is a high priced species, and in most years this area could be an attractive export market. We do not know, however, what catch rates can be obtained by U.S. vessels, the cost of a directed fishery for squid, or the price which has to be received to be competitive with other fisheries. It is not 43 certain even, which design of trawl nets would be best to catch this species. A large foreign market exists, but answers to the questions outlined above, and also efficient processing lines for squid would be necessary. These questions ought to be studied in some detail. Initially one might suggest that it would be better if U.S. vessels fished for squid and unloaded the catch into a foreign factory vessel, as an alternative to allocating the bulk of the squid resource to foreign fish- ing vessels. Processing onboard foreign factory ships would reduce the cost of processing and also eliminate most of the import duty in the flag country. Spanish importers are very interested in such arrangements. An alternative approach which deserves careful study is the feasibility of creating U.S. 'freeports.'' A Spanish processing ship could be anchored in such a port to receive landings by U.S. vessels (landings by foreign vessels are prohibited by U.S. law). This might be necessary if offloading at sea is not practical. Since the processed squid would be Spanish produced, owned, and brought to Spain by Spanish vessels they would presumably be exempt from most of the above tariff. An advantage of such schemes is that they would result in accumulation of information about technologies, cost structures and markets under economic conditions more favorable than those which now exist. This example nicely illustrates the futility of "grab-bag" approaches to data collection for fisheries development or for technology transfers. (41) Herring The Georges Bank herring stock under proper management might be expected to yield about 120 thousand metric tons annually. In the past the U.S. did not utilize this resource. With the deterioration of the Scando- Icelandic herring stock and North Sea herring stock the European market, particularly Germany, became attractive to U.S. exporters. However, due 44 to the uncertainty regarding the U.S. herring quota and the over-fishing of this stock, investment in the processing sector has been slow. With low unit values and large volumes a capital intensive, rather specialized fishery is expected both in harvest and processing phases. Currently 80 percent of the U.S. herring landings in the Northwest Atlantic are caught within the 12 mile limit, and due to water temperature and/or distance to port, refrigeration is not necessary. To utilize the herring resource, and particularly catch the fish in the fall when the fat content is the highest, fishing further offshore is necessary. Since icing is economically prohibitive when fishing on a 3 cent per pound fish, trawlers must have refrigerated seawater storage or offload catches into carrier vessels equipped with refrigerated seawater storage. Midwater trawling has proven to be the most efficient harvesting method for herring in New England waters. However, the U.S. fishermen are not advanced in this technology. If the United States herring catch approached the current U.S. quota, the vessels would most likely be put on quotas due to lack of processing capacity. It would seem, however, that the herring industry could be a good investment market, and that the U.S. share of the resource, therefore, should rapidly increase. (411i) Whiting and hake Due to a decline in the North Atlantic groundfish stocks, the United States has increasingly turned to importation of fish blocks from Japan. The raw material for these is the Alaska pollock. Thus, whether there is a potential for utilizing the stocks of whiting (white hake) and red hake for blocks depends largely on decisions made regarding Japanese fishing for pollock in West Coast U.S. waters. 45 (iv) Mackerel The biggest stock of food fish in ICNAF areas 5 and 6 is the mackerel stock, with a total allowable catch (T.A.C.) of 230,000 metric tons in 1976. This resource is almost exclusively utilized by foreign fleets, and possibly would be the most difficult to fully utilize by New England fishermen. How- ever, fish meal prices fluctuate rather widely over time, depending on the climatic and other conditions in Peru. Whether it would be economical for U.S. fishermen to utilize the mackerel stock for fish meal is at least an interesting question. While lower in oil content than menhaden, they might be used in periods of high fishmeal prices and/or low menhaden abundance. One reason advanced for the failure to do so is state laws in the mid-Atlantic region which classify mackerel as a food fish and prohibit industrial uses of food fish. The vessels and gear required would be similar to those necessary to utilize the Georges Bank herring stock. (b) Pacific species In conversations with Pacific Coast officials (state and federal) and with industry no enthusiasm was expressed