WHO OWNS AMERICA’S FISHERIES? - VLIZ

WHO OWNS

AMERICA'S FISHERIES?

Seth Macinko

Department of Marine Affairs University of Rhode Island

Daniel W. Bromley

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Wisconsin?Madison

Copyright ? 2002 Seth Macinko and Daniel W. Bromley

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the authors.

The work on which these findings are based was initiated and sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Macinko, Seth. Who owns America's fisheries? / by Seth Macinko and Daniel W. Bromley.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p ). ISBN 1-55963-347-6 (pbk.) 1. Fishery management--United States. 2. Fishery policy--United States. I. Bromley, Daniel W., 1940-. II. Title. SH221 .M23 2002 338.3'727'0973--dc21

2002007217

Printed on recycled, acid-free paper

Manufactured in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS

U.S. Commercial Fisheries Management: Time for a National Conversation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Guiding Principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 IFQs as Rights-Based Fishing, or Fisheries as Public Resources? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 But IFQs Must Be Rights, Mustn't They? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Auctions: A Tool Whose Time Has Come. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Conclusion: Auctions--Acting as Owners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Appendix: U.S. Commercial Fisheries and Their Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

This report is intended to stimulate a national conversation about our marine fishery resources and to present ideas for reforming the management of commercial fisheries.

U.S. Commercial Fisheries Management

Our purpose here is to stimulate a national conversation about

Time for a

good opportunity for a national dialogue regarding America's fishery resources.

America's marine fishery

In addition to the sense of

resources and about policies for reforming the management of

National

crisis, most current discussions of fisheries management in the

commercial fisheries. The management of commercial marine

Conversation

United States share one other consistent feature--a single,

fisheries in the United States

and simplistic, prescription for

appears to be at a crossroads.

reform. So-called "rights-based"

Accounts abound of how fisheries, and fisheries

fishing is offered as the solution to much, if not

management, are in a state of crisis. The nature of all, that ails fisheries management. The most

the perceived crisis varies. Concerns include the

common form of rights-based fishing is a man-

health of the fish stocks off our shores (many are agement tool known as individual fishing quotas

judged to be overfished), the health of the com-

(IFQs), in which individual fishing firms are allo-

mercial fishing industry (often said to be over-

cated specific catch shares. Often the terms

crowded and economically depressed), the impacts "rights-based fishing" and "IFQs" are used inter-

of commercial fishing on the broader marine envi- changeably. IFQs are controversial, however, as

ronment, the relationship between commercial

evidenced by the current Congressional moratori-

fishing and other human uses of marine resources um on their further use in federal fishery manage-

(including other consumptive uses, such as recre- ment plans. The IFQ moratorium dates to the

ational fishing, as well as nonconsumptive uses), previous reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens

the alleged dysfunction of the governance system, Act in 1996. Perhaps ironically, the moratorium

and, finally, the idea that all of these individual

on IFQs has raised them to the status of forbid-

concerns are interrelated in one sorry mess. Amid den fruit. Much of the discussion associated with

these sensations of crisis, the law that guides fish- the current reauthorization process can be expect-

eries management at the national level (the

ed to focus on IFQs. This paper devotes consider-

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

able attention to the idea of rights-based fishing

Management Act--or "Magnuson-Stevens Act") and IFQs but will begin its contribution to a

is up for reauthorization in 2002. Historically,

national dialogue on fisheries policy with a con-

Congress uses the reauthorization process as an

sideration of the national interest in the fishery

opportunity to make changes in the Magnuson-

resources off our shores. Readers who are new to

Stevens Act that reflect changing American percep- fisheries issues and unfamiliar with how fisheries

tions about the values and purposes of ocean fish- are conducted and how they have been managed

ery resources. Given the current crisis atmosphere, are directed to the introductory primer presented

the present reauthorization offers a particularly

in the Appendix.

1 fd

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download