2.4. Stakeholder acceptance of RTCs
The concept of closure and opening of areas is generally regarded – also within the industry – as an important instrument for achieving rational exploitation patterns in these areas. Seen from a conservation perspective, no negative side effects have been observed with regard to the method of closing areas with undersized fish or excessive bycatch. As a regulatory measure RTC is, based on discussions with stakeholders and the authors long personal experiences, generally recognised and respected by fishers, among whom it has gained a fairly high degree of legitimacy. The reason for this is that closing of areas with small fish or overly high bycatch levels creates a level playing field, and prevents behaviour that is contrary to fishers’ professional code of conduct, as fishers in general accept that catching (and discarding) fish below accepted minimum size is unprofessional and morally wrong.
It has been argued that instead of formal closures, one could rely on some sort of self-policing whereby fishers would voluntarily leave areas with large numbers of juveniles. Although a move-on provision does exist, see Section 4.3, experience shows that this is not enough in practice. The law-abiding fisher will perceive that colleagues with a more relaxed attitude towards rules and regulations continue fishing and become the economic winners. When high moral standards compete with economic return, the moral standards tend to lose out. In such a context a formal closure policed by the government creates a level playing field.
From time to time fishers complain that the Surveillance Service is too slow in re-examining a closed area. This is mainly a question of finding the right balance between fishers’ understandable impatience, and the concerns of government related to the cost/efficiency of the Surveillance Service. Automatic re-opening of closed areas is not considered feasible in the Barents Sea, as experience shows that when intermixture of juveniles occurs, it may often prevail for a long, indefinite period (often months rather than weeks). Accordingly, the occurrence of juveniles or bycatches must be assessed and re-assessed in each individual case.
The rules of RTC programmes differ, due to differences both in natural conditions in the objectives and ambitions set for the programme. In the emerging RTC programme for the North Sea and Skagerrak, EU and Norway have so far not managed to harmonise the relevant rules and criteria. Both parties do apply automatic re-opening after 14 days, but no agreement has yet been reached concerning the size (predetermined or not) of closed areas and whether limits should be measured in weight or numbers.