for development of underutilized stocks. Pacific hake was mentioned but was not judged to have much priority. These stocks might, however, be harvested by U.S. vessels and offloaded into foreign vessels. Alaskan groundfish, particularly pollock, were judged to have greater potential for development. Since these resources are not under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Council the potentials were not explored in much depth. It is worth noting, however, that a development study for Alaskan pollock was completed by the NMFS, Seattle, Washington, circa 1974. Unfortunately, its completion date was coincident with a collapse of prices which made immediate development economically unattractive. This collapse of fish prices was a world-wide phenomenon due probably to low meat prices 46 and recession. Since that time the prices of fish substitutes (meat, poultry) have risen again and fish consumption and prices have generally resumed their upward trend. It is perhaps appropriate therefore that the study be updated. C. Recreational Fisheries In Sections I and II of this report it was noted that the Act contains provisions which require the inclusion of recreational or sport fishing benefits in the implementation of the OSY concept. It was also noted that while some surveys have been conducted in recent years, the data base is extremely fragmentary. Moreover there exist substantial gaps, both in con- ception and measurement of recreational fishing benefits. Although most of the discussions surrounding the Act have dealt with commercial fishing, the Act empowers the Secretary of Commerce to manage marine recreational fisheries with the goal of OSY. The concept of OSY has received considerable attention in commercial fisheries, but relatively little attention in recreational fishing. Since OSY ostensibly maximizes direct net benefits (national benefits) subject to a sustainable level of fish stocks, it becomes necessary to determine what affects these benefits. We do not have good conceptual understanding of the relationship between (a) direct net benefit to the users and (b) population dynamics of the fishery. Hence the first need is for ad hoc studies of marine recreational fishing which develop the OSY concept; these studies should also attempt to substantiate conceptual models with empirical work. This initial phase would provide benchmark results and experience for subsequent, more comprehensive phase of work. 47 The current conceptual model of recreational fishing form suggests the following relations: a) net benefits per user depend, inter alia on total fishing trips and average catch per trip; and b) stock size in any year depends on stock size in the previous year, biological recruitment, and recreational harvest. These basic relationships suggest that, at a minimum, the following data are needed for managing recreational fisheries according to the OSY concept: 1) data on the total number of fishermen; 2) data on the average number of fishing outings per participant; 3) data on the average catch per outing; 4) data which would permit estimation of per capita or per user demand functions, including distance travelled, average cost per trip, and number of trips to different sites; 5) socio-economic data on fishermen; 6) population dynamics data. Information from items (1)-(5) could be used to estimate OSY for a particular Species. However, given the nature of recreational fishing, such data are difficult and expensive to obtain. In contrast to the commercial fishery, sports fishing is an exceedingly diffuse undertaking, since the individual participants do not gather in a central place of exchange (markets in com- mercial fisheries) which facilitates data collection. Sports fishermen do not have a strong economic incentive to keep records, as do commercial fishermen, and thus data gathered from sports fishermen must rely on their ability to recall information. The accuracy of recall data is subject to the desire to catch fish. Another difficulty with gathering data items (1)-(6) 48 from sports fishermen is that OSY may refer to a particular species. How- ever, experience suggests that many fishermen who fish for a variety of species cannot give items (1)-(4) for particular species (if, in fact, they can recall items (1)-(4) at all). Thus the nature of marine recreational fishing suggests that, while the general types of necessary data are known, gathering those data is difficult and expensive. Basically there are two types of surveys which can be used to gather marine recreational fishing data: (1) the population-specific survey and (2) the site-specific survey. The population-specific survey requires that the general population be systematically sampled by phone, by mail, by door- to-door interviewers, or by some other systematic sampling methods. Within the population-specific survey, one can gather basic data on total partici- pation (item (1) above) and perhaps crude data on catch and outings (items (2) and (3) above). The purpose of the site-specific