{"id":472,"date":"2009-11-03T11:19:36","date_gmt":"2009-11-03T18:19:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/edfish\/?p=472"},"modified":"2009-11-03T13:07:34","modified_gmt":"2009-11-03T20:07:34","slug":"kate-bonzon-responds-to-the-pew-catch-share-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/edfish\/2009\/11\/03\/kate-bonzon-responds-to-the-pew-catch-share-report\/","title":{"rendered":"Kate Bonzon Responds to the Pew Catch Share Report"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"KateI was hoping the Pew Environment Group\u2019s new report, Design Matters:\u00a0Making Catch Shares Work<\/a><\/em><\/strong> would provide some good information about how to design catch shares, but instead I found it\u00a0over-simplistic,\u00a0 somewhat confusing and lacking any new insight into catch shares and effective design.\u00a0 Just about everyone agrees that catch shares can and should be designed for the unique needs of fisheries and the communities that depend on them.\u00a0<\/p>\n

EDF has been working on catch share design for years, and recently released a 100+ page draft of a Catch Shares Design Manual<\/a><\/strong> that outlines a roadmap for designing catch shares based on experience from around the world.\u00a0 (After an open peer review is done, we\u2019ll finalize the manual.)\u00a0 I agree with the title of Pew\u2019s report.\u00a0 Design of catch shares does matter.\u00a0 It matters a lot.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The overall feeling I left with was that Pew is comparing catch shares to an ideal world that doesn\u2019t exist rather than to the reality of current management.\u00a0 The report identified many issues that traditional management hasn\u2019t solved, and makes the case that catch shares should solve all of those problems.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The good news is that catch shares generally do make progress on those problems\u2014and as they are adjusted over time they get even better.\u00a0 These include setting an accurate, science-based cap, establishing an appropriate monitoring and enforcement program, managing multiple species, reducing bycatch and habitat destruction, and compensating fishermen who are caught in a system that has led to over-capitalization.<\/p>\n

Pew is right that these are tough problems for fisheries, but they neglect to mention that catch shares are better at achieving positive outcomes than nearly any other management approach currently in use.\u00a0 For example, Pew says:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn some fisheries, improvements were more likely the result of hard TAC limits than an IFQ system.\u201d\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What they failed to mention is that not only are catch share fisheries more likely to have a hard catch limit, but fishermen are also far more likely to stay within the identified catch limits.\u00a0 And, the science behind those catch limits is also dramatically better than it was before catch shares were implemented.\u00a0 In short, catch shares lead to more accurate science-based catch limits and fishermen who come in below catch limits, 5% on average<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

What amazes me is that under catch shares fishermen have not only stuck to their catch limits, but for the first time they have lobbied for tighter limits to allow fisheries to recover faster.\u00a0 Compare this to traditionally managed fisheries where setting a catch limit is often controversial, cutting it is even more so, and the limits are often exceeded.<\/p>\n

The report also highlights the need for effective monitoring and enforcement.\u00a0 I agree that this is a key component to ensure the health of our fish stocks.\u00a0 But this is true for ALL fisheries, not just catch shares.\u00a0 Catch shares offer the opportunity to instill greater accountability into the fishery, and in fact, this is a vital component of most programs.\u00a0 Catch shares are the only approach that holds fishermen individually accountable to stay within catch limits.\u00a0 Fishermen get flexibility on when and how to fish\u2014and they meet their targets.<\/p>\n

Pew also notes the high cost of administering some catch share fisheries, highlighting this as a concern.\u00a0 Much of this price tag is due to monitoring and enforcement, which is something that should be there regardless of whether a fishery is under a catch share.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Because catch share fisheries are more profitable than traditionally-managed fisheries, they are uniquely able to pay the costs of management.\u00a0 Whereas most fisheries management costs are currently covered by taxpayers, catch share fisheries can and do pay more of the costs.\u00a0 Research<\/a><\/strong> shows that per boat revenues increased by 80% after catch shares were implemented. And as they get more profitable, fishermen\u2019s costs go down<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0 I doubt that most traditionally managed fisheries could support the same level of monitoring as catch share fisheries.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Jobs are another common theme in the report.\u00a0 When the nation first started exploiting our fish resources in the 60s, 70s and 80s, fishing jobs were plentiful and often lucrative.\u00a0 However, as fish stocks declined, regulations tightened and other industries started competing for waterfronts.\u00a0 Add to that an influx of imported fish and the result is a steep decline in fishing jobs.\u00a0 Unfortunately, if overfishing continues and stocks remain dangerously low, jobs will only continue to decline.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Catch shares do cause fishing jobs to change, and when you look at the number of active permits, there is nearly always a decline. But that is not the complete story.\u00a0 Not only do numbers of jobs change, but the quality of jobs also changes<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0 Part-time, seasonal jobs generally give way to more stable, more profitable, safer, full-time jobs.\u00a0 And there is anecdotal information<\/a><\/strong> that people who stay in the fishery make better wages too.\u00a0Up to 100% better in the Alaskan crab fisheries and 44% better in the British Columbia fishery (GSGislason 2008).\u00a0<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t minimize the impact of losing a part-time job, but I also acknowledge that the people that remain have much better jobs.\u00a0 And what is hard to evaluate is what would have happened to jobs without a catch share.\u00a0 Unfortunately, increasing regulations to prevent overfishing and rebuild stocks are also likely to negatively impact jobs, just as happened over the past few decades.<\/p>\n

Over-capitalization and concentration is another issue.\u00a0 On the one hand, Pew says that catch shares are effective at reducing overcapitalization and on the other says that catch shares can cause excessive consolidation.\u00a0 So, what is the right number of boats for any fishery?\u00a0 That should be decided by each fishery based on what it is going to take to keep those fishermen in business.\u00a0 What is beneficial about catch shares though, is that those who choose to leave the fishery can generally do so with compensation.<\/p>\n

Recreational fishermen are mentioned in several places in the report.\u00a0 To me the key point is that catch shares for the commercial fleet are good for recreational fishermen\u2014as the commercial side meets their targets it will make the resource healthy for everyone.\u00a0 I agree with Pew that catch shares can work for charter boats.\u00a0 It\u2019s a tough problem though in figuring out how to improve the rules of the game for millions of recreational fishermen so that they can have better access to the oceans.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The current approach of short seasons and closures might work\u2014but they are hard on recreational fishermen and the businesses that depend on them.\u00a0 I hope that the government comes up with some ways that allow recreational fishermen to get longer seasons and still meet conservation goals.\u00a0 The answer might not be catch shares, but I am optimistic that there is an answer out there.<\/p>\n

I liked the report\u2019s approach of using case studies.\u00a0 However, there is some important information left out that I would like to explain.<\/p>\n