Economic Research

Economic Research

Under the Convention, the IPHC's mandate is optimum management of the Pacific halibut resource, which necessarily includes an economic dimension. Fisheries economics is an active field of research around the world in support of fisheries policy and management. Adding the economic expertise to the Secretariat, the IPHC has become the first regional fishery management organization (RFMO) in the world to do so.

The goal of the IPHC economic study is to provide stakeholders with an accurate and all-sectors-encompassing assessment of the economic impact of the Pacific halibut resource in Canada and the United States of America. The impacts, measured in terms of output along the value chain, but also employment and incomes, contribution to the GDP, and households' prosperity, will encompass all Pacific halibut sectors in Canada and the USA, including commercial, recreational, subsistence, and ceremonial. The study, described below, requires active participation of our stakeholders, including commercial fishers, processing plant operators, and charter business owners in developing the necessary data for analysis.

You can fill the IPHC economic survey by clicking the following links:

Commercial Vessel Expenditures Survey (Revised form)

Processing Plant Expenditures Survey (Revised form)

Charter Sector Expenditures Survey (New)

 

Economic Impact Assessment – What Does it Entail?

The economic effects of changes to harvest levels can be far-reaching. Fisheries management policies that alter catch limits have a direct impact on commercial harvesters, but at the same time, there is a ripple effect through the economy. Industries that supply commercial fishing vessels with inputs, generally referred to as backward-linked sectors, rely on this demand when making decisions related to their production levels and expenditure patterns. For example, vessels making more fishing trips purchase more fuel and leave more money in a local grocery store that supplies crew members' provisions. More vessel activity means more business to vessel repair and maintenance sector or gear suppliers. An increase in landings also brings more employment opportunities, and, as a result, more income from wages is in circulation. When spending their incomes, local households support local economic activity that is indispensable to coastal communities' prosperity.

Changes in the domestic fisheries output, unless fully substituted by imports, are also associated with production adjustments by industries relying on fish supply, such as seafood processors. Similarly to the directly affected sector, any change in production by the forward-linked industry has a similar ripple effect on its suppliers. The complete path of landed fish, from the hook to the plate, also includes seafood wholesalers and retailers, and in the case of highly-prized fish such as Pacific halibut, services. Traditionally, the vast majority of Pacific halibut is consumed at white-tablecloth restaurants. Any change in gross revenue generated by these industries resulting from a change in the supply of directly affected fish is further magnifying the economic impact of management decision altering harvest levels.

Similar effects are attributed to the recreational fishing sector. By running their businesses, charter operators create demand for fuel, bait fish, boat equipment, and fishing trip provisions. They also create employment opportunities and generate incomes that, when spent locally, support various local businesses. What is more, anglers themselves contribute to the economy by creating demand for goods and services related to their fishing trips. There is a number of sectors supporting tourism relaying on the Pacific halibut fishing, both guided or unguided. These include lodging, local retailers, or restaurants.

These kinds of effects are typically estimated with the use of the input-output (IO) model. The traditional IO model is used to investigate how changes in final demand affect economic variables such as output, income and employment or contribution to the region’s gross domestic product (GDP). This is known as impact analysis. With an adjustment for the shock type, the model can also demonstrate the magnitude of changes in supply-constrained industries such as total allowable catch (TAC) constrained fisheries. Adopting the IO model extended to the so-called social accounting matrix (SAM), the calculated effects account for labor commuting patterns. This is of particular interest when focusing on industries that employ a considerable share of non-residents that imply an outflow of income from the region.

Besides shaping the complex combination of local effects, the interlinked nature of the industries in the economy is creating cross-regional impacts. Economic benefits from the primary area of the resource extraction are leaked when inputs are imported or wages earned by non-residents are spent outside the place of employment. At the same time, the inflow of economic benefits to the local economies from outside is occurring when products are exported or local businesses are bringing cash to the region through support of tourism.

Understanding the multiregional impacts of changes to fisheries sectors is now more important than ever considering how globalized it is becoming. Fish harvested on the other side of the globe can be easily found on the shelf or on the menu in the United States or Canada, competing with domestically produced seafood. The United States and Canada imported seafood worth over USD 28.8 billion (CAD 37.4 billion) in 2018. On the production side, the origin of inputs is increasingly distant, implying a gradual shift of economic activity supported by fisheries and seafood industries abroad. While cost-effective, such high exposure to international markets makes seafood accessibility fragile to perturbations, as shown by the covid-19 outbreak. Fisheries are also at the forefront of exposure to the accelerating impacts of climate change. A rapid increase in the water temperature of the coast of Alaska, termed the blob, is affecting fisheries and may have a profound impact on Pacific halibut distribution. Thus analyzing the sector in a broader context is crucial.