survey is to develop a sample which is representative of marine recreational fishermen, or the individuals fishing for a particular speices. It involves contacting indi- viduals in the field. From the site-specific survey, with data on catch per outing, average cost per outing, and total number of outings, by site and by species, can be gathered. Such data are necessary for the estimation of the per capita demand functions used in determining OSY. Of the two types of surveys, we can conclude that the population-specific survey is better at gathering participation data, while the site-specific survey is a superior source of data concerning catch, number of outings by species and by site, and cost data. Both methods need to be modified by techniques such as the wave approach used by SMND which reduce the period of time over which indi- viduals must recall data. 49 Current systematic data gathering obtains little of the data needed to determine OSY for marine recreational fisheries. The main source of data has been the Statistics and Market News Division (SMND) of the National Marine Fisheries Service. This division (and its counterpart in the old Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife) has completed three national surveys of marine recreational fishing, 1960, 1965, and 1970, and is in the process of completing a fourth survey. These surveys are well known as the Salt Water Angling Surveys. The first three surveys were national in scope. The fourth survey will cover the whole nation, but in three separate, distinct surveys: the Northeast, the Southeast, and the Pacific area. These surveys in the past have gathered data, for each of seven regions, on the total number of participants by 79 species, the total number of fish caught and total weight of fish caught by species. These data are also gathered, by species and region, for area of fish- ing (ocean vs. river, bay or sound) and by method of fishing (private boat, charter boat, bridge, pier or jetty, and beach or bank). Hence, the data gathered by SMND gives a good picture of item (1), the total number of fisher- men. However, because no trip data have been gathered in the past, item (2) is missing and there is no feel for the total sports fishing effort. The Salt Water Angling Surveys, through the numbers of fish caught and weight of fish caught, do give an approximation of the total catch, by species and region, for the survey years. Past Salt Water Angling Surveys have relied on the ability of anglers to recall their catch over the previous year as the principal method of estimating catch. Staff members of SMND have ques- tioned the ability of anglers to recall accurately data more than two months old, and have redesigned the survey approach for the fourth survey to account for weak recall ability. 50 The data gathered by SMND is the only national data on marine recrea- tional fishing which provides any detail by species. However, the National Hunting and Fishing Survey of 1970 does give data on the general category of marine recreational fishing. This survey was a population-specific survey conducted for the Bureau of Sports Fishing and Wildlife by the Bureau of the Census. It provides some data on expenditures per trip and number of trips for saltwater angling. However, because the data cannot be disaggregated to refer to individual regions or species, it is not likely to be of value in formulating national policy for the management of marine recreational fishing. It is conceivable that state governments in New England would take an interest in gathering marine recreational fishing data, at least on an occasional basis. However, a survey of the appropriate agencies in New England and New York failed to locate any data on fishing participation by species, catch by species, or other data elements of the six items listed above as potentially important in determining OSY for recreational fisheries. However, in 1975, the state of Massachusetts conducted a massive site-specific survey, conducting about 12,000 interviews, of marine recreational fishing. The data from this survey have not yet been made public, but the survey approach was well planned, and it promises to provide considerable guidance to future site-specific surveys. The Massachusetts survey gathered data on the total number of participants, total number of days fished, total catch (by number) by species, and some detailed expenditure data. Hence, the Massachusetts survey gathers the data for items (1), (2), and (3) necessary for OSY. Although the Massachusetts survey gathers some information on expenditures, there is not enough data to permit estimation of demand curves. Such data might easily be gathered in a small supplementary survey. 