J Bioecon DOI 10.

1007/s10818-010-9088-3

Economic impact of ocean fish populations in the global fishery
Andrew J. Dyck · U. Rashid Sumaila

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Abstract Our goal in this paper is to estimate the total output in an economy that is currently dependent (at least partially) on current fisheries output. We therefore applied the Leontief technological coefficients at current production and then estimate total output supported throughout the economy at the current level of production. Estimates of gross revenue from capture fisheries suggest that the direct value of output for this sector is US $80–85 billion annually (Sumaila et al., Journal of Bioeconomics 9(1):39– 51, 2007; Willmann et al., The Sunken Billions, World Bank, FAO, Washington DC, Rome, 2009). However, as a primary or a potential economic base industry, there are a vast number of secondary economic activities—from boat building to international transport—that are supported by world fisheries, yet these related activities are rarely considered when evaluating the economic impact of fisheries. This study applies an input–output methodology to estimate the total direct, indirect, and induced impact of marine capture fisheries on the world economy. While results suggest that there is a great deal of variation in fishing output multipliers between regions and countries, when we apply the output multipliers to the capture fisheries sector at the global level, we find that significant indirect and induced effects place the impact of this sector to world output nearly three times larger than the value of landings at first sale, at between US $225 and 240 billion per year. Keywords Fisheries · Input–output · World economy · Economic impact

A. J. Dyck (B ) Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada e-mail: a.dyck@fisheries.ubc.ca U. R. Sumaila Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada e-mail: r.sumaila@fisheries.ubc.ca

123

Since we are interested in both the inputs and outputs of the marine fishing sector. Input–output analysis allows us the unique ability to do just this and. changes to the fishing sector will affect many other sectors whose output is used as an input in the fishing sector. just as one can organize the organisms in marine ecosystems by phylum. we can gain much more from considering these items simultaneously rather than separately. Fishing is one such industry that we may try to understand in this manner and forms the focus of this paper. Furthermore. we can decompose an economy into groups that allow us to investigate these parts so to gain meaningful insights into the wider economy and how agents function within it. R. but the path taken by output of the fishing sector before it reaches this destination can be very important. results are used in 123 . complementary roles. is composed of many economic actors. Sumaila JEL Classification Q22 · D57 · F01 · L79 1 Introduction An economy. class and lower taxa. It is clear that the vast majority of outputs from the fishing sector will find their way to the dinner table. A great deal of the inputs for the fishing sector come from natural resources. This is followed by some comments that aim to put these national results into a global context. The question we address is ‘What is the total current impact of the fisheries sector at current production?’ A short background to input–output analysis as it relates to the fisheries sector is briefly discussed before describing the data and methods used in this study. U. A second item that may interest us when investigating the fishing sector is the final destination for the outputs of this industry. we can begin to understand something about how these sectors operate. Some fish are sold directly to the consumer while others may be sold to an intermediary who combines the fish with other inputs to produce something that is then purchased by consumers as a different product. the industry also relies upon products from manufacturing (boats and netting). Each economic actor consumes certain goods while at the same time producing others. The objective of this paper is modest—to apply the Leontief technological coefficients at current production and then estimate total output supported throughout the economy at the current level of production. we use the results of this analysis to determine the full economic impact of marine capture fisheries in the global economy. the agents who contribute to that industry and its eventual outputs. each with different abilities performing different. It should be noted that we do not study the situation of zero fisheries production in this paper. as is shown later. and many times. J. At this stage. While we recognize that the non-linearity of fisheries production could cause problems when doing predictions at various levels of production. which should make many people outside of the fishing industry interested in fisheries inputs. we summarize the results of an input–output analysis of the marine capture fisheries sector for the world’s coastal nations. Next. Dyck. we do not think that this is an issue when analyzing the impact of current production. much like an ecosystem. Once one divides the economy into several parts. Clearly.A. as well as many others like agriculture and management services. however.

