Transcript Slide 1

Dispatches from the
Benthos:
Catch Shares and the
Promise of Industry
Stewardship
Alison Rieser
Les Watling
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
Ecosystem Overfishing
• both US Ocean
Commissions
acknowledged that
fisheries can
profoundly alter
marine ecosystem
structure & function
Policy prescriptions for fisheries
• Pew Oceans Commission (2003)
make marine ecosystems the organizing principle
allocate fishing privileges to align fishers’ incentives with ecosystem
if exclusive quotas are used, review regularly to allow transition to
adaptive, ecosystem-based management
• U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004, pp. 252-261)
manage the oceans on an ecosystems basis
make greater use of “dedicated access privileges” (DAP);
use DAP fees to support ESBM
develop regional ecosystem assessments and adopt ecosystem goals &
objectives (w/ regional fishery councils “participating”)
U.S. Ocean Policy (2010): adopt ecosystem-based management as a
foundational principle for the comprehensive mgt of the oceans…
NOAA’s Catch Share Policy
• “To achieve long-term ecological and
economic sustainability of the Nation’s fishery
resources and fishing communities, NOAA
encourages the consideration and adoption of
catch shares wherever appropriate in fishery
management and ecosystem plans … and will
support the design, implementation, and
monitoring of catch share programs.”
questions
• Is there any evidence that catch shares/ITQs
create incentives for fishermen’s stewardship?
• How is stewardship being defined?
• Can we design catch share programs to
promote ecosystem-based management
outcomes without relying on ‘fishful
thinking’?
Evidence
• Catch shares can create incentives to
internalize adverse impacts to target fish stock
and specific by-catch species
• Catch shares do not create incentives to
address ecological externalities of fishing
– damage to habitat not tied to fish productivity
– damage to benthic communities & biodiversity
From: Essington, 2010, Ecological indicators display reduced variation in North
American catch share fisheries. PNAS
A growing push to implement catch share fishery programs is based partly on the
recognition that they may provide stronger incentives for ecological stewardship than
conventional fisheries management. Using data on population status, quota compliance,
discard rates, use of habitat-damaging gear, and landings for 15 catch share programs in
North America, I tested the hypothesis that catch share systems lead to improved
ecological stewardship and status of exploited populations.
The average levels of most indicators
were unaffected by catch share
implementation: only discard rate (*),
which declined significantly in catch
share fisheries, showed a significant
response.
These findings suggest that for the
indicators examined, the primary effect of
catch shares was greater consistency over
time. This enhanced consistency could be
beneficial to fishery systems and might
also be an indication of more effective
management.
Definition of industry stewardship
• Reducing amount of gear
• Slowing fishing so more care can be taken in
choosing where & how to fish
• Seeking reductions in TACs
• Identifying areas outside existing footprint to
be designated as closed areas
• Adopting less-damaging gear
From T. Branch, 2009. How do ITQs affect marine ecosystems?,
Fish & Fisheries 10:39-57.
Recent studies of CS/ITQ regimes
• ITQs can reduce overfishing of target species if
based on meaningful TAC (Costello et al. 2008;
Chu 2009)
• ITQs are not consistently effective in achieving
EBFM outcomes (Branch, 2009)
‘Timing is everything’
• “once property rights [in fishing] have been
allocated, it [has proven] difficult for
regulators to protect benthic habitats and
associated and dependent non-commercial
species”
Gibbs, M.T., “Lesser known consequences of managing
marine fisheries using ITQs,” Marine Policy 31:112 (2007)
The Proposal
Deepsea Group Quota Owners
Association asked Fisheries
Minister to set aside 31% of
NZ EEZ into Benthic Protection
Areas
this equates to 4.4 times NZ’s land
area
Closed to bottom trawling &
dredging by regulation under
Fisheries Act
See Helson et al. 2010, “Private rights,
public benefits: Industry-driven
seabed protection,”
Marine Policy 34:557-66.
Ministry adopted seamount closures
(in filled red boxes)
Benthic Protection Areas in
open red boxes
Marine Env’t Classification 2005
NZ’s Biodiversity Strategy
Commitment to protect 10% in MPAs
By 2010
But NZ’s National Institute of
Water & Atmosphere
analysis indicates most BPAs in
areas of low biodiversity value
Also, BPAs are in water far too
deep to trawl. Is this ecological
stewardship?
Australia’s ocean policy and marine
regional planning
•
1998 National Ocean Policy
•
Planning process divides oceans into
marine bio-regions (LMEs) and sets
policies for development of regional
plans
•
Southeast Region Marine Plan
completed May 2004 was used to
identify candidate MPA areas,
including the first lg-scale, deep
offshore region and to integrate
fisheries management with spatial
planning tools
Industry input through AFMA
•
Australia’s approach
• Marine Bioregional Plan for SE region
preceded creation of new trawl FMP based on
statutory fishing rights (ITQs)
• SE trawl FMPs had to be certified as
ecologically sustainable under Environment
Protection & Biodiversity Act 1999 based on
ecological risk assessments
In 2006, Australia adopts first temperate deepsea MPA network in the world.
Protects representative examples of diverse seafloor features & associated benthic
habitats. Through Australia Fishery Mgt Authority, industry input modified the
proposal to be 20% larger (226,500 sq km).
Likely outcome under
US Catch Share Policy
• Industry associations/sectors will ask councils
to reduce TACs but will not ask for additional
EFH or closed protected areas under sec.
303(b)(12)
• MSA’s habitat protection provisions are
discretionary (vs. EPBA ’99)
• MSA & NMFS’s approach to habitat do not
created sufficient incentive for industry to
adopt voluntary ecosystem measures
Prospect for reform in the US?
• Until there is much greater public
demand, it will be difficult to
convince Congress to strengthen
the ecosystem rebuilding
provisions of the MSFCMA
• NOAA should be strongly
encouraged to use existing law to
combat “ecosystem overfishing”
and NEPA, the Marine
Sanctuaries Act, CZMA, and other
laws along with the MSFCMA to
do integrated marine ecosystem
planning
• require overhaul all FMPs that do
not address ecosystem
overfishing, using access
privileges to leverage a sincere
commitment from industry to
ecosystem rebuilding