So why the brouhaha over catch shares? Well, what I have described is a best-case scenario. Often these systems come with more questions than answers: First and foremost is the dilemma of initial allocation. How do you decide who gets how many fish?
Typically, initial allocation is based in some form on a permit-holder’s catch history. But for what period of time? How do managers weigh the needs of commercial fishermen versus recreational fishermen?
And what about fishermen who trade efficiency for more environmentally friendly gear and a higher-value product? If they caught less historically in order to sell a better product at a premium, how do you account for that in an allocation battle?
What about tangentially related fisheries? In the northeast scallop fishery, for example, yellowtail flounder isn’t the target fish but is sometimes caught in scallop dredges. So the scallop fishery needs a separate allocation for their unintended harvest—called “bycatch”—of flounder. How much should they get?
There are also concerns about consolidation. Should there be caps on the percentage of fish one fisherman can control? Will nonfishing entities such as banks be allowed by the regulations to purchase a quota and lease it out it to the highest bidder? And what about the needs of fishing communities? In such a limited access system what happens if fishermen decide to take advantage of economies of scale and concentrate effort in large ports to the detriment of smaller coastal towns?
To an extent, these questions can and must be addressed by the Fishery Management Councils tasked with developing and approving fishery management plans. But these decisions inevitably result in winners and losers. And those who end up with the short end of the stick look for remediation any way they can, particularly when our science-based management system is struggling to support management. Those who lose call their elected representatives. And this brings us back to Congress.
Congress has typically stayed out of decisions about management in particular fisheries, leaving that task to the regional Fishery Management councils, as the Magnuson-Stevens Act stipulates. But the inclusion of the Jones Amendment is troubling because it sets the precedent that Congress is willing to legislate what methods of fishery management are available to the councils.
The Jones Amendment will expire along with the rest of the spending bill on September 30 of this year. But once policy riders are enacted they have a way of sticking around. The moratorium on new offshore oil and gas drilling that was allowed by Congress to expire in 2008, for example, had been in place for 26 years.
While catch share management is not a panacea that will save every fishery, it has been proven in some case to be a valuable tool that works for fishermen and fish populations. According to NOAA’s statistics, in 1994, the year before the Alaska halibut catch share system was put in place, the harvest was worth $93 million. This is about $133 million when adjusted for inflation to 2008, by which time the value had increased to $217 million while the overall amount of fish caught was effectively equal. This is likely one reason why Pacific fisheries are not covered by the Jones Amendment’s prohibition on catch share approvals. West Coast fishermen have seen the value a well-designed, well-executed catch share system can provide to their industry and their communities.
Read this story from The Center for American Progress.