IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea03/22255.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can a novel management plan for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fisheries succeed?

Author

Listed:
  • Fina, Mark

Abstract

Since their inception, Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) crab fisheries have attracted participants willing to undertake great financial and personal risks to participate in these high valued fisheries. Although entry to the fisheries is limited, excess capital and overcapacity, together with stock declines, have resulted in a race for fish. The shortest season is in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery, which has been prosecuted for less than one week in recent years. Efforts of managers to protect declining stocks by reducing allowable catch have increased the economic stress on participants and communities that depend on these fisheries and increased pressure on participants to take greater risks. For several years, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council worked with participants to address these problems in the crab fisheries through series of working groups and management measures. In 2001, Congress stepped in, directing the Council to assess various rationalization programs for the fisheries, including individual fishing quotas (IFQs), processor shares, cooperatives, and quotas held by communities. The outcome of the Council process is a new and unique management program selected by a unanimous vote of the North Pacific Council. The program reflects the Council's desire to accommodate the interests of several groups dependent on these fisheries-vessel owners, processors, captains and crew, and communities. Under the program, harvest quota shares (QS) will be issued to vessel owners and captains. Processors will be issued processing quota shares. Under these allocations, 90 percent of harvest quota shares are designated for delivery to holders of processing quota shares. Community interests are protected by a requirement that a certain portion of the catch be landed and processed in designated regions. An arbitration program is included to resolve price disputes, which could arise because of the constraints on markets created by the dual share allocations. The result of the Council's action is one of the most complex fishery management programs to date. The attempt to satisfy many interests creates significant hurdles that must be overcome for the program to succeed economically and environmentally. This paper describes key dimensions of the proposed crab fishery management program and identifies the most substantial hurdles that the program must overcome for the Council to judge it a successful management program for the fisheries. First, managers will be challenged by program implementation. Implementation will require initial allocations of harvesting shares to vessel owners and captains and processing shares to processors. Most shares will be regionally designated based on the participant's landings history. Second, managers will face the challenge of protecting stocks as the incentives to high grade increase in the share-based fishery. Third, the markets for the harvest shares, captains shares, and processing shares must develop in a manner that facilitates coordination of harvesting and processing activity required by the share system and the regional landing and processing requirements. Lastly, market opportunities for harvest landings will be constrained by the requirement that deliveries be made to a processing share holder in a designated region. For the program to be considered a success, price formation in the market for landings must be perceived as fair. Each of these issues is described in a manner that provides the reader with a perspective of the institutional challenges faced by a program that attempts to address the concerns of several different interests. In addition, characteristics of the fisheries that contribute to the potential to overcome these obstacles are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Fina, Mark, 2003. "Can a novel management plan for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fisheries succeed?," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22255, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:22255
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.22255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/22255/files/sp03fi03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.22255?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Parzival Copes, 1986. "A Critical Review of the Individual Quota as a Device in Fisheries Management," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 278-291.
    2. Criddle, Keith R. & Macinko, Seth, 2000. "A requiem for the IFQ in US fisheries?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 461-469, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Call, Isabel L. & Lew, Daniel K., 2015. "Tradable permit programs: What are the lessons for the new Alaska halibut catch sharing plan?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 125-137.
    2. Boyce, John R., 2004. "Instrument choice in a fishery," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 183-206, January.
    3. Lawrence J. White, 2006. "The Fishery as a Watery Commons: Lessons from the Experiences of Other Public Policy Areas for US Fisheries Policy," Working Papers 06-18, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    4. Zhou, Rong & Segerson, Kathleen, 2014. "Individual vs. Collective Quotas in Fisheries Management: Efficiency and Distributional Impacts," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170601, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Olivier Guyader, 2002. "Simulating the Effect of Regulatory Systems in a Fishery, An Application to the French Driftnet Albacore Fleet," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 1-28, September.
    6. Christopher M. Anderson & Daniel S. Holland, 2006. "Auctions for Initial Sale of Annual Catch Entitlement," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 333-352.
    7. Frank Jensen & Niels Vestergaard, 2002. "A Principal-Agent Analysis of Fisheries," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 158(2), pages 276-285, June.
    8. Copes, Parzival & Charles, Anthony T., 2004. "Socioeconomics of Individual Transferable Quotas and Community-Based Fishery Management," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-11, October.
    9. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    10. Matthew A. Turner, 1995. "Value-based ITQ's," Working Papers mturner-95-03, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    11. Holm, Petter & Raakjær, Jesper & Becker Jacobsen, Rikke & Henriksen, Edgar, 2015. "Contesting the social contracts underpinning fisheries—Lessons from Norway, Iceland and Greenland," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 64-72.
    12. Julio Peña, 1996. "Regulación Pesquera en Chile: Una Perspectiva Histórica," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 33(100), pages 367-395.
    13. Frank Jensen, 2001. "Prices versus Quantities for Common Pool Resources," Working Papers 19/01, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    14. Porter, David & Rassenti, Stephen & Shobe, William & Smith, Vernon & Winn, Abel, 2009. "The design, testing and implementation of Virginia's NOx allowance auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 190-200, February.
    15. Parzival Copes, 1999. "Sharing the Fishery Resources of the North Pacific for Mutual Advantage: Toward an International Management Regime," Discussion Papers dp00-08, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University, revised Feb 2000.
    16. Nøstbakken, Linda, 2008. "Fisheries law enforcement--A survey of the economic literature," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 293-300, May.
    17. Singh, Rajesh & Weninger, Quinn, 2015. "Harvest efficiency and fishery discards under harvest uncertainty and trading restrictions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 72-91.
    18. Keith Evans & Quinn Weninger, 2014. "Information Sharing and Cooperative Search in Fisheries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(3), pages 353-372, July.
    19. Reimer, Matthew N. & Haynie, Alan C., 2018. "Mechanisms matter for evaluating the economic impacts of marine reserves," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 427-446.
    20. Singh, Rajesh & Weninger, Quinn, 2017. "Quota flexibility in multi-species fisheries," ISU General Staff Papers 201707260700001026, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:22255. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.