Pacific halibut multiregional economic impact assessment (PHMEIA) model is a multiregional SAM-based model describing economic interdependencies between sectors and regions developed to bring a better understanding of the role and importance of the Pacific halibut resource in the economy of Alaska, British Columbia, and the US West Coast. Moreover, the model simultaneously assesses indirect impacts on the rest of the United States and Canada to determine the resource’s full economic impact on IPHC Contracting Parties. The economic metrics derived from the PHMEIA model range from total economic impact on output along the value chain to impacts on employment and incomes, as well as contribution to the GDP and households’ prosperity.

This study's main contribution is the first consistent estimation of both backward- and forward-linked effects of changes in fisheries supply in a multiregional setup tracing the transmission of impacts internationally. By linking multiple spatial components, the model offers a better understanding of the impacts of shared stock supply changes. Moreover, given the complexity of Pacific halibut supply-side restriction in the form of region-based allocations, the regulators’ need for assessment of various combinations of TAC allocations is addressed by accompanying the result with a web-based tool allowing custom changes simultaneously applied to all IPHC-managed Pacific halibut producing areas (available here).

In order to accurately capture the economic impacts described, the IPHC designed a series of surveys to gather information from the sectors relying on the Pacific halibut resource. We call for active participation of our stakeholders, including commercial fishers, processing plant operators, and charter business owners, in developing the necessary data for analysis. The current version of the model, however, is based on secondary data sources. As such, the results are conditional on the adopted assumptions for the components for which data are not routinely collected and published. The subsequent revisions of the model incorporating IPHC-collected data will bring improved estimates on the Pacific-halibut sectors’ economic impact.

Besides providing economic impact estimates for broadly-defined regions, the PHMEIA model results can inform on the Pacific halibut’s community impacts throughout its range. However, while the quantitative analysis is conducted with respect to components that involve monetary transactions, Pacific halibut’s value is also in its contribution to the diet through subsistence fisheries and importance to the traditional users of the resource. To native people, traditional fisheries constitute a vital aspect of local identity and a major factor in cohesion. One can also consider the Pacific halibut’s existence value as an iconic fish of the Northeast Pacific. While these elements are not quantified at this time, recognizing such an all-encompassing definition of the Pacific halibut resource contribution, the IPHC echoes a broader call to include the human dimension into the research on the impact of management decisions, as well as changes in environmental or stock conditions.

Motivation

Under the Convention, the IPHC’s mandate is “optimum” management of the Pacific halibut resource, which necessarily includes an economic dimension. However, until now, the focus has been rather on the sustainable harvest from the ecological perspective. This is also the focus of the IPHC’s management strategy evaluation (MSE) project (more about it here).

Federal laws governing U.S. marine fisheries require assessing any proposed fishery management action in terms of its regional or community economic impacts. These laws include, among others, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA, amended on January 12, 2007), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Executive Order 12866. For example, the National Standard 8, one of the principles mandated by the MSA, requires that while the conservation and management measures must be consistent with the conservation requirements, they must also account for “the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities” and “to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities” (Section 301[a]8). It implies that fishery managers, when considering any action, must take into account the economic impact on various stakeholder groups, including fishers, but also processors and fishing-dependent communities. The MSA also establishes Regional Fishery Management Councils, which role is to develop fisheries management plans that “take into account the social and economic needs of the States” while working on the stewardship of fishery resources.

The document establishing national fisheries policy in Canada for the modern era is the 1976 Policy for Canada’s Commercial Fisheries. It states that “the guiding principle in fishery management no longer would be maximization of the crop sustainable over time but the best use of society’s resources.” The “best use” is defined as “the sum of net social benefits (personal income, occupational opportunity, consumer satisfaction and so on) derived from the fisheries and the industries linked to them” (Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14). These objectives have been affirmed in legislation (Oceans Act, S.C. 1996, c.31) according to which fisheries are expected to be managed to meet a full spectrum of social and economic objectives.