51 In addition to the Federal and State efforts to gather marine recreational fishing data, numerous site-specific research projects carried on by universities and governments are studying particular problems and particular species on an ad hoc basis. These studies, which are somewhat hard to locate and catalogue, will be important in answering methodological questions concerning gathering marine recreational fishing data and defining the OSY concept in recreational fishing. The data-gathering efforts for marine recreational fishing can be summarized as follows: the Statistics and Market News Division, through its Saltwater Angler Survey, provides the only data on catch and participants by species on a four to five year basis. Other federal government agencies gather data occasionally on marine recreational fishing outings. In New England, with the exception of Massachusetts, states have not attempted to gather any data. We thus have reasonable data on the total number of parti- cipants by species (item (1) above) at the intervals provided by SMND. There is no data which would give insight into number of outings by species (item (2) above). The Saltwater Angler Survey gives data on total catch by species, but there is no systematic data which would permit the estimation of average catch per outing by species (item (3) above). Some ad hoc studies have gathered data on the socio-economic characteristics of indi- vidual sports fishermen (item (5)) and estimated per capita demand functions (item (4)). However, in particular on the East Coast, there have been few empirical studies on the economic demand for marine recreational fishing. Although the exact data needs implied by the Act have not been ascertained, it is possible to discuss (1) the types of studies which will develop the concept of OSY as applied to recreational fishing and (2) the data gaps which need to be filled in order to determine OSY. The following 52 list provides a set of research topics or surveys which would help to provide the data base necessary to carry out the recreational management objectives of the Act. A) Conceptual studies developing the concept of OSY as it pertains to marine recreational tishing. B) Empirical tests of conceptual models. These empirical tests would involve work on the demand for sports fishing as a function of the tradi- tional economic variables and some measure of the catch per outing. The catch per outing could be in pounds, numbers of fish, or maximum size or weight of the fish per outing. One of the objectives of the empirical work would be to ascertain what types of catch per outing variables are most important in the sports fishery demand functions. A second goal of the empirical work would be to determine the impact of the recreational take on selected yspeciles. C) Pilot studies for testing different data gathering systems. Even if all the data needs for recreational fishing were known now, the state of. the art of survey techniques is not sufficiently advanced to permit the data to be gathered. The errors created in catch data and trip data by faulty recall makes the ordinary phone or mail survey inadequate. Recall problems also occur with site-specific surveys, although better catch can be obtained through such surveys. The SMND has made significant developments in identify- ing methodological survey problems and devising techniques to overcome these problems. It would seem valuable to run a series of pilot surveys testing devices for gathering the kinds of data needed to determine OSY. The state of California has studied the various approaches (house-to-house, mail, telephone, etc.) but more experimental studies are needed. 53 D) Greater efforts at licensing. This issue causes significant controversy. Licensing is not a panacea for excellent data, because as much as 30 percent of the fishing individuals may be excluded.! However, a system of annual licensing would greatly enhance the ability of states to monitor changes in recreational fishing over time. Licensing per se would not provide the kinds of economic data which are crucial to determining OSY, but it would provide researchers with a ready list of sports fishermen. E) Testing of techniques for monitoring catch data with site-specific surveys. The purpose of these tests would be to develop inexpensive methods for discerning trends and shifts in catch per outing of important species. The most notable gap in recreational fisheries is the linkage between success ratios, which can be influenced by management decisions, and recrea- tional benefits. Historically this connection has received little attention, in part because of the nature of the decisions which were to be addressed. The literature evolved primarily in the context of benefit-cost analyses for public water resource investments in which the question posed was an all or nothing decision. An assumption, often implicit, was that success ratios are exogenous to the immediate issue. Given the context in which the literature evolved, this assumption was tenable. It is not tenable in fisheries manage- ment which must consider both commercial and recreational benefits, and how each varies in response to management measures. In general it seems reasonable to hypothesize that recreational fishing benefits would increase both with angler days and success ratios. Little is known about the relative importance of angler days and success ratios as lFor examples; senior citizens, children, veterans, handicapped, etc., may be exempted from licensing requirements. This problem could be avoided by retaining universal licensing but providing exemptions from fees for such individuals. 