Community Fisheries Management: An example from Iceland Workshop on New Developments in Rights-based Fisheries Management: Community Fishing Rights Esbjerg August Ragnar Arnason

Examples of CFM in Iceland No clear examples in ocean fisheries –Note, however, elements of community management in some inshore fisheries i.Scallops in Breiðafjörður ii.Some in-fjord shrimp fisheries iii.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

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

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: 2 Rods: 8/day Average harvest: 450 The North: Salmon rivers: 30 Rods: 124/day Average harvest: The South: Salmon rivers: 5 Rods: 91/day Average harvest: 3700 The West: Salmon rivers: 24 Rods: 137/day Average harvest: The East: Salmon rivers: 1 Rods: 6/day Average harvest: 134

The Economic Situation Farm Farm 5 Farm 4 Farm 2Farm 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 1900s ii.Increased demand for recreational fishing (rod) in 1900s

Emergence-History (cont.) Legislation on salmon and trout fishing i.Ocean fishing for salmon forbidden ii.Provision for fisheries associations to manage local river/lake fisheries a.Only rights holders (land-owners) b.2/3 of rights holders had to agree c.Democratic decisions (numbers) Amendment i.Forming fisheries association compulsory ii.Mandate clarified.

Fisheries Associations Mandate 1)Organize fishing in water systems 2)Ensure sustainability and promote expansion of the resource 3)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 Total cost, million euros Net revenue, million euros Gross revenue per salmon, euros

Other economic benefits 1.Profits in other segments of the value chain i.The salmon marketing companies ii.The catering and guiding business 2.Associatied activities i.The travel and tansport business ii.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 million euros per year Additional direct effects are estimated million euros per year Vital for rural areas May support up to 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.

Operating costs and revenues of Icelandic trout fishing associations in 2003 Gross revenue, million euros Total cost, million euros Net revenue, million euros

Rivers included in study: Share of salmon catches