it is combined with other goods. This definition of primary industry allows for little value to be created through the direct extraction of natural resources. and in this case food.5%. In fact. although the fishing sector’s share of national output for many developing nations ranges between 0. In this way. for use elsewhere in the economy. primary industries are activities focusing on extracting or processing natural resources such as energy. the industry may support much greater output through ‘trickle-up’ linkages in the economy (Béné et al. Furthermore.seaaroundus. Generally. Some concluding remarks close the paper with an outline for future fisheries studies using an input–output methodology. It is only in rare occasions that the value chain for fish ends immediately after landing such as in the case of subsistence fishing. we can follow a fish through the chain of production to reveal that a great deal of economic activity is supported by capture fisheries. the fishing industry contributes a relatively small amount to gross domestic product or value added with the majority reporting contributions less than 1% of GDP. the fishing industry remains an important one for policy makers. these products will later make their way to the dinner table. The amount normally cited when considering the total production of the fisheries sector (referred to as ‘Landed Value’—Sumaila et al. fishing is the beginning of a productive value chain for many nations. a portion of the value of output from each sector can be traced back to capture fisheries.org/. for many nations. Each time a fish changes hands. Therefore. 1980). 2009) is the value of fish when they change hands for the first time after leaving the boat. despite its disposition in relation to other sectors. This is the direct economic value of fisheries sector output and is considered as the starting point for total economic impact in input–output analysis. The economic multiplier is used in fisheries research to emphasize that the industry has many linkages throughout the economy. Willmann et al. Such multipliers are a factor by which we can multiply the value of final demand for an economic activity’s output to obtain its total contribution to economic output including activities directly and indirectly dependent on it. 2007. where fish is usually caught for own consumption. Such economic impacts are referred to as the ‘downstream effects’ of 1 http://www. 123 . the importance of this industry to the economy may be understated when considering only the direct values obtained through the usual method of national accounts. with this share decreasing the further down the chain it goes. be it tin for canning or the management services of someone involved in retail distribution. 2 Background As a primary industry. 2007).5 and 2. When fisheries output is combined with other sectors dependent on ocean resources its total impact on the economy can be much greater (Pontecorvo et al. Rather.Economic impact of ocean fish populations combination with landed value as reported by the Sea Around Us Project1 to calculate the total economic impact of fisheries to world output. fish are sold to markets where they are again re-sold to consumers or an intermediary will purchase larger quantities for processing. especially in developing and resource rich regions. minerals. At each link in this value chain. However.

1 Overview of methods The method developed by Nobel Laureate. 3 Methodology and data 3. Leontief used his method in a number of applications. which is composed of entries ai. Roy et al. We compute this technical coefficient matrix for every maritime country of the world. 2009). J. There are. These results from an input–output study can also be easily interpreted and used in a practical manner. expressing the economy of each country as a system of linear equations summarized by the equation: Ax + d = x (1) 123 . Wassily Leontief. Dyck. and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models. Sumaila fisheries and can occur in many sectors ranging from agriculture and forestry through to manufacturing and financial services. R. Leung and Pooley 2001. including the well-known analyses of the potential economic impact of disarmament for the United States of America and tests of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory now known as the ‘Leontief Paradox’ (Leontief 1953. Hoagland et al. social accounting matrix (SAM) modeling.88 million would translate to a total negative economic impact of $72. Results from an input– output study can be used to predict the outcome of a marginal change in demand for a particular good. 2003. Radtke et al. 2004). Seung and Waters 2006). A. Of these models. Several methods used in such studies to analyze the economic impacts of fishing including input–output modeling. is a tried and tested approach to analyzing the structure of the economy.58 million. Bhat and Bhatta 2006). Recognizing that indirect economic effects can be very important. econometric input–output (EC-IO) modeling. 2005. likely due to the relative ease of computation and accessibility of results (Leung and Pooley 2001. Input–output analysis uses inter-industry transaction data to compute a technical coefficient matrix. however. 2005. results from a study concerning the Hawaiian longline fleet reveals that a reduction in the value of the fleet’s output of $43. researchers have adopted approaches to account for these effects in some of the fisheries literature. For example.A. several additional sources for readers who are interested in the methodology as applied to fisheries (Heen 1989. more than 65% greater than the direct impact to the longline sector alone (Leung and Pooley 2001). 1965). The definitive source on input–output methodology. known as input–output analysis.g. which have been discussed in the literature at length (Loveridge 2004. Jin et al. his book on the subject is a collection of his earlier works and serves as an excellent foundation for using input–output analysis (Leontief 1966). Hoagland et al. Beginning as early as the late 1940s. fisheries economic assessment models (FEAM). Leontief et al. the input–output technique is well used in the study of fisheries. A considerable amount of this previous work using economic impact methodology has been done for the USA (e. j summarizing the output from industry i required to produce a unit of output for industry j. U. Each of these techniques has its merits and demerits.