54 determinants of recreational benefits. At the extreme, if success ratios have zero effect on recreational benefit measures then one need not consider recreational fishing in allocating fish stock between commercial fishing and sports fishing. Other issues need to be explored. For example, if sports fishing effort is determined in part by the maximum size of the fish rather than the average catch per outing, the OSY will be quite different. Similarly, it may well be that many sports anglers derive much more pleasure from catching the fish than keeping them. In the extreme, all fish caught by sports anglers could be thrown back in, suggesting that OSY could be determined purely on economic grounds, without regard to the population dynamics. While this extreme case is probably not significant, it serves to illustrate the nature of the comparisons or trade-offs to be made and the conceptual difficulties which must be resolved in designing a data collection system. For this reason, it is suggested that studies be initiated through universities. The purpose of these studies would be to clarify some of the issues and to demonstrate valid measurement procedures covering conceptual issues, data specification, collection methodology and methods for analyzing the data obtained. If successful methodologies can be demonstrated, a comprehensive data collection system can be considered in the future. D. Summary of Section III Based on the discussions in Section III, there are seven areas in which additional economic data are needed. These areas are vessel inventories, costs and earnings data, vessel construction costs, demand analysis data, size, employment opportunities and skills of the labor force, fisheries development and recreational fishing benefits. 55 Not all of these areas require a continuing, annual data base. Those which do are the first three—vessel inventories, costs and earnings, vessel construction costs—and some components of demand analysis data. The resi- dual areas, employment opportunities and skills of the labor force, fisheries development, recreational fishing and some components of demand analysis data, require either special purpose studies or periodic updating such as every five years. The following section consists of a series of task descriptions defining each of the data collection objectives, plan of action, end product, purpose and/or benefit, schedule and program cost. IV. DATA COLLECTION TASKS This section pulls together the deficiencies identified in Section III in the form of seven data collection tasks. For each task a statement is provided of objective(s), plan of action, end product, purpose and/or benefit, schedule and program cost. Table 10 summaries program costs for each year over the next decade. As indicated, program costs would range from $2.075 million to $3.4 million. *These increases represent substantial increases in the current combined budgets of the EMRD and SMRD; a fact that reflects the low funding priority accorded economic research in the past. *These estimates of cost are in 1975 dollars and are based on the personnel and computer costs which could normally be expected in the collection, analysis, and reporting of research information. S// Task 1: Vessel Inventories Objective: To prepare and maintain in current status an inventory of vessels and their characteristics for each of the major fisheries listed in Section I.E of this report. Plan of Action: Work with appropriate state and federal agencies to develop and maintain vessel inventories for each of the major fisheries. The vesSel characteristics to be included as part of the inven- tory are detailed in Section III.B.1(a) of this report. End Product: An up-to-date listing of economic units comprising the population of interest for cost and earnings surveys and for capacity determination. Purpose/Benefit: A prerequisite for economic studies is a current listing of the population(s) to be studied. Schedule: Annual—Initiation immediately Budget : $250,000 per year. 58 Task 2: Cost and Earnings Data Objective: Construct accurate, current statements of the numbers of fisher- men and their economic status for each of the major fisheries. Plan of Action: Develop and field test a systematic survey program based on questionnaire methods with random personal interviews for validation purposes. Encourage the development of a companion program to review cost and earnings data with fishermen and to discuss their implications for the managerial decisions of fisher- men. Such a program should be developed within existing Sea Grant/Marine Advisory Services rather than NMFS. End Product: Comprehensive current statements of the numbers of fishermen, their economic status and