Can Catch Shares Help The Bluefin Tuna Fishermen & Stocks?

Can a catch share structure help or hurt the US bluefin tuna commercial fleet? Can catch shares create a better structure for self-management of the stocks by the fishermen? Here is a look at a conversation still brewing between heads of the US commercial fleet and members of this network on this very issue. As we know, NOAA has a keen eye for catch share programs. However there is considerable debate on the types of fisheries catch shares will benefit. For large industries where the commercial fleet is largely ubiquitous, catch shares can work as they have in areas like Alaska. However the debate arises when the fishery has tiered levels of participants such as large, medium and small boats. In these cases, do catch shares start a natural selection where the smaller operations are edged out? These are just some of the issues up for discussion on how catch shares might impact the US bluefin tuna fishery. Here are some perspectives to evaulate as sparked by TokyoTom of this network;

Ralph Pratt (Bluefin tuna harpooner) and from the American Bluefin Tuna Association lends this perspective on catch shares in relation to bluefin fishermen in the NorthEast;
"Catch shares are not well liked by Northeast ground fishermen, it has put many small boat fishermen out of business." Ralph further states that the recent reductions agreed upon by the Eastern nations at the ICCAT meeting in Brazil serve as the go forward plan in place of catch shares. Ralph cites Turkey as an example that has taken significant reductions as a management step going forward.

Rich Ruais, Executive Director for the American Bluefin Tuna Association, adds the following statement;
"I have little doubt you can make allocation of catch shares work to limit fishing mortality, in selected, relatively clean fisheries to match the level necessary to sustain the appropriate MSY (maximum sustainable yield). In my mind, the contentious issues center more on philosophical, moral principles and in some cases overall economic benefits flowing from fisheries that have significant mixture of recreational and commercial values. The value added to many fisheries from unsuccessful recreational (or commercial for that matter) fishing effort can be staggering and dwarf the value of commercial and recreational catches. Any time you limit access, as catch shares do, you impact the economic activity and value. I know the simplistic response is "well we assign or leave for purchase, shares for open access but this does not adequately address the complex reality of some fisheries. Although the current NOAA stated policy recognizes and is attempting to appease the skeptics by suggesting "catch shares are just another tool" in the arsenal of managers, we have seen before how a zealous bureaucracy can run wild with a new fad to make their life easier or make new work/travel but with ruinous impacts on fishery communities.

One of the biggest concerns lies with privatization of a natural public resource. At least I am not aware of any road back from ownership (shares) should, at some point, the new wave panacea not look so good in reality to future generation. Of course, it may always look pretty good to the initial winners.

Another whole issue is whether privatization/catch shares are good for the consumer and this again, can be debated on a species by species basis."

Tokyo Tom is of the mindframe that commercial fishermen, including the US bluefin tuna fleet would favor catch shares. He just penned a good post here on his blog. He further states;
"I had considered catch shares to be an approach that the fishermen favored - subject to initial concerns about who gets what - as much better than a federally micro-managed fishery involving a race to catch, so I`m surprised to hear your concerns. I don`t want to impose on your time, but if you could point me to something that spells out the arguments I`d appreciate it.

(BTW, it seems to me that a "way back" if catch share isn`t working is for the ENGOs to buy them, or the govt to reduce periodically each share based on sustainable yield, but frankly I simply have no expertise here.)

While your group might not favor catch shares for the western Atlantic, have you considered that it might be a good idea for the Mediterranean, E.Atlantic, where there are too many fisherman and too many subsidized boats chasing too few bluefin?

I`m curious about the level at which your group is communicating with European/African fishermen. Are you discussing only at occasional ICCAT meetings, or are you make ongoing efforts to try to persuade them yourselves?

And are you making any efforts to talk to the Japanese ICCAT delegates, to try to see if they would support import restrictions on the East/Med until stocks recover, while treating your catch favorably? Wouldn`t this greatly lower market value of IUU and Easter catch, and provide those guys with greater incentives to retire boats and otherwise get their act together? This would also address some of the heat that the US govt is feeling from ENGOs and consumers who want to do the right thing."

...so the conversation continues as I will be looking for additional input here from some folks in the recreational sector as well. As always thanks to TokyoTom, Rich Ruais and Ralph Pratt for taking time from busy schedules to provide their input here on this network.

Tags: ABTA, Bluefin, Catch, NOAA, Shares, Tuna

0 members like this

Comment by TokyoTom on December 24, 2009 at 12:27am: It seems to me that if initial allocations of catch shares go pro rata based on past take, then even small boats (& recreational boats, if they are significant enough to be included) benefit: they know what they can catch, can stop the wasteful race to catch - which also lowers market value of take - and can choose to expand by buying other`s shares or to sell their if they wish.