in this row vector is an output multiplier that allows us to compute the direct and indirect output required to support a unit of output for industry j. For example. This square matrix is of interest because each entry (denoted li. we would estimate that $100 in final demand from this sector supports $150 of activity throughout the economy. The advantage to using Type II multipliers is 123 . 2 with respect to final demand (d): δx = [I − A]−1 δd (3) Equation 3 describes a new relationship that proves to be very useful in macro-economic analysis.5. a second set of multipliers. Multipliers calculated in this way account for the direct and indirect output supported by a given industry. The above equation then simply states that the sum of intermediate demand (Ax) and final demand (d) is equal to supply (x). j where M is a row vector of Type I industry output multipliers. 2 above. The right hand side of this equation. we take a partial derivative of Eq. in a sector with a multiplier of 1. [I − A]−1 .2 Type I & II output multipliers Given the solution in Eq. 3. This solution is expressed as: x = [I − A]−1 d (2) We note that the vector x represents total output supported by the demand vector d. we calculate the change in output with respect to final demand. We calculate industry multipliers by computing the column sum of the Leontief inverse matrix L as: N M= i=1 li. M j . is also denoted as L since it is commonly called the Leontief inverse or multiplier matrix. x is a vector of sector inputs. and d is a vector of final demand. In addition to these multipliers. one calculates the Leontief inverse using a n × n technical coefficients matrix as described above. j ) describes the marginal inputs required from sector i when the output of sector j increases by one unit. Each entry. As we have shown. To do this. It is then a simple problem of linear algebra to solve for the vector of inputs (x) required to satisfy a given final demand vector (d) using I as the identity matrix. It is worth noting that it is not appropriate to make comparisons between estimates using input–output analysis and measures of value-added such as GDP. It is important to keep this measure of economic activity separate from other measures such as value-added. for a given economy with n industries.Economic impact of ocean fish populations where A is the matrix of technical coefficients describing input requirements for each sector. which subtracts the value of inputs from the value of output. often called Type I. called Type II may also be calculated.

whether Type I. R. we have a great deal of information in need of context. Dyck. These multipliers can be obtained for each sector using the equation: Z = y [I − A]−1 (4) Y where y = Q is the income per unit of output of each sector. When computing Type II output multipliers. a technical coefficients matrix with endogenous households will be n + 1 by n + 1 in dimension. Type II. The vector of income multipliers Z summarizes the marginal change in income that will occur when output in a given sector changes by one unit and Z j is the income multiplier for the jth sector. household consumption is part of the final demand sector. with Type II multipliers. we treat household consumption as endogenous by adding it as an additional intermediate sector in the technical coefficients matrix A. one can use the Leontief inverse matrix to compute employment. U. Furthermore. we seek to estimate total economic activity supported by fishing in the broader economy using 123 . value-added and income multipliers. However. It should be mentioned that input–output analysis is not without criticism (Christ 1955). 3. we investigate the influence of fisheries sector household income by estimating income multipliers.4 Using economic output multipliers Once input–output multipliers.A. It is well noted that input–output analysis relies on the stability of technical coefficients. which may not hold when used in forecasting situations that are greatly different than described by the respective input–output table used. Current limitations in data prevent us from calculating employment multipliers at this time.3 Income multipliers In addition to output multipliers that estimate the impact on output resulting from an exogenous change to final demand. and therefore assumed to be exogenous. However. which would occur if we added the last row of the multiplier matrix—also known as the income effect. We can make use of input–output multipliers by considering them alone as the marginal change in output of the fishing sector when final demand for its output changes. Such multipliers reflect total household income throughout the economy supported by output in the fisheries sector through indirect and induced effects. Sumaila that they account for indirect as well as induced effects that occur. or income. since this paper seeks to focus on fisheries impact on output as opposed to value-added we do not estimate multipliers of this type. household incomes induce demand for additional output. in this study. With Type I multipliers. 3. J. These caveats aside. For example. Summing the multiplier matrix L over n output sectors will produce Type II output multipliers that include the induced effect of endogenizing households without confusing output and income. when additional demand for a given sector increases. input– output analysis is fairly data intensive—a factor that can be problematic when studying regions with scattered high quality data sources. are computed. we believe that input–output analysis is well-suited to the research questions of this study. Furthermore.