factors affecting economic performance. Proyide economic, managerial information to fishermen, especially regarding the best vessel sizes for investment purposes. Purpose/Benefit: Enhance ability of Councils to include economic factors in their determinations of OSY for each fishery. Provide infor- mation on the economic effects of Council decisions over time. Provide fishermen with factual comparative analyses to aid in their decisions. Schedule: Annual—initiation immediately Budget : $1,000,000 per year. Task 3: Vessel Construction Costs Objective: Compile and maintain series on the current cost of construc- tion for each major type and size of vessel. Plan of Action: Survey of shipyards that build fishing vessels. End Product: Information which can be combined with cost and earnings data to project rates of return on new investments in the harvest sector. Purpose/Benefit: Complement cost and earnings data which will reflect historical construction costs in calculation of depreciation and rates of returm. Schedule: Annual—initiation immediately Budget : $50,000 per year. 5\) Task 4: Survey of Household Expenditure Patterns for Fish Products Objective: To determine household preferences for fisheries products. Plan of Action: Explore feasibility of survey with qualified agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture which currently conducts similar surveys for agricultural products. End Product: Periodic data on expenditure patterns at home and away from home; by region, season and socio-economic status. Benefit: Improved ability to project economic impacts of fisheries development and management policies. Schedule: Periodic—five year frequency. Budget: $150,000 each 5 years, plus $50,000 each year. 60 61 Task 5: Labor Force Statistics Objective: To determine the size, composition, employment skills and occupational mobility of fishermen. Plan of Action: Explore feasibility of such a survey with qualified agencies such as the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Labor. End Product: ° Improved knowledge of the labor force and the economic dependence of fishermen on fisheries resources. Purpose/Benefit: Improve ability of Councils to project magnitude and duration of dislocations resulting from alternative decisions or from scarcity of fishermen. Schedule: Periodic—five year frequency; initiation in 1980. Budget : $25,000 per year to 1980 $400,000 per year in 1980 $150,000 per year after 1980 62 Task 6: Fisheries Development Objective: To investigate feasibility of fisheries development for underutilized stocks of fish. Plan of Action: Phase 1: Survey.—For each region conduct periodic reviews of underutilized species to determine probable payoff from further in-depth investigations of feasibility. Phase 2: Action.—For species where feasibility is plausible develop five year development programs covering all phases of the development process including harvest and processing technologies, market potential, trade barriers, etc. End Product: Systematic, continuing review of fisheries development potentials leading to in-depth development studies where appropriate. Benefits: Increased production and employment; reduced imports and/or increased exports. Budget : $500,000 per year. 63 Task 7: Measurement of Marine Recreational Fishing Benefits Objective: To determine feasible methods for measuring marine recreational fishing benefits and the sensitivity of such benefits to changes in the success ratio. Plan of Action: Phase 1.—Select one or two important recreational fisheries and solicit research proposals from qualified institutions. Phase 2.—Comprehensive survey. Phase 3.—Periodic re-surveys. End Product: Development and demonstration of methodologies for measure- ment of recreational benefits. Purpose/Benefit: Such measures are necessary if recreational benefits are to be reflected in determinations of OSY. Schedule: Two to five years; initiation immediately. Budget : $200 ,000 first 2 years (Phase 1). $1,000,000 per year for 3 years (Phase 2). $400,000 per year after 5 years (Phase 3). Table 10 64 Summary of Projected Program Costs for Economic Data Collection Task 1. Vessel Inventories 2. Cost and Earnings 3. Vessel Construction 4. Household Survey 5. Employment Skills 6. Fisheries Deve lopment 7. Marine Recreation year l Initiation Date immediate immediate immediate FY 1978 immediate immediate immediate Schedule annual annual annual 5-year intervals 5-year intervals annual periodic (5-year?) Summary by Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cost $250 ,000 $1,000,000 $50,000 $150 ,000/5 years + $50,000/year $25 ,000/year to 1980 $400 ,000/year in 1980 $150 ,000/year after 1980 $500 ,000/year $200 ,000/year first 2 years $1,000 ,000/year for years 3-5 $400 ,000/year for years 6+ 8 s) 10 thousand $/year 2,225|2,075|2,875|2,875|3,400 2,400 2,400|2,400|2,750|2,750 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This report (1) identifies economic information requirements under the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976; (2) describes