1. Spatial fisheries management for conservation and profitability Christopher Costello* University of California and National Bureau of Economic Research September, 2010 * Costello@bren.ucsb.edu

2. Motivation & introduction Fisheries collapsing due to open access Marine protected areas for conservation Moving towards property-based mgt. – ITQs (property rights over catch) – TURFs (property rights over space) Incentives for stewardship of stocks? Seemingly contradictory approaches

3. Connectivity in marine systems A human action in one place affects: 1.Ecosystem service provision 2.Level of service in future 3.Services in other places 4.Other services of value Movies: “Flow Fish and Fishing” UC Santa Barbara

4. Marine spatial planning MSP considers – Services & values – Ecological interactions – Is an Obama priority How far will MSP go? – Where, who, how much – Devolve decisions locally? Transboundary stocks Spatial planning in Lesser Sunda, Indonesia Courtesy of The Nature Conservancy

5. Marine protected areas vs. fisheries management MPAs: – Habitat – Diversity – Conservation Fishery Management: – Economics – Sustainability Inside MPA Outside MPA

6. Questions for this talk 1.Do MPAs increase or decrease fisheries profits? 2.Can TURFs be economically efficient? For which species? 3.With spatial externalities, are TURFs any better than open access? 4.Will coordinated private TURF owners create MPAs?

7. Fishermen and MPAs Traditionally: – Fish win – Fishermen lose Emerging Science: – Enhance productivity – “Spillover” – Couple with fisheries management Requires careful design

8. Bioeconomic models for conservation and economics Inputs: Habitat, species, ocean currents, management, MPAs, fisherman behavior Outputs: Spatial distribution of fish, profit, fishermen “Flow, Fish, and Fishing” Biocomplexity

9. How to choose an MPA network?

10. Network “A”

11. Network “B”

12. Network “A” Network “C” Network “B”

13. “Efficiency Frontier”

14. Many Uses of Model Outputs Optimize network design Evaluate stakeholder proposals Inform monitoring

15. Models for California

16. Insights from MPA models Spatial management improves value of fishery Must conserve stocks to profit from them MPAs often part of profit-maximizing solution Informed placement of MPAs can lead to win- win Fishery management outside MPAs has huge effect on MPA conservation

17. TURFs instead of MPAs? Spatial externality: One owner’s harvest affects other owners Result: Excessive catch For TURFs to be efficient, must overcome spatial externality One method: coordination mechanism called “unitization”

18. Numerical application Use spatial data on biology/economics Hypothesize spatial property rights Predict private property owners’ actions and ecosystem outcomes Consider effects of coordination What is effect of MPAs?

19. Numerical Model Parameterization – Kelp Bass ecology (White and Caselle, 2008) Patch specific carrying capacity (kelp cover) – Oceanographic dispersal kernel (Oda et al. 1993, Cordes and Allen, 1997) Dispersal D ij from TURF i to TURF j – Larval dispersal (Mitarai et al. 2008, Watson et al. 2009) pelagic larval duration of 30 days

20. Coordination across TURFs “Unitization” as coordination mechanism – First best harvesting behavior AND – Voluntary participation Coordination has the following effects: – System-wide profits increase by 350% – Fish abundance increases – Private owners voluntarily create MPAs

21. Uncoordinated TURFs: profitability Profits rise when MPAs imposed on TURFs

22. Uncoordinated TURFs: conservation MPAs create conservation

23. Coordinated TURFs Coordination implies that TURF owners internalize spillovers to connected TURFs With large enough spillovers, may be privately optimal not to harvest at all – Effectively creates a network of private MPAs – 37.5% of TURF owners find it optimal to create private reserves

24. “Private” closures in unitized TURFs

25. Impact of MPAs on TURFs Uncoordinated TURFs: – Profits and abundance typically increase (win-win in a majority of cases) – Optimal MPA network with no coordination outside gets 97% of sole-owner profits Coordinated TURFs – TURF owners voluntarily create MPAs – Additional closures typically increase abundance, but at the cost of profits

26. Overall conclusions Spatial externalities common in fisheries and other renewable resources MPAs may be part of “optimal” fisheries management – Conservation & profitability consistent TURFs may be no better than open access – But: coordination leads to first-best, private MPAs – Without coordination, MPAs close to efficient Same models for trans-boundary stocks