in the case of Leontief’s study of American disarmament. For example. in the place of final demand may over-state the impact of fisheries. which correct for possible double-counting.6 simplifies to: x f ish = M f ish − 1 x f ish (7) where x f ish is landed-value for the fisheries sector in the year 2003. which can cause a lag between when input–output data are available and the present. Since using landed value. In a nutshell. 5 to net out the possibility of doublecounting intermediate demand (de Mesnard 2002). lag time between present day and available input–output data has declined somewhat. we are confident that applying net-multipliers as specified in Eq. which can be expressed using matrix notation as: x =L∗d (5) where data in the vector d in Eq. This is done in a simple and concise manner. For example. The process of collecting ‘supply’ and ‘use’ data (usually published by national statistical agencies) and transforming them into symmetrical input–output tables. several developed nations have 123 . Since input–output tables were first collected. where flows of goods can be followed in a symmetrical industry by industry format. 5 represents final demand or final consumption. Oosterhaven and Stelder 2002. 4 Data source Input–output tables have been constructed for several countries as far back as the late 1940s. a significant lag between present day and available data remains. Oosterhaven 2006). 6 above is a suitable transformation for compensating for potential over-estimation of multiplier effects when using industry output rather than final demand. It is worth noting that the idea of net-multipliers are a relatively new development in input–output analysis. Dietzenbacher 2005. we adjust Eq. However. 2006. Recalling that M is a vector of industry Type II output multipliers. the study was published in 1951 but the most recent input–output table used in the analysis was for 1947. Using net multipliers.Economic impact of ocean fish populations the current output of the fishing sector. There has been debate concerning the specification and application of net-multipliers that is currently unresolved (de Mesnard 2002. which is total industry output. can take a significant amount of time. we compute the economic impact of industries as: x = [I − A]−1 Ax (6) where x is the total economic impact estimated using the net multiplier methodology and x is a vector of industry output. This is done for each country for which landed value is available using national input–output multipliers and regional multipliers when national tables are not available. the calculation of total economic impact of the fisheries sector using net multipliers as specified in Eq. the net multiplier is equal to the Leontief multiplier minus one. However.

au/policy/crusoe. First. Sumaila submitted input–output tables to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) covering years up to 2006.1 Total contribution of capture fisheries to world output Total output of global fisheries is presented by geographic region in Table 1 with the total economic impact including indirect and induced effects in the third column. J. In our modified aggregation scheme. We estimate the economic impact in the economy from output in the fisheries sector through indirect and induced effects using Type II output multipliers. Dyck. and 25 sectors. we first take two steps to prepare the database. 4 above. [I − A]−1 . we use the CRUSOE4 tool to identify GTAP data for each of the 113 regions of the world separately.purdue. is found for each coastal country specified independently.htm. 5 Results 5. Furthermore. With sectors defined. which form the foundation of the GTAP database. It is clear that there are significant issues to collecting input–output data that is comprehensive and standardized at the global level. we modify the default GTAP aggregation scheme that creates ten sectors out of the 57 available. gtap. Unfortunately. The database currently includes economic flows for 57 sectors and 113 regions of the world. there is no standard by which input–output tables are compiled and may vary considerably in sectoral aggregation.3 Second.2 The GTAP database is a rich collection of data suitable for conducting complex CGE modeling.monash. In order to deal with these issues.agecon. acquiring recent data for many developing countries can be difficult at times and nearly impossible in some cases. However. income multipliers are derived using Eq. In order to extract input–output tables.edu. Some nations produce tables identifying more than 100 sectors. 3 The sensitivity of computation to the level of aggregation was conducted using aggregations of 57. the Global Ocean Economics Project (GOEP) uses a large dataset of economic flows from the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) at Purdue University. In the last column of Table 1 we present the average fisheries output multiplier weighted 2 Much more information about the structure of GTAP can be found at the Project’s website: http://www. the input–output tables used in computations are extracted from the database and an estimate of the output multiplier matrix. since this type of modeling is beyond the scope of our paper. 4 More information about the freely available CRUSOE45 utility by Mark Horridge is available at http:// www. fishing is identified separately from the other extractive activities while the other sectors remain as in the default specification. we use the regional table estimates from GTAP to estimate economic multipliers in these regions. This database was originally designed for use in computable general equilibrium (CGE) models using a collection of standardized input–output tables as its core. are used. U. Such differences in sector aggregation can complicate comparison between national input–output data. only the input–output tables. These results were compared with the 10 sector aggregation and no significant differences were found.edu/. R. 123 .A. Turning to coastal nations where input–output tables are not available. 40. while others report fewer than ten.