Pacific Halibut and Covid-19

Recent perturbations in the markets caused by covid-19 serve as an additional argument for considering the broader economic dimension of Pacific halibut contribution to regional economies. Widespread closure of restaurants (Figure 1), the Pacific halibut’s biggest customers, diminished the demand for fish, particularly high-quality fresh fish that fetch higher prices. Lower prices, down in 2020 by up to 30% compared with the previous year (Stremple 2020), caused a slow first half of the season (Ess 2020, see also IPHC data on the year to date landings here). Less harvest activity has repercussions in the economy beyond the harvest sector as it affects also harvest sector suppliers and downstream industries that rely on its output. Outbreaks of covid-19 in fish processing plants (Estus 2020; Krakow 2020) also affect economic activity generated regionally by this directly related to the Pacific halibut supply sector. Moreover, seafood processors incur additional costs related to protective gear, testing, and quarantine accommodations (Ross 2020; Sapin and Fiorillo 2020; Welch 2020b).

It is difficult to predict such events and resulting market shifts. Although there may be a market for excess seafood that could not be sold to restaurants as worried customers are stockpiling frozen and canned products (Sapin 2020), and more adventurous home-cooking is on the rise (Varriano 2020), building in such transitions into the model structure requires strong assumptions as no reliable data on such events are available.

iphc.2020.eco.png

Figure 1: Monthly Retail Trade and Food Services - Food Services and Drinking Places: US Total. Based on US Census data.

 

Development of the Model

Economic Impact Metrics

The supply and use tables (SUTs) focus on measuring the productive structure of the economy. They trace the production of commodities (both goods and services) by domestic industries, combined with imports, through their use as intermediate inputs or as final consumption, investment, or exports. The system provides a measure of value added by industry - total output less intermediate inputs. These tables can be used to calculate economy-wide gross domestic product (GDP). The supply and use tables can also be used to build an input-output (IO) model (Leontief 1966). The IO model is used to investigate how changes in final demand or supply (using modified IO model, see details in Leung and Pooley 2002) affect economic variables such as output, income and employment or value added that provides an assessment of the sector’s contribution to the GDP in a region. This is known as impact analysis.

The IO model typically accounts for three economic impact (EI) components:

  • The direct EIs are the deliveries by domestic industries and imports necessary to satisfy final demand expenditures on products and services. In the context of the PHMEIA, this includes changes to Pacific halibut output realized by direct users of the Pacific halibut resource stock (fishers).
  • The indirect EIs provide an estimate of the changes to the production related to expenditures on goods and services used in the production process of the directly impacted industry. In the context of the PHMEIA, this includes an impact on upstream economic activities associated with supplying intermediate inputs to the Pacific halibut fishing fleet, for example, the vessel repair and maintenance.
  • The induced EIs cover production and imports associated with the spending of wages on consumption. In the context of the PHMEIA, this includes economic activity generated by spending wages that rely on the Pacific halibut resource.

Changes in the domestic fisheries output, unless fully substituted by imports, are associated with production adjustments by industries relying on fish supply, such as seafood processors. Forward linkages describe the effects on the industries for which the affected sector is a supplier, defining its relations with the downstream industries. While early attempts to include forward linkages in the calculation of economic impacts have been criticized for the lack of economic foundation, recent methodological advances (e.g., Seung 2014, 2017) allow for such extension.

The figure below summarizes the impacts considered when analyzing commercial harvesters as users of the Pacific halibut resource.

iphc-2020-eco1.png

Besides shaping the complex combination of local effects, the interlinked nature of the industries in the economy is creating cross-regional impacts. Policies or any other exogenous changes may have an economic impact not only on the region where they are observed but also on the regions with strong economic ties with the region subjected to the change. A multiregional IO model accounts for that. The general structure of the input to the multiregional IO model is available here.

The standard input-output framework provides little insight into the workforce’s demographics that builds the market for supply and demand of labor. Adopting the IO model extended to the so-called social accounting matrix (SAM), the calculated effects account for commuting patterns where the labor’s place of employment and place of residence differ. It is of particular use when focusing on industries that employ a considerable share of non-residents for temporary assignments that imply a negative net flow of income to the region and, consequently, impacts on households are not necessarily equal to impacts on earnings in the region. The SAM-based model with endogenous households also allows for detailed accounting of household earnings by place of residence, including earnings from other sources (e.g., government transfers, dividends, interest, and rent), outflows to the government (e.g., personal income taxes), and households net savings by region. The structure of SAM with endogenized households is available here. The model components associated with household accounts largely align with these considered in Seung (2014).

