Industry-initiated catch limit management: The case of purse seine fishery in Japan’s EEZ waters of the North Pacific Ocean

• Published in: Marine policy 2022-06, Vol.140, p.105053, Article 105053
• Main Authors: Tsujita, Takahiro, Yagi, Nobuyuki, Sakai, Yutaro
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Difference-indifferences; Industry-initiated catch limit management; Japan; Mackerel; Price; Purse seine
• ISSN: 0308-597X; 1872-9460
• DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105053

The need for effective fishery management is growing worldwide due to the overexploited status of many fishery resources. While co-management between the government and fishers is considered a viable option, the performance of such a management is not well understood. This study describes the historical context, the current situation, and the price changes associated with the mackerel (chub mackerel Scomber japonicus, blue mackerel Scomber australasicus) purse seine fishery management in Japan’s EEZ waters of the North Pacific Ocean. This fishery is unusual in that an industry organization plays a major role in managing the total allowable catch (TAC) set by the government. Notably, the organization voluntarily introduced vessel-level monthly catch limits (CL) in 2007. This co-management system has been effective in adhering to the TAC. Moreover, we examine the price changes associated with the CL management by using difference-in-differences design where the prices in ports where vessels under the CL management land and where they do not are compared before and after 2007. Results indicate that the introduction of this management is associated with an increase in their mackerel price by 21.335 yen/kg (s.e. = 10.397), which virtually eliminated the price gaps with mackerel in other regions in Japan. Controlling for income, export price, and time trends do not change our result quantitatively. However, further study is needed to clarify the causal impact of the CL management, as the common trend assumption is likely to hold but the stable unit treatment value assumption is likely not in our setting.