2009). The result of economic impact analysis suggests that indirect and induced effects bring the total economic impact of capture fisheries to more than three times the sum of the initial activity.46 133. North Americans can expect a fair amount of economic activity to be supported by increased fisheries output caused by improved management systems. The total economic impact of global fisheries for 2003 is estimated to be between US$ 225 and 240 billion. America Oceania World total 2.78 14.2 Total household income supported by world capture fisheries In addition to economic output.52. Column two of the table presents landed value while the third column presents the total of household income through indirect and induced effects due to output from the fishing 123 . With a weighted average multiplier of 3.06 235. and induced impacts in China totals US$ 48 billion while the equivalent for Japan is US$ 37 billion.20 8. Asia is the clear leader in terms of economic impact whether in terms of direct. we are often interested in the amount of household income supported by a given sector.92 17. At the regional level.22 84.45 7.89 11. or induced impacts. which supports the theory that fisheries have an economic influence greater than their direct contribution to output (Roy et al.8 is consistent with recent literature concerning fisheries as an economic base industry in Newfoundland.05 3.31 35. Together these two nations represent more than 60% of fisheries related economic activity in Asia and over 35% at the global level. This is mainly due to the influence of China and Japan.10 49.80 by landed value. this is not to say that improving fisheries management is less important in other regions.05 and 3. Each of these effects are computed for every coastal country and presented by geographic location for brevity. indirect. The average multiplier value of 2. However. we find that it is North America that has the greatest marginal effect stemming from changes in fisheries output.52 3. Table 2 reports total income supported by the capture fisheries sector for 2003 and is organized by geographic region.8 is bracketed closely by regional multiplier estimates of between 2.78 28.23 5. indirect. the world total of fisheries economic impact is presented in the last row. The total of direct.27 2.59 2.31 Average multiplier 2. While it is Asia that leads in terms of regional output supported by fisheries.Economic impact of ocean fish populations Table 1 2003 World fisheries output impacts by region Landed value (USD billions) Africa Asia Europe Latin America N. 5.12 2. Canada.52.67 3. This global average multiplier of 2. The global weighted average output multiplier suggests that a dollar of fisheries sector output supports about three dollars of output throughout the global economy from manufacturing to financial services.10 Economic impact (USD billions) 5.

J. It is apparent from our analysis that when one accounts for the total of direct. again.20 8. indirect and induced economic activity. U. indirect. we found the total economic impact to be about US$ 240 billion per year. the use of this technique for the marine capture fisheries sector as proposed by this study is the first of its kind. However. The results suggest that although the landed value of global fisheries is large.06 3. We used a global database of economic flows to consider the direct.30 8.45 7. suggesting that an increase of fisheries sector output of one dollar results in more than one dollar of household income among workers in fisheries related activities when we account for indirect and induced effects.22 0. America Oceania World total 2.75 industry. Asia leads the rest of the world in total income supported by the capture fisheries sector. Sumaila Table 2 2003 World fisheries income impacts by region Landed value (USD billions) Africa Asia Europe Latin America N.22 0.23 5.A.62 0. As with output.73 0. Dyck. it also ranks highest among regions when we consider household income.70 4. Furthermore. Asia accounts for more than 55% of household income in the world and. Household income supported by fisheries totals US$ 11 billion in China and US$ 12 billion in Japan for a combined total of $23 billion—more than 36% of the world total of fisheries-related household income. The last column of the table reports a weighted average of household income multipliers for each region. In fact.10 49.22 84. Considering direct. considering this value as the contribution of marine capture fisheries to world output underestimates the full impact of this sector to the world economy by a factor of about three.30 35.80 63. Just as North America has high output multipliers. indirect and induced effects in the fisheries sector. indirect and induced effects are considered. the average household income multiplier for North America is greater than one. R.56 1.89 11. the full impact of this sector is much greater than the value of catch landed at the port. 6 Conclusion Input–output analysis is not a new concept in economics and its use traces back to the very beginnings of quantitative economic methods. China and Japan are the big drivers.06 10. the capture fisheries sector is estimated to produce more than US$ 63 billion per annum in household income when direct. We set out with the goal of answering the simple question: what is the total current impact of the fisheries sector at current production? This is the first estimate of its 123 .76 0.71 0. and induced effect of changes in demand for the output from marine capture fisheries as well as its effect on household income.10 Income effect (USD billions) Average multiplier 1.