PHMEIA model

The Pacific halibut multiregional economic impact assessment (PHMEIA) model is a multiregional SAM model developed with a specific purpose of assessing the economic contribution of Pacific halibut resource to the economy of the United States and Canada. The model reflects the interdependencies between eleven major sectors, both producing goods and services, as well as two Pacific halibut-specific sectors. These include the Pacific halibut commercial fishing sector and the forward-linked Pacific halibut processing sector. The inclusion of the Pacific halibut charter sector is underway. The list of industries considered in the PHMEIA model, as well as primary commodities they produce, is available in the table at the end of this section. The model considers three primary Pacific halibut producing regions, as well as residual regions, to account for cross-boundary effects of fishing in the Pacific northwest:

  • Alaska (AK)
  • West Coast (WC – including WA, OR, and CA)
  • British Columbia (BC)
  • Rest of the US (RUS)
  • Rest of Canada (ROC)
  • Rest of the world (ROW)

This multiregional setup implies an extension of the model in Seung, Waters, and Taylor (2019), which is limited to Alaska, the US West Coast, and the rest of the US.

The US components of the model use as a base the data from the species-based SAM developed by Seung, Waters, and Taylor (2019) updated using the MR-GRAS technique (Temursho, Oosterhaven, and Alejandro 2019) with data published by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) supplemented with BEA Regional Data resources, data from United States Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), as well as a full set of fisheries statistics (described in the next section).

The model components describing the Canadian economy are based on SUTs published by Statistics Canada supplemented with data from Monthly Survey of Manufacturing, Labour Force Survey and Survey of Household Spending, as well as detailed fisheries statistics (described in the next section). As no secondary data are available on British Columbia’s Pacific halibut production structure, the allocation of Pacific halibut commercial fishing and processing expenditures follows that adopted for Alaska. Derived this way use of commodities is appended to SUTs and subtracted from production by general fishing and processing industries. This method is considered a sensible simplification given the input allocation for the same fishing techniques and comparable processing technology should not vary much between regions. Pacific halibut is harvested predominately using longliners and sold lightly processed, mainly fresh or frozen, throughout its whole range.

The multiregional model is assembled adopting a method suggested by Bachmann, Roorda, and Kennedy (2015). Accordingly, international linkages are established through trade matrices. These, in turn, are constructed based on available trade statistics (mainly US Census trade data and Canadian International Merchandise Trade Database). For industries with no regional trade statistics available (some services), distribution from the base model is adopted for the country of origin, and split between destination regions is done based on regional GDP estimates.

The ROW region in the model is considered exogenous. This implies that the trade relations with the ROW are not affected by the changes to the Pacific halibut sector considered in this project. However, the inclusion of the ROW component, constructed using World Input-Output Tables (WIOT), allows for assessment of impact also outside Canada and the United States if trade with ROW was to be considered responsive to changes in Pacific halibut sector activity.

In this model, all wild capture production, including all Pacific halibut harvest, is assumed to be supplying the seafood processing industry (Pacific halibut supplying Pacific halibut processing industry). This implies a broader scope of the processing sector that also includes entities responsible for product preparation and packaging. Under this assumption, Pacific halibut and other harvested species are sold to other industries or final users only as a seafood commodity as opposed to a fish commodity. Leonard and Watson (2011) note that about 30% of fish harvested in the US West Coast flow directly to the seafood wholesale sector, but no data to make such a distinction are available and simplifying assumption is made. At this stage, the model also omits the economic benefit of Pacific halibut not sold but retained by commercial fishers for personal consumption.

The model adopts exogenous changes to Pacific halibut processing based on constant margins for calculation of effects related to forward-link industries, adopting the method described in Seung (2014, 2017). This means the model assumes a proportional change between the Pacific halibut processing sector and the Pacific halibut fishing sector in each region. The model omits Pacific halibut impacts beyond the processing sector. As noted by Steinback and Thunberg (2006), there are many seafood substitutes available to buyers. Thus including impacts beyond processors and wholesalers could be misleading considering that it is unlikely that supply shortage would result in a noticeable change in retail level gross revenues. As noted earlier, data limitations dictate the exclusion of wholesale buyers from the assessment of forward-linked effects.

