MANAGEMENT OF FISHERY RESOURCES
49
little or no long-term benefit, is one reason why progress on catch
limitation has been slow. This suggests that while for biological reasons
regulations should be considered separately for each unit stock, i.e.
within quite small areas, the implications of such regulations must be
considered over much wider areas, so that the area of interest of the
regulatory body must be equally wide. For instance, the whole northern
parts of the areas of responsibility of the two North Atlantic Commissions (north of the British Isles and Nova Scotia) must often be
considered as a single unit.
Also important, in the two cases (fur seals and whales) where
allocation of the quota has been made, is that the entry of new countries
was not likely (for the whaling agreement it was explicitly stated that
the entry of a new country would make the agreement on the division
of the total quota void). The high cost of a whaling factory ship, and
the low state of the stock, discouraged any other country from entering
the industry, while for the fur seals the four countries concernedJapan, U.S.S.R., Canada and U.S.A.-are the only ones with easy
access to the stocks, though perhaps the problem of processing and
disposing of the catch also deters possible new entrants.
For the whales, the failure t o achieve the biological objectives in
maintaining the stock by setting a sufficiently low quota more than
balanced any economic success in taking the quota in an efficient
manner, and there has been no surplus; for the fur seals there is a
surplus, and it is being successfully achieved. While the fur seals are
not owned by anyone, the Government of the breeding islands does
have definite powers of management. The whole of the yield is, in the
first instance, taken by the managing Government, only later being
shared among the other Governments. I n this way some of the disadvantages of the common property nature of marine resources-that
they are no one’s direct interest and responsibility to maintain-have
been avoided.
Another, and in some ways rather surprising, feature is the lack in
some of the cases where limitation of the amount of fishing has been
achieved, of any economic uniformity among the countries concerned
-both the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. belong to the Fur Seal Commission,
while the Antarctic whaling industries included both the rapidly
developing industries of Japan and the U.S.S.R. and the declining
industries of Great Britain and the Netherlands. The economic attractions of taking the same or greater catch at substantially reduced costs
are likely to be so great that any differences in the valuation of the
catch, or the breakdown of costs, will make little difference to the
desirability of taking action.
49
little or no long-term benefit, is one reason why progress on catch
limitation has been slow. This suggests that while for biological reasons
regulations should be considered separately for each unit stock, i.e.
within quite small areas, the implications of such regulations must be
considered over much wider areas, so that the area of interest of the
regulatory body must be equally wide. For instance, the whole northern
parts of the areas of responsibility of the two North Atlantic Commissions (north of the British Isles and Nova Scotia) must often be
considered as a single unit.
Also important, in the two cases (fur seals and whales) where
allocation of the quota has been made, is that the entry of new countries
was not likely (for the whaling agreement it was explicitly stated that
the entry of a new country would make the agreement on the division
of the total quota void). The high cost of a whaling factory ship, and
the low state of the stock, discouraged any other country from entering
the industry, while for the fur seals the four countries concernedJapan, U.S.S.R., Canada and U.S.A.-are the only ones with easy
access to the stocks, though perhaps the problem of processing and
disposing of the catch also deters possible new entrants.
For the whales, the failure t o achieve the biological objectives in
maintaining the stock by setting a sufficiently low quota more than
balanced any economic success in taking the quota in an efficient
manner, and there has been no surplus; for the fur seals there is a
surplus, and it is being successfully achieved. While the fur seals are
not owned by anyone, the Government of the breeding islands does
have definite powers of management. The whole of the yield is, in the
first instance, taken by the managing Government, only later being
shared among the other Governments. I n this way some of the disadvantages of the common property nature of marine resources-that
they are no one’s direct interest and responsibility to maintain-have
been avoided.
Another, and in some ways rather surprising, feature is the lack in
some of the cases where limitation of the amount of fishing has been
achieved, of any economic uniformity among the countries concerned
-both the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. belong to the Fur Seal Commission,
while the Antarctic whaling industries included both the rapidly
developing industries of Japan and the U.S.S.R. and the declining
industries of Great Britain and the Netherlands. The economic attractions of taking the same or greater catch at substantially reduced costs
are likely to be so great that any differences in the valuation of the
catch, or the breakdown of costs, will make little difference to the
desirability of taking action.