There is also a great deal of potential for using output from studies of fisheries management to predict the total economic benefit throughout the economy from reforming current management practices.58 Algeria Angola Benin Cameroon Cape Verde Comoros Congo Dem. as well as the Sea Around Us Project.89 374.57 0. USA.94 99.22 1.78 10.50 34.83 4. and therefore can only serve as a first estimate of the global economic impact of global fisheries. Rep. both funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts of Philadelphia.98 0.43 Economic impact 42.81 34. Input–output analysis has received scattered attention in past fisheries literature leaving a great deal of work for future practitioners. This is a product of the Global Ocean Economics Project.08 1.86 5. Acknowledgements We thank two anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments.90 84.75 5.54 0.96 0.12 103.55 13. has recently enjoyed a surge in popularity as evidenced by the content of the journal Economic Systems Research. Guinea Eritrea Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea 123 . Appendix See Tables A1 and A6.84 12.51 151. We also are grateful for comments from Paulo Augusto Lourenço Dias Nunes and Ramiro Parrado for their comments on earlier drafts. The authors would like to express their gratitude for the support provided by the Global Ocean Economics Project and its members. We have great optimism that breakthroughs in economic modeling will spill over into the fisheries literature and pave the way for much future research using this methodology.76 30.86 4.27 67.18 46.10 105.39 3. Congo Rep.48 Income effect 9.58 31.61 21.71 28.81 1.Economic impact of ocean fish populations type at the global fisheries level.42 182.30 1.22 3. Table A1 Detailed input–output results for Africa (USD millions) Country Landed value 36. Future methodological approaches and application will serve to improve this estimate with time.83 23. in general. The input–output approach.75 9.66 3.14 75. Cote d’Ivoire Djibouti Egypt Eq.78 89.01 76.40 8.68 6.93 11.10 54.67 0. Obvious first steps for future work include testing the robustness of this study’s results against any number of regional and/or national case studies.54 2.29 8.38 21.00 52.47 30.

78 63.598.17 4.33 242.26 14.91 3.023.75 63.97 67.84 14.15 29.80 32.637.33 564.32 21.06 88.88 1.81 216.05 3.11 1.47 127.02 52.16 0.58 Income effect 7.77 22.60 88.583.48 138.A.79 1.56 169.409.67 10.62 1.00 8.65 97.10 Income effect 1.34 24.69 3.39 3.39 2. R. Sumaila Table A1 continued Country Landed value 4.03 1.93 0.09 2.18 2.52 4.68 195.74 3.31 16.50 22.50 Bahrain Bangladesh Brunei Darussalam Cambodia China Cyprus East Timor Gaza Strip Georgia Hong Kong (China) India Indonesia 123 .43 359.05 1.89 1.73 0.250.27 2.09 1.952.40 3.20 80.69 677.31 Guinea Bissau Kenya Liberia Libya Madagascar Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nigeria Reunion Sao Tome & Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia St Helena Sudan Tanzania South Africa Togo Tunisia Region total Table A2 Detailed input–output results for Asia (USD millions) Country Landed value 31.57 2.60 47.88 0.08 1. J.77 2.87 29.58 5.08 719.45 0.02 358.67 3.33 3.44 1.57 0.22 Economic impact 7.104.57 10.47 21.66 11.20 24.69 335.28 1.02 6.72 1.72 58.87 1. U.12 0.87 212.16 314.32 18.36 67.84 0.98 55.93 143.27 5.78 5. Dyck.79 Economic impact 32.33 6.80 5.258.69 16.40 102.86 103.40 56.270.53 243.456.88 20.03 183.80 4.78 43.20 12.60 1.734.92 151.17 0.302.98 1.82 200.21 59.35 0.52 3.

90 940.34 133.97 18.06 13.13 11.02 2.48 28.422.77 499.47 5.66 0.920.486.146.27 213.44 1.63 278.99 101.95 115.37 2.16 15.39 1.84 9.57 112.06 Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Korea Dem.264.10 1.82 Albania Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Denmark Estonia Faeroe Islands Finland France 123 .69 2.179.32 1.05 118.85 Economic impact 3.17 255. Korea Rep.157.77 25.97 1.82 Income effect 94.31 53.81 1.47 1.244. Kuwait Lebanon Macau (China) Malaysia Maldives Myanmar Oman Pakistan Philippines Qatar Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Taiwan (China) Thailand Turkey United Arab Emirates Viet Nam Yemen Region total Table A3 Detailed input–output results for Europe (USD millions) Country Landed value 2.41 2.64 68.64 1.794.86 548.49 2.06 2.58 3.25 1.61 7.35 4.05 3.897.308.65 0.17 1.59 14.054.96 421.41 667.67 0.35 103.37 2.19 551.10 313.286.74 75.68 1.78 435. People’s Rep.45 5.66 7.173.Economic impact of ocean fish populations Table A2 continued Country Landed value 674.647.15 Economic impact 1.16 9.894.19 506.36 4.69 35.72 1.08 115.09 2.77 11.04 0.21 70.02 2.40 460.73 250.306.23 44.74 4.014.18 4.67 6.18 166.621.07 28.04 544.64 1.14 176.298.46 Income effect 1.463.44 4.08 398.53 560.23 1.31 49.74 471.406.24 1.52 0.53 43.526.65 3.080.25 4.70 218.885.11 378.143.14 37.44 3.65 647.31 191.71 211.58 601.969.73 38.37 1.71 382.989.51 55.87 12.50 786.13 4.631.82 4.

