“Tuna Management Should Be Based On Economic Yield Not MSY”ff

Written by Dionisia Tabureguci

The model used to manage fish stock in the Pacific region is under the spotlight.

This follows a study by the Australian National University (ANU), suggesting that using a management model based on Maximum Economic Yield (MEY) will bring more economic benefits to the region than a model based on Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).

Both the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Western Central Pacific Fishing Commission (WCPFC)—the two fisheries management authorities in the Pacific—are using MSY-based management models to determine their “reference point,” a figure derived scientifically based on the state of the fish resource, which gives them a measure of what is being managed and thus guides them in their management mandate.

“Our research shows that MEY would generate US$3.2 billion in additional profit over the next 50 years,” said Professor Tom Kompas, one of the three ANU scientists researching the MEY model.

“Most of those gains occur in the next 15 to 20 years. Likewise, the longer it takes to manage this fishery at an MEY target, the more quickly the potential gains disappear forever.”

Other members of the research team are Professors Rupert Quentin Grafton and Nhu Che.

Their work, ongoing for two years in the Western and Central Pacific fishery and titled Bioeconomic Losses from Harvesting Tuna, is currently under consideration for publication in the leading peer-reviewed Science journal.

But whether it will be embraced by governments and fishery management authorities in the Pacific is another story, although at least one commercial fishing operator has called on a more vigorous public debate on it.

“What the study basically says is that if you run your fishery based on maximizing economic yield, then the catch required for that is generally less than what we are targeting now using MSY,” said Pohnpei-based fishing operator James Movick.

“The MSY model means efficient all the way to the point where the resource keeps renewing itself but in the process, people may go broke.”

“With MEY, you don’t have people going broke and you don’t have unnecessary application of economic assets and resources into the fishery.”

“At the same time, the MEY reference point of fishing is going to be less than MSY, so you’re conserving your fish stocks better.”

“I personally don’t know whether this model is as sound as it appears to be or whether it can be applied in the context of the WCPFC or the PNA (Parties to the Nauru Agreement) fishery for that matter.”

“But my argument is that it should be brought out, it should be discussed so we can learn whether it is a better model or whether there are lessons to be learnt from it. Because one thing that is abundantly clear is that none of the Pacific islands countries is getting the economic benefit that they expect out of their fish resource. And if that is the case, then we have to ask why. One of the reasons may be that the current fishery management model, based on MSY, is not an appropriate one to use either for the conservation of stock or deriving maximum benefit from the resource,” Movick said.

The self-examination for fish stock management in general has been going on for years all over the world, according to people in the industry, and many studies have been carried out exploring the issue.

It is no secret therefore that opinions are polarized on whether the MSY or MEY model is the better one to use. Some believe the MSY model, with its biological conservation theme, is the way to go while another body of opinion vouches for the MEY model.

An argument by those holding the MEY flag is that the exploitation of fish stock is more sensitive to market dynamics and will naturally lead to conservation, even those fish species that are endangered.

“The MEY target generates both the highest profits and sustainable fish stocks,” Kompas explained.

“For WCPFC tuna fishery, MEY in fact generates stock sizes that are larger than stocks at MSY. It is a win-win for both the fishery in terms of profits, and conservation in terms of larger fish stocks.”

Kompas added that while both models guarantee sustainable fish stocks, MEY tended to generate larger profits because by its basic requirement of a larger fish stock, the cost of fishing per unit is lower (what is termed as a ‘stock effect’) and with less harvest, the price of tuna is larger for premium species.

These views may have been scientifically supported by the ANU study but they drew counter-arguments from both FFA and WCPF.

As waters surrounding the scattered Pacific islands countries is said to be home to the world’s largest surviving tuna stock, fisheries in the region is usually a subject of much attention and politics.

Against such a background, the suggestion or advancement of the MEY theory, a non-traditional fish management approach in this region, is looked at with scepticism.

“The benefits of MEY over MSY are not as clear cut as some claim them to be,” said Dr Transform Aqorau, deputy director-general of the Solomon Islands-based FFA.

“In a classic developed country domestic fishery, MEY is often a win-win situation as it is claimed to be as it results in larger stock sizes, maximizes the profit made by fishing company owners and therefore optimizes the government’s ability to charge access fees.

“However, the situation in many Pacific islands countries is different. FFA member countries often seek wider economic benefits from fishing than simply maximizing the profits if fishing vessels—for example, food security, employment, local control and management of their fisheries resources and other local or cultural concerns that may be lost in a model that simply seeks to maximize economic gain.”

Such a model, Aqorau added, would need further substantial development before their outputs could be used to set MEY-based reference points in Pacific islands tuna fisheries.

Sentiments at the Pohnpei-based WCPFC ran in a similar vein, suggesting general consensus that it may be premature to advocate MEY type of resource management in the Pacific.

First, said WCPFC executive director Andrew Wright, economic data are more jealously guarded than data that is used for existing assessments supporting MSY-based management.

As well, the region still lacked the expertise needed to undertake traditional type stock assessments based on catch and fishery data, let alone equipped with expertise to carry out economic assessments.

“I don’t doubt that this area of research justifies increased attention,” said Wright.

“On a variety of fronts, in both the WCPFC and within the FFA sub-group, there is a growing appreciation of the need to develop formal harvest strategies for Western and Central Pacific Ocean tuna stocks. Economic considerations are likely to figure prominently in these efforts. PICs continue to build experience and capacity in managing tuna fisheries of this region and so, I would expect, models applied to this effort will continue to evolve.

“I don’t doubt that factoring in economic considerations will become an increasingly important consideration in future management efforts—but it is going to be complicated and take some time and resources to develop.”

The ANU study has certainly flexed up the argument on MEY but it would clearly need more than a profit analysis for it to be convincing to authorities in the region.

What is MSY?

The highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken (on average) from a stock under existing (average) environmental conditions without affecting significantly the reproduction process.

What is MEY?

When relating total revenues from fishing to total fishing effort in a surplus production model, the value of the largest positive difference between total revenues and total costs of fishing (including the cost of labor and capital) with all inputs valued at their opportunity costs.