Table 1: Industries and commodities considered in the PHMEIA model. iphc-2020-eco2.png

 

Note on the inclusion of the recreational sector in the PHMEIA model

The recreational component of the PHMEIA model is under development.

There are two components to consider when attempting to assess the full scope of the Pacific halibut resource’s economic impact occurring as a result of recreational fishing activities. The first is the contribution to the economy by the charter sector that provides service to anglers. These include services directly related to angling, such as providing a boat, trip supplies, and guides, and not directly related, for example, hospitality services in case of fly-in lodges that specialize in serving customers interested in the Pacific halibut fishing. The economic impact is generated by the sector’s demand for inputs from other industries, including manufacturing, professional services (e.g., accounting, marketing), and demand for labor. Assessment of the charter sector economic impact typically requires surveying charter business owners on their revenues and expenditures.

The second component is the contribution of anglers themselves by creating demand for goods and services related to their fishing trips. This includes expenses related to the travel that would otherwise not be incurred (e.g., auto rental, fuel cost, lodging, food, site access fees), as well as money spent on durable goods that are associated with recreational fishing activity, e.g., rods, tackle, outdoor gear, boat purchase, and applies to both guided and unguided recreational fishing. Assessment of anglers’ contribution to the economy typically requires surveying private anglers on their fishing-related expenditures and fishing preferences. The stated-preference model is usually used to estimate the change in fishing participation caused by trip characteristics changes.

The figure below summarizes the impacts of Pacific halibut recreational fishing on the economy.

iphc-2020-eco3.png

Limitations of the IO/SAM approach and alternative techniques

The traditional input-output models assume that industries use inputs in fixed proportions (there is no factor substitution) and outputs are produced proportionally to all the inputs (constant returns to scale). In the multiregional model, constant are also interregional trading relationships. Thus, applying this approach, one has to assume that all sectors' structure remains the same. This assumption is generally satisfied when evaluating small change but not necessarily when the change is of high magnitude or occurring over an extended period of time (longer-term prediction).

Relaxing the assumption of fixed technical coefficients by specifying them econometrically as a function of relative prices of inputs is one of the most compelling extensions to the static IO and SAM models. Such models, generally referred to as computable general equilibrium (CGE) models, require extensive research to develop credible functional relationships between prices and consumption that would guide economic agents’ behavior in the model.

The CGE approach is a preferred way forward when expanding the model usability and considering applying it in conjunction with the IPHC MSE. The dynamic model is also well suited to analyze the impact of a broad suite of policies or external factors that would affect the stock over time.

 

Fisheries-related Economic Statistics

Commercial Fishing

Data on commercial fisheries landings in the United States are available through NOAA. Statistics for each state represent a census of the volume and value of finfish and shellfish landed and sold at the dock. Collecting these data is a joint state and federal responsibility. Alaska’s landings data are collected from mandatory trip tickets by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), then consolidated and disseminated (as aggregates) by the Alaska Fisheries Information Network (AKFIN). Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) reports on the number of permits, as well as earnings by residents and non-residents. Data on Pacific halibut fishing in Washington, Oregon, and California are collected by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), respectively. Each of these state agencies requires submission of fish tickets reporting on Pacific halibut sales. These data are processed and disseminated by the Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN).

Data on commercial fisheries landings in Canada are published by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The value of Pacific halibut in British Columbia comes from the mandatory fish slips. These are processed by the DFO’s Regional Data Unit.

Data on commercial landing value (available for all regions for 1951-2018, figure below) suggest a considerable increase in Pacific halibut output driven by Alaska fisheries since the 1980s. However, revenue has been dropping throughout the last decade. The statistics for recent years are available in Table 2.

Data on employment in major fisheries in Alaska, including Pacific halibut fisheries, is compiled on a monthly basis by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (AK DLWD). Statistics Canada reports annually on employment in Fish, hunting and trapping sector, but no estimates are available for the Pacific halibut fishery. No specific estimates on jobs in the fisheries sector are available for the US West Coast states. Available employment statistics for Pacific halibut commercial fishing are summarized in Table 2.

iphc-2020-eco4.png

Pacific halibut landings value (1951-2018) in 2018 USD.