Comment by richard ruais on December 24, 2009 at 7:43am: Tom; the eastern Atlantic and Mediterrean fisheries already have catch shares, as we do as well, on a macro scale and although we do not call our quota categories "catch shares" that is what they are. The question or issue involves how far do you take it e.g. down to each and every fishermen or fishing company? In the Mediterranean, the EC provides each of its major BFT fishing countries from Ireland to Italy and Malta with a share of their once 18,000+ metric ton quota. No doubt, in several of these countries, the catch shares or simply allocations are divided amongst the major players and until recently most Mediterranean countries ignored recreational catches as diminimus (i.e. so small as to not matter -- not true but that is how they treated them.) Whether you call them catch shares or country allocations or company allocations, it still comes down to compliance with the limit! NOAA and their social anthropologists assume because you give away permanently a share of the public resource that you have thereby instilled an inviolate motivation to not exceed that level of harvest. Maybe a safe bet here in the US where a conservation ethic is firmly embedded in most fishing communities. On the other side of the Atlantic pond when it comes to BFT, there has been no such ethic although we may have seen the birthing of such in ethic in Brazil last month. Time will tell and I am somewhat optimisitic that the change we forced and witnessed will grow and is irreversible. There will be continuing pockets of resistance and violations of quotas and size limits. But those that are now on board with compliance, will become a powerful inner industry force that no amount of government regulation can match.

Here in the US BFT, I just don't see a problem that catch shares can or needs to fix? Which category is broken? The system leading to US compliance and conservation runs pretty darn smoothly and there is general satisfaction. Sure North Caroilina fishermen want more quota and there are other issues but they get resolved by the HMS Advisory Panel and NMFS working cooperatively.

My two cents are up.

Rich

Comment by richard ruais on December 24, 2009 at 7:58am: Tom: the answer to your question about whether we work with our counterparts in the east is YES on a continuing basis. I prefer to not give details here.

Comment by Charles A. Witek, III on December 24, 2009 at 8:46am: Despite all of the publicity that catch shares have been receiving over the past year, they are not a panacea. If they work at all, their greatest utility is in combatting overcapitalization in a commercial fleet by taking a market-based approach which permits unprofitable or marginally profitable fishers to sell their participation rights in a fishery to other, presumably more profitable, operations, and thus become able to redeploy captial into enterprises which promise a better return.

Although bluefin tuna have long been overfished, and both stocks are badly depleted, it is difficult to argue that the Western fishery, at least, is overcapitalized, for with the possible exception of the purse seine component of the fishery, most vessels and gear are not dedicated to bluefin, but rather to other fisheries in which bluefin are generally an incidental, if very welcome, catch.

That’s not to say that other permit holders, most particularly those in the General, Harpoon and Charter/Headboat categories, don’t actively target and sell bluefin. They do. However, for most, their boats are employed in other fisheries, and direct effort on bluefin only when the fish are available enough to offer a potentially more profitable alternative to other species. Thus, the most beneficial aspect of catch shares, reducing the impact of what has been described as “too much money chasing too few fish,” would probably not have much of a beneficial impact on the bluefin population.

Then there is the practical question of how catch shares would be allocated. As Mr. Ruais pointed out in one of his posts, there are a lot of permits out there, and many are held by those who, in any given year, unsuccessfully pursue bluefin tuna. There are permit holders, particularly in the General Category, who do not land a bluefin in every year, and some who may hold the permit, but almost never land a giant (this is particularly the case with part-time commercials who participate in the canyon tuna fishery, who fish from sportfishing vessels and utilize what we would normally think of as recreational gear and techniques, but typically sell all or most of the bigeye and larger yellowfin and so hold a General Category permit; such vessels would be more than willing to sell a bluefin if they happened across one that is large enough, but often don’t run into large mediums or giants.) Should they be given a trivial share, or closed out of the fishery altogether based on catch history? Then there are vessels that spend most of the year lobstering, groundfishing, etc., but hold a Harpoon permit in case good weather conditions and an abundance of fish coincide. Some years they land bluefin, some years they don’t. Again, how should the catch shares be allocated to such boats?

The point is that, in all three categories—General, Harpoon and Charter/Headboat—landings are not predictable for many vessels, but vary from year to year based on weather, local availability of bluefin, alternate fishing opportunities, etc. That is not the sort of fishery that easily lends itself to a catch share program, and if a catch share program was imposed, there is the very real risk that many holders, with low or no landings during the base years, would be closed out, and that the harvest would be concentrated in the hands of a few larger players who were given shares large enough to make targeting bluefin financially practical. That would be an unfortunate outcome for the smaller operators who make most of their income from other species, but look forward to the possible harvest of a bluefin or two to flesh out what would otherwise be a very meager paycheck. Such a result would be acceptable, if regrettable, if it could be demonstrated that catch shares would have a positive impact on the bluefin stocks. However, current U.S. trip limits and regulations on catch reporting, etc. have, in recent years, been adequate to keep U.S. commercial harvest within its quotas, and it is thus unclear what benefit catch shares would have with respect to conserving and rebuilding the bluefin population.