08 0.45 631.83 69.00 1.37 48.24 8.75 2.59 1.111.71 395.A.31 Germany Gibraltar Greece Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Monaco Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russian Federation Serbia-Montenegro Slovenia Spain Sweden U.29 4.29 140.599.01 94.12 9.28 1.30 201.10 0.55 964.40 0.31 75.77 763.724.80 6.26 0.66 3.80 2.00 274.33 1.45 0.95 7.83 802.09 21.46 0.344.76 301.72 Economic impact 1.K.24 1.190.454.96 Anguilla Antigua Barb Argentina Aruba Bahamas Barbados Belize Br.19 8.82 0.06 56.00 3.30 105.63 1.028.72 25.96 5.82 0.51 11.11 916.88 115.189.05 781.38 91. R.77 2.71 147.704.47 0.135.89 0. Sumaila Table A3 continued Country Landed value 195.79 0.89 7.783.84 2.99 428.25 0.35 782.58 0.00 252.84 49.17 1.60 124.972.07 922.18 0.27 0.09 Income effect 0.35 0.27 1.10 307.947.04 35.65 1. J.16 6.00 952.72 698.00 372.70 141.26 588.26 Economic impact 640.13 69.00 287.53 473.13 3. Ukraine Region total Table A4 Detailed input–output results for Latin America & the Caribbean (USD millions) Country Landed value 0.679.769. Virgin Islands Brazil Cayman Islands Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba 123 .54 0.43 0.30 1.27 2.97 1.43 62.50 26.08 2.45 8.097.44 2.70 42.71 269.700.63 373.18 Income effect 175.097.33 2.79 34.10 472. U.19 921.71 78.69 153.45 781. Dyck.21 2.84 0.73 797.62 240.36 865.719.

55 25.45 164.15 1.43 7.87 Income effect 1.04 0.56 9.62 20.920.95 1.A.Economic impact of ocean fish populations Table A4 continued Country Landed value 2.50 Dominica Dominican Rep.82 888.30 27.96 154.63 2.13 188.39 98.42 7. Lucia St.53 20.51 71.198.88 133.S.87 31.49 25.58 10.749.83 3.866. Pierre & Miquelon U.87 9. Virgin Islands Venezuela Table A5 Detailed input–output results for North America (USD millions) Country Landed value 0.43 606. Kitts & Nevis St.90 9.50 1.36 5.08 140.11 94.54 43.S.68 0.80 2.32 670.49 43.95 348.24 2.76 38.68 4.89 12.25 4.947.71 0.78 3.90 3.56 24.82 10.05 2.20 26.802.39 67.67 44.92 0.18 755.226.58 14.598.97 6.84 8.83 2.18 2.25 1.080.02 Economic impact 5.780.06 Bermuda Canada Greenland St.45 26.39 0.58 298.27 16.82 616.49 34.86 11.61 215.90 2.06 2.951.87 0.24 30.87 Income effect 0.87 35.78 237.41 208. Ecuador El Salvador Falkland Islands French Guiana Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Martinique Mexico Montserrat Netherlands Antilles Nicaragua Panama Peru Puerto Rico St.059.063.22 0.07 73.74 62.77 7.32 86.31 20.17 9.04 5.16 14.49 130.58 4.83 5.11 972.30 44.95 3.99 79.52 125.01 677.19 0.15 0.40 208.77 318.19 7.66 7.22 61.225.218.78 330. Vincent Suriname Trinidad & Tobago Turks & Caicos Uruguay U.10 32. Region total 123 .10 301.09 7.82 2.66 4.48 Economic impact 3.48 10.47 28.

