1. Technological progress and capacity estimations - Management implications for the Danish cod trawl fishery Erik Lindebo, SJFI Copenhagen, Denmark

2. Capacity management Baltic cod fishery Baltic cod fleet Investment & tech. progress Analysis: Dataset Analysis: Technological progress Analysis: DEA capacity estimates Limitations Management implications

3. MAGPs 1983 to present 1990’s – Danish fleet reduced by over ¼ (GT, kW) Strict policy and limited fleet renewal 2000-01 expansion allowed under current MAGP targets  23% (GT) and 26% (kW)  19% (GT) and 29% (kW) for trawl segment Capacity management

4. Tech. progress allows:  Increase production level given effort or  Maintain production level whilst reducing effort International estimates of 2-3% per annum Paper partly based on EU study (UK, France, Holland and DK) “The impact of technological progress on fishing effort” Danish cod trawl fishery in the Baltic Sea Impact of technological progress

5. Baltic Sea Sweden Norway Finland Denmark GermanyPoland Russia Bornholm Lithuania Latvia Estonia

6. Cod fishery is the most valuable in Denmark Fine balance between human and environmental factors Winter months – high season Eastern and Western cod stocks ICES recommends reduction in fishing mortality 1980-90’s has seen a boom-and-bust period Problems expect to intensify due to stock problems in North Sea Baltic cod fishery

7. Volume/value of cod landings, 1987-99

8. Trawling vessels dominate Mobile fleet with variable strategies Influx of larger vessels from North Sea during boom period Later years – smaller, flexible vessels have dominated Managed by quota rations, mesh sizes, closed seasons etc. Baltic cod fleet

10. Tightening of capacity-enhancing project investments Renovations, electronics, fish handling, engines, safety equip. Limited incentives since cod decline in 1992-93 Qualitatively analysed through industry interviews and literature Investments & tech. progress

11. Progress of cod trawling fleet, 1987-99

12. 23 trawlers actively fishing Baltic cod (sub-fleet) February, 1987-99 Made specific to enable the use of cod stock (SSB) information Directorate of Fisheries data variables such as: Landing data (cod/other), days at sea, landing declarations, GT, kW, length, age, insurance value, homeport, fishing gear, SSB (two stocks), tech. progress dummy Analysis: Dataset

13. Undertaken by Jim Kirkley and Cathy Morrison Standard economic analytical procedure (technical change) Sub-fleet production was –3% per annum Sub-fleet CPUE declined over the period Insurance value is representative of progress Vessels varied in extent of contribution to overall tech. progress Sub-fleet tech. progress of 1.8% per annum Analysis: Technological progress

14. -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 1987-881988-891989-901990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 Year to Year/Mean 0 5 10 15 20 25 Cumulative Year to YearMean 87-93Mean 94-99Cumulative Technological change for trawling sub-fleet, 1987-99

15. Mathematical linear programming technique, estimating the relative efficiency of vessels Potential capacity output given inputs Capacity utilisation (CU)……see Table 5 on page 17 Vessel CU range 0.52-0.92 (1987-99 average) Sub-fleet CU 0.73 (1987-99 average) CU scores are worse in later years Bornholm have fewer problems with capacity Vessels with lowest CU show greater tech. progress Analysis: DEA capacity estimates

16. Results for 23 vessels cannot be aggregated to fleet level No annual data to take account of flexible fishing strategies and objectives of investments No distinction between cod and other fish landings Impact of management regulations (quota rations) will determine investment incentives and capacity utilisation DEA analysis Revenue-based approach Larger vessel sample with annual data Tentative results due to vessel-specific and seasonal data Limitations

17. Vessels with high tech. progress have low CU  increased potential has not been realised due to restricted quota rations Better CU for Bornholm vessels Technological progress – not uniform over time and driven by fisher incentives (stock status) Capacity problems in analysed fleet Fishing industry acknowledges that there is overcapacity  possible capacity expansion under MAGPs (trawl segment)?  Question validity and objectives of MAGP targets Management implications

18. Grazie