Community Fisheries Management: An example from Iceland

Workshop on

New Developments in Rights-based Fisheries Management:

Community Fishing Rights

Esbjerg August 29-30 2005

Ragnar Arnason

Examples of CFM in Iceland

• No clear examples in ocean fisheries– Note, however, elements of community

management in some inshore fisheriesi. Scallops in Breiðafjörðurii. Some in-fjord shrimp fisheriesiii. Nephrops fisheries

• A very clear and well docummented example in inland (lake and river) fisheries.

The inland fisheries resource

• Habitat– About 250 rivers

• 60 rivers hold Atlantic salmon in significant quantity (harvest over 100 salmon per year)

• Most rivers hold various species of trout

– About 1800 lakes• Most hold species of trout

• Most valuable species– Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

– Brown trout, Sea-trout and stationary trout (Salmo trutta)

– Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus)

Distribution of salmonid species and landlocked brown trout in Iceland

Salmon catches in Iceland 1974-2004

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Rod Net

Trout and char catches in Iceland 1987-2004(Unreliable statistics - underestimate)

Brown trout

05000

1000015000200002500030000350004000045000

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Cat

ch (n

umbe

r)

Arctic char

0

500010000

1500020000

2500030000

3500040000

45000

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Year

Cat

ch (n

umbe

r)

Economic value

• Most value from recreational leases (rod fishing)

• Salmon fishing dominates in value– Annual revenues 10 million Euros– Annual costs 2.5 million Euros– Annual profits 7.5 million Euros

• Trout fishing just breaks even– Annual revenues 2 million Euros– Annual costs 2 million Euros– Annual profits 0 million Euros

Western fiords:Salmon rivers: 2Rods: 8/dayAverage harvest: 450

The North:Salmon rivers: 30Rods: 124/dayAverage harvest: 12000

The South:Salmon rivers: 5Rods: 91/dayAverage harvest: 3700

The West:Salmon rivers: 24Rods: 137/dayAverage harvest: 15200

The East:Salmon rivers: 1Rods: 6/dayAverage harvest: 134

The Economic Situation

Farm

Farm 5Farm 4

Farm 2 Farm 3

Farm 1

Farm 7

Farm 6

Ocean

=> Serious common property problem

The Institutional Structure(Community Fisheries Management)

• Virtually all significant recreational fishing in Iceland is managed by fisheries associations

• These associations are:– Geographically based (by rivers and lakes and

water systems)– Composed of fishing rights (adjacent land) owners– Required by law– About 200

• Apparently both successful and stable

Emergence-History

• River and lake fishing since Iceland was settled

• First law in 930 AD

• Rights belonged to (adjacent) land owners Serious common property problem.

Dealt with by law and convention

• More serious problems with i. Improved ocean fishing technology in 1900sii. Increased demand for recreational fishing (rod) in

1900s

Emergence-History (cont.)

• 1932. Legislation on salmon and trout fishingi. Ocean fishing for salmon forbiddenii. Provision for fisheries associations to manage

local river/lake fisheriesa. Only rights holders (land-owners)b. 2/3 of rights holders had to agree c. Democratic decisions (numbers)

• 1970. Amendmenti. Forming fisheries association compulsoryii. Mandate clarified.

Fisheries Associations

• Mandate1) Organize fishing in water systems2) Ensure sustainability and promote expansion of

the resource3) Guarantee a fair division of benefits to every

rights holder

• Number– 1970: 70– 2003: 182 (cover almost every inland water system)

• Have formed a national association (to protect their interests)

Fisheries associations as community management units

• Consist of rights holders• The right holders are the local land owners • Have full management rights

– TACs– Methods of harvesting– Stock and habitat improvement – Enforcement – Etc.

• Decisions taken on a democratic basis• Often the associations lease fishing rights temporarily

to companies and associations of anglers

Outcome

• The Fisheries Associations have been successful

• The resource has been protected (rare in the North Atlantic), even enhanced

• Economic rents have increased manifold• It appears that rents are reasonably close to

being maximized• There is general statisfaction with the

arrangement (rights holders and customers)

Operating costs and revenues of Icelandic salmon fishing associations in 2003

Gross revenue, million euros 8.9 - 9.9

Total cost, million euros 2.2 - 2.5

Net revenue, million euros 6.4 - 7.6

Gross revenue per salmon, euros 300 - 340

Other economic benefits

1. Profits in other segments of the value chaini. The salmon marketing companiesii. The catering and guiding business

2. Associatied activitiesi. The travel and tansport businessii. Fishing gear business

3. Consumer surplus

A recent estimate (IoES 2004) puts the overall net benefits of the recreational salmon industry of over 20 m. Euros

Conclusions

• The inland fisheries associations in Iceland represent examples of community fisheries management units

• The framework (and some of the impetus) for these associations came from the government.

• The associations are based in initial individual rights• The associations only include rights holders (i.e. only

those with direct interest)• The associations have, aparently, been very

successful.

END

Conclusions• Angling is an important activity in Iceland that

contributes significantly to the domestic economy• Earnings of fishing associations and lease holders

may amount to 12.5-14.3 million euros per year• Additional direct effects are estimated 9.6-11.4

million euros per year• Vital for rural areas• May support up to 1000-1200 jobs per year• Vast possibilities exist for further integration

between angling and other form of tourism

Contribution of angling to the Icelandic economy. Million euros.

Direct effects:Low

estimateHigh

estimate

Direct effects:Revenue of fishing associations 10.5 11.6Revenue of lease holders 2.0 2.8Other direct effects 0.0 0.0

Domestic anglers 8.4 9.0Foreign anglers 1.2 2.4

Total direct effects 22.2 25.8

Indirect and multipler effects 67.0 78.8

Total contribution to turnover in Iceland 89.2 104.6Share of total turnover in Iceland, % 0.55 0.65

Total contribution to GDP 14.6 17.7Share of GDP, % 0.15 0.18

Operating costs and revenues of Icelandic trout fishing associations in 2003

Gross revenue, million euros 1.6 - 1.8

Total cost, million euros 1.5 - 1.7

Net revenue, million euros 0.1 - 0.2

Rivers included in study: Share of salmon catches

Salmon catches in 1994-2003

Rivers included in study 31,052All rivers 31,716Percentage of all rivers 97.9

The year 2003

Rivers included in study 28,739All rivers 28,750Percentage of all rivers 99.96