Table 2: Summary of available data on Pacific halibut commercial fishery.

iphc-2020-eco5.png

Seafood Processing

Alaska’s direct marketers, catcher processors, catcher exporters, buyer exporters, shore-based processors, or floating processor permit holders are required to complete and submit to the ADFG a Commercial Operator's Annual Report (COAR). COAR reports on the by species statewide raw input purchase cost and wholesale value of the processed seafood.

In British Columbia, there are three types of seafood industry licenses issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Branch. These include fish vendor license, fish receiver license and fish processing license. Interprovincial sales and sales abroad require also a license from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) under Safe Seafood for Canadians Regulations (SFCR). Canada’s Ministry of Agriculture (AgriService BC) reports on British Columbia Pacific halibut wholesale value in its annual publication British Columbia Seafood Year in Review.

No data on the wholesale value of Pacific halibut are routinely collected for the US West Coast. The model uses the latest (2017) NOAA estimates on species-specific processor markups suggesting that for every dollar spent on Pacific halibut, the processors deliver USD 1.15 worth of product.

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development reports on the number of resident and non-resident workers in the Alaska seafood industry, as well as the associated wages. No details on employment by processed species are available. Employment in seafood processing for the lower 48 is available from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, but no statistics specific to Pacific halibut processing on the US West Coast are published. Detailed data on employment and wages in British Columbia seafood processing is available via AgriService BC series of publications British Columbia Fish Processing Employment. The statistics are reported by species, with estimates based on the additional information each company provides on the species groups that are processed in the facility and the estimated percent of jobs attributed to each group.

Table 3 summarizes statistics available for the Pacific halibut processing sector.

Table 3: Summary of available data on the Pacific halibut processing sector.

iphc-2020-eco6.png

Seafood Trade

Data on trade in seafood products by the United States is available from NOAA Fisheries. The database provides no evidence for the export of fresh Pacific halibut, although some may be included in generic category HS 302290100/HS 302290190: Flatfish NSPF Fresh. Frozen Pacific halibut exports are lumped with other halibut species (Atlantic, Greenland, California).  However, the total frozen halibut products export (USD 6.9 mil. in 2019) is modest given the annual total output averaging over USD 100 mil. in recent years. This suggests that the majority of the US-caught Pacific halibut is contributing to the US economy throughout its value chain. Exports of processed Pacific halibut products (e.g., fillets) are difficult to trace because they are generally merged with other halibut species and could include imported products.

Imports of fresh Pacific halibut, primarily coming from Canada (USD 29.5 mil. in 2019), add to the US domestic supply. There is, however, strong evidence that the domestic Pacific halibut is facing increasing pressure from foreign imports. While the imports of fresh products (HS 302210020: Flatfish Halibut Pacific Fresh) increased between 2018 and 2019 only modestly (6%), import of frozen Pacific halibut (303310020: Flatfish Halibut Pacific Frozen) increased by 165.4%. The majority of the increase is attributed to imports from Russia. Although the import of frozen Pacific halibut is still modest (USD 7.4 mil.), there are growing concerns regarding the Alaskan Pacific halibut sector’s vitality given the competition flooding the market with cheaper products (Welch 2020c, 2020a).

Detailed data on Pacific halibut products trade by Canada are sourced directly from the Province of British Columbia. Fresh Pacific halibut accounts for about 5% of fresh fish exports from British Columbia, amounting to USD 24.4 mil. (CAD 31.4 mil.) in 2018. Canadian statistics on exports of frozen Pacific halibut (HS 3033120) end in 2016, but replacing it generic frozen halibut category (HS 3033100) suggest that British Columbia exported in 2018 also USD 1.5 mil. worth of frozen Pacific halibut products. There are no fresh Pacific halibut specific import statistics for Canada. Fresh Pacific halibut is lumped in HS 302210090:  Halibut, nes, fresh/chilled. Imports of frozen Pacific halibut amounted to USD 4.8 mil. (CAD 5.9 mil.) in 2018.

Recreational Fishing

The Sport Fish Division of the ADFG conducts annually a mail survey to estimate sport fishing total harvest, total catch and participation in the number of anglers, and the number of days fished (generally referred to as Statewide Harvest Survey). Additionally, NOAA reports on the number of anglers by resident type (coastal vs. out-of-state). The charter sector is also required to report on daily trips through the Saltwater Logbook Program.

Alaska charter owners are also pretty regularly surveyed on their cost and earnings (Alaska Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Business Cost and Earnings Survey). The survey was previously administered in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016 to collect data on the 2011-2013 and 2015 seasons. The latest survey, administered in 2018, describes the 2017 fishing season (Lew and Lee 2019).