the current economic data base; (3) identifies additional data required to fulfill the information requirements in (1); and (4) projects program costs to remove these gaps.! It is concluded that substantial economic information requirements are implied under the Act and failure to satisfy these requirements could result in successful court challenges to management plans. The Sections of the Act which contain these informational implications are discussed in Section I.D. They are associated with (1) determination of optimum sustainable yield (OSY); (2) national standards for fishery conservation and management; (3) fisheries development; (4) foreign catch allocations; and (4) conditions of access for foreign vessels. Informational requirements identified include (1) cost and returns; (2) price and regional employment effects of manage- ment measures; and (3) institutional factors with economic implications including foreign fleet subsidies and international trade barriers. The primary source of economic data and analysis at the present time and for the foreseeable future is the National Marine Fisheries Service (see Section II.A). Various ad hoc data collection and analyses are conducted by universities and/or Sea Grant. The respective states have no programs for collection of economic data other than landings and landed value sta- tistics: lThe reader is referred to Section I.B of this report for restric- tions on its scope. 66 Substantial data gaps are identified and discussed under the headings of (1) vessel inventories and characteristics; (2) cost and earnings; (3) vessel construction costs; (4) price analysis data; (5) employment oppor- tunities and skills of the labor force; (6) fisheries development; and (7) marine recreational fishing benefits. The NMFS has historically been concerned primarily with biological data and research. Economic data needs have received relatively low funding priority. The area in which the economic data base is best is that of price data due to the activities of the Statistics and Market News Division of NMFS. The Economics and Marketing Research Division has been responsible for research and analysis of data and has collected some additional data. The recent decision within NMFS to eliminate this division raises questions about the capacity of NMFS to respond adequately to the requirements of the Act. While it is proposed that economics staff will be added to each of the Fisheries Research Centers it is questionable whether these regional staffs will have the time and direction to address issues from a national per- spective. While the addition of economics staffs to the Regional Fisheries Centers is desirable it is not a substitute for a central economics research and planning staff. A series of economic data collection tasks is specified in Section IV to remedy the data gaps identified. Program costs associated with these tasks are projected at $2.1-$3.4 million per year over the next decade. It is assumed that the Agency responsible for these tasks is NMFS. Certain of the tasks can best be executed by contracting with other federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and are so indicated in the task description. 67 The current dearth of economic data reflects past funding within NMFS and also the general antipathy toward collection of such data which exists within the Bureau of the Budget. The response of the system has been to finance various ad hoc studies through universities and private firms. Fishermen often complain that they find the frequent surveys a nuisance. Their complaint is understandable, particularly since much overlap is inevitable, given the decentralized ad hoc nature of economic data collec- tion for U.S. Fisheries. There is flavor of "Catch 22" here in that most of these ad hoc surveys would not have been necessary had support for a compre- hensive national program existed in the first place. 8 8 “+ a alia ery | tas Marie ted oun 2 Darin stieat erin Tom tnd aaa ea 5 val - Ne eh Coachasnte Oran oR wppHRAtisen 0 vos is i 7 MUS, The Teeqoelcs ont Mupbatengani aie alt: ear’ Gs @hijesi +f 256 GF ino: - Can, Serie Uepele Get ce plsetse:< BaP er ok “Be be reyes rte: wn PA a8 1% ort) Hee Moers ower «i Ribera bertni 4 [ei iw ae ae ie Bid =“ q-4etive dD is we @bPt live the xice and Srogiae Ly addreur (aie i ~~ querer = —Slie the staelel af ecmpics Mtol fs Cotivecee Ub acoccubib i: le we eo wihapita@e fhe - as Qiawiirg synet eorrkee Of cnopocs ¢ " — & camry fata. pore jee 21 Nee,’ te gre ate sh phe Me vrojocted a) £2.)-05.6. a 12eR Poor f 1S eSsueeet Viet the tomer CO foo eri as 7 aid A roe ins Cis foyisrtewn 6 49rt Gil ruse sane am) bere) fishes 1+ +e t he @9@jen@! @ @enersaisiog with othor federal Ptterran see a a abe naa ® mens DA eciaheden at concn racenteh, Af\ad tn hechgre thaied Vth these he newt decal: | oma is FE. ot ase 90 20d, Gated La VI. APPENDICES 69 Appendix A Species and Fisheries Most Likely to be Affected by the Act! OO 000—S—S—S—S—S—S—————SS—————Saos—s—s—sSs—s=_“_—_—“