41(2).org/chapters/c2866. 42(3). Dyck.25 3.95 329..329.14 986.31 30.20 0. R.83 19.65 902.96 5.19 509. (2002). E.00 1. L. Dietzenbacher. U.34 2. (2005). Environment and Development Economics.17 995.62 902.00 17.20 0.69 0. C. 137–182). (1989).16 81.796.057.29 121.45 945. de Mesnard.53 48.22 15. http://www.097.13 8. Journal of Regional Science. G. 123 .76 1.47 78.85 9.66 972.38 67. Heen.67 0. E.98 0. (1955). Impact analysis of multispecies marine resource management.77 230.13 0.76 1. K.222.58 1.00 5.10 270.75 0.63 50.703.34 355.35 24. (2007).nber.60 American Samoa Australia Cook Islands Fiji French Polynesia Guam Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia North Marianas Nauru New Caledonia New Zealand Niue Norfolk Island Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Wallis & Futuna Islands Region total References Béné. 421–426.A. Regional economic impacts of limited entry fishery management: An application of dynamic input–output model.13 78. Journal of Regional Science. G. A critical comment on Oosterhaven–Stelder net multipliers.85 406.57 30. UMI.72 251. de Mesnard.78 0. M. & Bhatta.88 5.19 3.34 0.189.80 Economic impact 155.20 13.. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.88 3. H. More on multipliers.67 46. Note about the concept of net multipliers. 45(2). 709–728. Bhat.02 0.48 174.85 0.92 100. Macfadyen. L. (2006). 11(6). J. F. A review of input–output analysis. C.99 1.74 2.73 1.29 188. & Allison.28 20. In Input–output analysis: An appraisal (pp.92 1.. 331–348. Marine Resource Economics.07 0.82 615.96 13.59 0. Sumaila Table A6 Detailed input–output results for Oceania (USD millions) Country Landed value 46. The Annals of Regional Science.71 Income effect 30. R. (2006). 249–271.90 0.524.19 263.81 75. 6(4).06 0. Christ. 545–548.00 1. Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security.441.78 290.78 0.30 5.

P. 46(3). Marine Resource Economics. Jin. Net multipliers avoid exaggerating impacts: With a bi-regional illustration for the Dutch transportation sector. (2009). Ecological Economics... R. 217–241.. W. & Holdowsky. Contribution of the ocean sector to the united states economy. Domestic production and foreign trade: The American capital position re-examined. A review of regional economic models for fisheries management in the U. Land Economics.. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. T. Loveridge. (2006). Oosterhaven. Journal of Regional Science. S. Kelleher. 42(3). D. Economic activity associated with the northeast shelf large marine ecosystem: Application of an input–output approach. 85(4). 9(1).Economic impact of ocean fish populations Hoagland. A typology and assessment of multi-sector regional economic impact models. 101–124. (2006). E. 273–283. Seung. (1965). K. R. S. & Stelder.. 159–181). S. Leontief. D. 1000–1006. P. Journal of Bioeconomics. Carter. NY: Oxford University Press. W. Washington DC.. R. (2003). Simpson.. A. The identification of economic base industries. 675–691. 38(3).. Amsterdam: Elsevier. S. & Franz. Leontief. Thunberg. Morgan. Willmann. 123 . R. Leontief. Marine Resource Economics.. M. J. Economic evaluation of the northern pikeminnow management program. Wilkinson. & Pooley.. E. Science.. Arnason. & Steinback. Roy. 332–349. 39–51. K. G. C.. Report prepared for Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.. & Davis. Linking economic and ecological models for a marine ecosystem. D. 208(4447). The Review of Economics and Statistics. In Sustaining large marine ecosystems: The human dimension (pp. 47. The sunken billions.. P. E. (2007). 305–317. K. 21(1). & Pauly. N. D.. & Dalton. (2001). (2004). A. N. The net multiplier is a new key sector indicator: Reply to de Mesnard’s comment.... (1980). M. Marsden. J. (2004). with an application to the Newfoundland fishing industry. 97(4). Hoagland. Rome: World Bank. U. (2002). Regional economic impacts of reductions in fisheries production: A supply-driven approach. Input–output economics. (1966). & Waters. & Tower. Anderson. H. Sumaila. FAO. W. 367–385. D. E. Regional Studies. W. 251–262. N. Oosterhaven.. D. & Schrank. Arnason.. Jin. Radtke. Pontecorvo. (2009). 16(4). M.. D. (2005). C... A global ex-vessel fish price database: Construction and applications. W.. R. C. 41(2). 533–543.S. The economic impact— industrial and regional—of an arms cut. Leung. (1953). The Annals of Regional Science. Watson. Polenske. R..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times