SUMMARY

During the past five years, a co-management system has been developed for the Dutch shellfish fisheries. Fishermen's organizations now take an active part in the development, implementation and enforcement of management measures. The system has resulted in more support for management measures, including measures to protect nature. Despite the introduction of many specific measures to protect nature, control efforts by state authorities remained low. It is concluded that a co-management system can attribute to nature conservation without depriving fishermen of flexibility and responsibility.

INTRODUCTION

In the years 1990 and 1991, stocks of mussels and cockles in the Wadden Sea were very low as a consequence of failing recruitment in previous years. The continuation of mussel-seed and cockle fishing resulted in a heavy depletion of remaining stocks. Because of the high prize of mussels, older mussel beds high in the intertidal were fished by hand. These developments were criticized by scientists and environmental groups.

In the midst of this controversy, the 6th Trilateral Governmental Conference on the Protection of the Wadden Sea was held in Esbjerg in November 1991. At this conference, it was decided to close considerable parts of the Wadden Sea for mussel-seed and cockle fisheries.

CO-MANAGEMENT

In 1993, the Dutch government presented a Policy Document on Sea and Coastal Fisheries. The new policy is aimed at achieving a harmonization between fishing activities and nature where possible, and a separation of the two where necessary.

Implementing the decision taken at the Ministers Conference in Esbjerg, 26 % of the Dutch Wadden Sea was closed permanently for mussel and cockle fishery. In addition, special measures were taken to prevent food shortage for birds.

In the Policy Document, the shellfish sector was asked to draw up a management plan in order to minimize the unwanted effects of mussel- and cockle fisheries on nature in the areas that remained open for fisheries. This request for self regulation stemmed from positive experiences with co-management in North Sea fisheries management. Experiences with North Sea fisheries management during the 1980s had, like experiences with fisheries management elsewhere in the world, shown that it is very difficult to realize a sustainable way of fishing by centralized management. Market forces and competition tend to drive fishing practices in a direction opposite to the common goal of (maximum) sustainable yields. To address this problem, a new policy in which the division of responsibilities between government and industry is focal, was developed.

The new fisheries management system was developed by a Steering Group in which government and fishing industry were represented. One of the main tasks of this Steering Group was the restoration of confidence between gêt and fisheries sectors. The main idea behind the new system is that the fishermen's support for fisheries regulations will improve by involving fishermen's organizations in the regulation making process. If fishermen find the regulatory scheme legitimate, there is more reason to believe that they will follow the rules. Also, the involvement of fishermen in installing and enforcingthe regulations will make regulations more acceptable.

The positive experiences with this co-management system induced the Dutch government to introduce co-management in the management of shellfish fisheries as well.

THE (CO)-MANAGEMENT PLAN

Work on the co-management plan for the Wadden Sea was started in October 1993 by two working groups, with representatives of the mussel and cockle sectors. A steering group, with representatives of government, environmental groups and fishery organizations had the important task of advising the Minister about the final plan. The plan was finally accepted by all representatives in the steering group.

GOALS

The co-management plan has two goals. One is the protection and development of intertidal mussel beds. This is attempted by closing existing intertidal mussel beds to all fishing. On the other hand, development of new mussel beds is enhanced by closing several potentially suitable areas for both mussel and cockle fisheries. In addition, it is agreed that mussel-seed fishery in the intertidal will only take place in areas with low potentials for the development of mussel beds.

The other main goal is the prevention of food shortage for birds as a result of fishing. To realize this, food is reserved for birds in years with low shellfish stocks. This posed several questions to the management. First, the number of birds and their food demand had to be estimated. Secondly, yearly assessments of the available mussel and cockle stocks had to be made every year. Thirdly, quota had to be established to guarantee that the fishermen would not take more than their allotment.

The numbers of birds present in the 1980s were taken as a basis. The food demand of birds was estimated by a working group in which the fisheries sector also participated.

The working group concluded that the food demand of birds from tidal flats in the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea amounts to 4,2 million kg of mussel meat and 12,6 million kg of cockle meat. Since birds also have alternative food sources, it was decided (in parliament!) that 60 % of these amounts should be reserved for birds. As a consequence, the tidal flats in the Wadden Sea will be closed to fishing when the stocks present do not reach these minimal levels.

Assessment of stocks of mussels and cockles was done twice a year by biologists of the Netherlands Institute for Fishery Investigation (RIVO-DLO) in cooperation with the mussel and cockle sector.

