Too many boats are chasing too few fish, it is said of U.S. fisheries. Although the regional councils that govern fisheries management often try to address this problem by limiting fishing seasons, areas, and gear, they create perverse incentives for fishers to maximize catch. As a result, Pacific rockfish, California sardines, and New England cod have all come close to joining the commercially extinct Atlantic halibut. RFF Fellows Richard G. Newell and James N. Sanchirico suggest that policymakers stop treating the symptoms and focus instead on the incentives fishermen face. Individual fishing quota (IFQ) programs, they say, are a promising tool to cut economic and ecological waste in fisheries. IFQ programs are analogous to other cap-and-trade programs, such as the U.S. sulfur dioxide allowance-trading program. They limit fishing operations by setting a total allowable catch, which is then allocated among fishing participants, typically based on historical catch. Worldwide, IFQs are used to manage more than 75 species, including 4 in the United States. However, although assessments of these programs are generally positive, their future is unclear, and the debate continues to be based on anecdotal evidence. |
However, because of difficulties matching quota holdings with catches, many argue that IFQs are not appropriate for multispecies fisheries. In their RFF discussion paper "Analysis of Flexibility Mechanisms for Quota-Catch Balancing in Multispecies Individual Fishing Quotas," Sanchirico, Newell, and colleagues explore on-the-ground experience with multispecies IFQ fisheries in Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada to asses the design and use of catch-quota balancing mechanisms. Their findings suggest that contrary to some opinions, multispecies IFQ programs can be profitable and sustainable.
Two proposed bills to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the main legislation governing U.S. fisheries, contain language to expand the use of IFQs and other rights-based systems in the United States. The first, introduced in September 2005 by President Bush, aims to double the number of such systems to 16 by 2010. The second, introduced by Senators Ted Stevens and Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) in November, would set up a national guideline for rights-based programs and allow fisheries to adopt them if their regional councils vote to do so.
Newell and Sanchirico point out in their 2003 Providence Journal op-ed, "Saving Fish and America's Fishermen," that although many fishers oppose IFQs -- "almost no one gets as large a quota as he or she wants" -- such a change in course is called for. "If we don't limit the catch," they write, "there will come a time when virtually all fishermen will be out of work -- because there simply won't be fish for them to catch."
Featured Work on Individual Fishing Quotas:
Catching Market Efficiencies: | ||
| ||
Asset Pricing in Created Markets for Fishing Quotas | ||
| ||
Analysis of Flexibility Mechanisms for Quota-Catch Balancing in Multispecies Individual Fishing Quotas James N. Sanchirico, Daniel Holland, Kathryn Quigley, and Mark Fina RFF Discussion Paper 05-54 | November 2005 | ||
| ||
Saving Fish and America's Fishermen The great fisheries off New England may go the way of the passenger pigeon and buffalo unless controls are put in place, according to Fellows Richard Newell and James Sanchirico in this RFF Web Feature. |