On the West Coast, marine recreational fishing is monitored by the Pacific Coast Recreational Fisheries Information Network (RecFIN). RecFIN surveys include the Ocean Sampling Program and Puget Sound Sampling Program, administered in Washington, the Ocean Recreational Boat Survey and Shore and Estuary Boat Survey, administered in Oregon, and the California Recreational Fishing Surveys. Participation in the recreational fishery is reported in terms of the number of angler trips and the number of boat trips per region, mode, and trip type. Trip type is defined in terms of target species.

Periodically, all anglers in the United States are surveyed about their annual expenditures on saltwater recreational fishing. The latest survey covering both trip-based expenditures (e.g., ice, bait, and fuel) and cost of fishing equipment and other durable goods (e.g., fishing rods, fishing tackle, and boats) was conducted in 2011 (Lovell, Steinback, and Hilger 2013). A reduced scope survey, inquiring only about durable goods' expenditures, was conducted last in 2014 (Lovell et al. 2016).

DFO conducts a nation-wide Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada every five years. The latest took place in 2015. The survey targets all individuals identified in the provincial and territorial recreational fishing license databases and inquires about direct expenditures associated with their fishing trips. No statistics specific to Pacific halibut recreational fishing are reported. BC Stats reports on key indicators for sport fishing, including GDP, revenue, employment, and wages associated with sport fishing activities in British Columbia’s Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector respot, but the latest data are available for 2016.

Table 4 summarizes available recreational fishing statistics, including data on participation, revenue, and expenditures in all Pacific halibut producing regions.

Table 4: Recreational fishing statistics – available data on participation, revenue and expenditures

iphc-2020-eco7.png

 

IPHC Economic Survey

In order to accurately capture the economic impacts of the Pacific halibut, the IPHC has designed a series of surveys to gather information from the sectors relying on this resource. Further development of the PHMEIA model requires active participation of our stakeholders who we ask for necessary data for analysis.

Participants to the Pacific halibut fisheries (commercial, processing, and charter sector) can fill the form for 2020, but also retrospectively submit information for 2019. We leave the choice to the survey participants, noting the benefits of filling for each year:

  • Data for 2019, covering pre-covid-19 operations, can be considered a baseline suitable for drawing conclusions under normal circumstances and using for predictions.
  • Data for 2020, covering an abnormal year of operations, can be used to assess losses incurred by the Pacific halibut sectors, but also sectors’ resilience to unfavorable exogenous circumstances. If the project continues and data for 2021 are collected, the project could inform on the response to the crisis and undertake an analysis of the path to recovery.

The subsequent revisions of the model incorporating IPHC-collected data will bring improved estimates on the Pacific halibut sectors’ economic impact.

Commercial Vessel Expenditures Survey (Revised form)

Processing Plant Expenditures Survey (Revised form)

Charter Sector Expenditures Survey (New)

Questions and comments about the surveys can be directed to Barbara Hutniczak, Fisheries Economist, Fisheries Policy & Economics Branch, International Pacific Halibut Commission, at Barbara.Hutniczak@iphc.int or via phone: 206-634-1838 ext. 7693.

 

Preliminary Results

This section summarizes the initial outcomes of the PHMEIA model. It is important to note that these are preliminary results based on the current version of the model incorporating only secondary data sources. As such, the results are conditional on the adopted assumptions for the components for which data were not available and are subject to change. The preliminary results also cover only the commercial fishing sector. Inclusion of the recreational sector is underway.

The preliminary results suggest that Pacific halibut commercial fishing’s total estimated impact in 2018 amounts to USD 243 mil. (CAD 316) in GDP, USD 124 mil. (CAD 160 mil.) in labor income, 4,169 in jobs, and USD 130 mil (CAD 168 mil.) in households income and over USD 610 mil. (CAD 790 mil.) in output. This is about 4.7 times the fishery output value of USD 129 mil. (CAD 167 mil.) recorded for 2018. The estimate is the total economic impact, the sum of the direct, indirect, and induced effects from changes to the Pacific halibut fishing sector, as well as indirect and induced effects associated with forward-linked industries (Pacific halibut processing sector).