The reservation of mussels and cockles for birds is implemented by the yearly setting of total allowable catches (TAC's). In the mussel sector, these TAC's are divided into individual quota. In the cockle sector, no individual quota exist. To prevent the overfishing of the TAC, all landings of cockles are controlled and registered by representatives of the Dutch Fish Board. When the TAC is reached the fishery is closed.

FISHING PLANS

All measures agreed on in the framework of the management plan are implemented by means of a yearly fishing plan. These plans are drafted by the boards of the Producers Organizations (P.O.'s) and binding for all members of these P.O.'s. Non-members of P.O.'s have to sign the fishing plan. The fishing plans empower the P.O.'s to fine violators of the rules.

Measures agreed on in the fishing plans include area, time and gear restrictions, TAC's, capacity reductions, control and arbitration. For control reasons, all fishing vessels must be equipped with a so-called black box. This device registers all ship movements by means of a satellite transponder (DGPS).

In cockle fisheries, the activities of the suction pump are also recorded. In case of a suspicion of a violation of the rules, the information in the black box can provide the necessary proof.

The capacity reduction in the cockle fleet is worth mentioning separately. In the past, every licensed vessel was equipped with two fishing gears. With the introduction of the co-management system, the cockle sector agreed on a reduction of capacity by limiting the number of gears per license to one. Someone with two licenses could scrap one vessel and bring two licenses on one vessel. As a result, the number of vessels in the cockle fleet was reduced from 37 to 22.

EXPERIENCES

The new system has been functioning satisfactorily to all parties concerned. No major violations of the rules have occurred. Important in this context is that violations of the rules would be to the detriment of the group of fishermen concerned. Not only the collective resource but also the image of the shellfish sector is at issue. Therefore, control of the group on the individual is strong. Also, the fact that the black box offers a strong control mechanism is an important factor. The identity of someone who has fished in a closed area can be discovered easily. As a consequence, although many new rules to protect nature were introduced, control efforts by the Dutch government could remain at the same level as before.

At this moment, the system has been operational for three years. This period seems t¿ to evaluate the effects of fishing on natural developments on the tidal flats since shellfish fisheries in the intertidal have been very limited and natural events like storms and winter have dashed out the effects of fishing. For instance, substantial mussel spatfall on tidal flats occurred in 1994. Of a total amount present estimated at 150,000 to 200,000 thousand tons, 7,000 tons were harvested in October. During the following winter, nearly all mussels disappeared from the tidal flats as a result of storms and ice. Since 1994 was the only year with mussel seed fisheries on tidal flats, it can be concluded that this activity had no influence on the development of mussel-beds and seagrass stands during the past 5 years.

Concerning food reservations for birds, the new management system proved to be far reaching for the cockle fishermen. In the past 5 years, cockle fisheries were subject to catch limitations. In 1996 and 1997, the cockle stock remained below the minimal level to allow any intertidal cockle fishing. As a result, the economic consequences for the cockle sector were much larger than expected. Since the cockle fishermen are not compensated for the reduction of fishing in years with low cockle stocks, they face high losses. It can only be hoped that future years can compensate for this.

For the mussel industry, the food reservations had less drastic consequences since mussel seed has been almost absent (except in 1994, see above) on the tidal flats. Fortunately for the fishermen, subtidal stocks appeared to be sufficient to meet the needs of the mussel growers.

An unexpected advantage of the new system is that the individual quota system in mussel-seed fishing has resulted in more return from the available mussel seed. Since the individual quota system guarantees every fisherman his share of the TAC, there is no gain in increasing capacity or fishing intensity. The result is @ontrolled fishing practice with fewer losses and more time for the fishermen to stock his culture lots in an optimum way.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that the new co-management system in Dutch shellfish fisheries has resulted in advantages for all parties concerned. Effects on nature have been reduced effectively. The government gained because a mayor extension of the set of rules did not result in more control efforts. For the mussel fishermen, the system resulted in security and more efficient use of the available resource. Cockle fishermen are the only group with mixed feelings. They knew that they would have to restrict themselves in years with low cockle stocks. They, however, did not expect that these years of shortage would come so soon and so often. It is hoped that better years are to come, so that losses in recent years can be compensated.

EVALUATION OF THE DUTCH SHELLFISH POLICY

The management plan for the Dutch shellfish fisheries in the Wadden Sea, which was developed by the fishermen has been in operation since 1994. According to the Policy Document on Sea and Coastal Fisheries (1993) the policy will be evaluated in 1997. On the basis of an evaluation by the year 1998, the evaluation report will be expected in February 1998 at the earliest a decision will be made on the extent of further closures of the waters in the Wadden Sea and the East Scheldt.