The results suggest that the revenue generated by Pacific halibut at the harvest stage accounts for only a fraction of economic activity that would be forgone if the resource was not available to commercial fishers in the Pacific northwest. Besides supporting production by other industries, the sector also contributes to Canada and the United States’ GDP and has a considerable impact on employment in both countries. Understanding such a broad scope of impacts is essential for designing policies with desired effects depending on regulators’ priorities.

The complexity of Pacific halibut supply-side restriction in the form of region-based allocations suggests the need for a tool enabling regulators to assess various combinations of TAC allocations. To address this, the results are complemented by an interactive web-based application allowing users to estimate and visualize joint effects based on custom changes simultaneously applied to all IPHC-managed Pacific halibut producing areas. The preliminary version of the tool is available here. The current version of the tool accounts only for the commercial sector, inclusion of the recreational component is underway.

 

Cited Works

Bachmann, Chris, Matthew J. Roorda, and Chris Kennedy. 2015. “Developing a Multi-Scale Multi-Region Input-Output Model.” Economic Systems Research 27(2):172–93.

Ess, Charlie. 2020. “Restaurant Closings, Depressed Japan Market Push Halibut, Blackcod Prices Down.” National Fisherman.

Estus, Joaqlin. 2020. “COVID Spikes at Alaska Fish Processing Plants Raise Alarm.” Indian Country Today.

Krakow, Morgan. 2020. “56 Workers at Anchorage Seafood Plant Test Positive for COVID-19.” Anchorage Daily News.

Leonard, Jerry, and P. Watson. 2011. “Description of the Input-Output Model for Pacific Coast Fisheries.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC 111(April).

Leontief, Wassily. 1966. Input-Output Economics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leung, Pingsun, and Sam Pooley. 2002. “Regional Economic Impacts of Reductions in Fisheries Production: A Supply-Driven Approach.” Marine Resource Economics 16(4):251–62.

Lew, Daniel K., and Jean Lee. 2019. “Costs, Earnings, and Employment in the Alaska Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Sector, 2017.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC 398.

Lovell, Sabrina J., James Hilger, Scott Steinback, and Clifford P. Hutt. 2016. “The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures on Durable Goods in the United States, 2014.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO 165.

Lovell, Sabrina J., Scott Steinback, and James Hilger. 2013. “The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the United States, 2011.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO 134.

Ross, Isabelle. 2020. “For Alaska’s Seafood Processors, the COVID-19 Pandemic Has Cost Tens of Millions of Dollars.” KDLG.

Sapin, Rachel. 2020. “US Seafood Buyer Sees ‘double-Digit’ Growth in Canned and Frozen Fish from Coronavirus Panic Shopping.” IntraFish.

Sapin, Rachel, and John Fiorillo. 2020. “Seafood Processors Pay a Steep Price to Keep Workers Safe from Coronavirus.” IntraFish.

Seung, Chang K. 2014. “Estimating Effects of Exogenous Output Changes: An Application of Multi-Regional Social Accounting Matrix (MRSAM) Method to Natural Resource Management.” Regional Science Policy & Practice 6(2):177–93.

Seung, Chang K. 2017. “A Multi-Regional Economic Impact Analysis of Alaska Salmon Fishery Failures.” Ecological Economics 138:22–30.

Seung, Chang K., Edward Waters, and Michael L. Taylor. 2019. “Developing a Multi-Regional Social Accounting Matrix (MRSAM) for Southwest Alaska Fisheries.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐AFSC 399.

Steinback, Scott R., and Eric M. Thunberg. 2006. “Northeast Region Commercial Fishing Input-Output Model.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE 188.

Stremple, Claire. 2020. “Local Fish Put Haines Residents to Work despite COVID-19 Economic Slump.” KHNS.

Temursho, Umed, Jan Oosterhaven, and Manuel Alejandro. 2019. “A Multiregional Generalized RAS Updating Technique.” IOpedia Research Paper Series.

Varriano, Jackie. 2020. “Everyone’s Been Cooking like Crazy during the Coronavirus Stay-Home Order. Here’s What Seattle’s Been Making.” The Seattle Times.

Welch, Laine. 2020a. “Alaska Halibut Gets Battered by Foreign Import.” Fish Factor.

Welch, Laine. 2020b. “Alaska Seafood Processors Get Clobbered by COVID Costs.” Alaska Fish Radio.

Welch, Laine. 2020c. “Fishermen’s Relief Funds Welcomed as Unfair Trade Deals Drag On.” SitNews.