The most comprehensive US study so far on the pros and cons of catch shares finds that the system leads to more consistent fisheries, but does not necessarily imply healthier or more abundant fish stocks.
This management system, where Total Allowable Catches (TACs) are divided between and allocated to fishermen or fishermen’s collectives, is the latest vogue in several EU nations, like Denmark, preferably launched as ITQs, Individual Transferable Quotas, that can be sold or traded.
At a regionalisation seminar in Brussels last September, however, a Cape Cod (USA) fisherman/conservationist vividly described how the US fisheries management system in his region, under a system of tradable rights and effort-control (days-at-sea), had failed dramatically and almost destroyed the fabric of local fishing communities.
Still, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the American government agency administrating fisheries, recently declared that it is ramping up efforts to expand the ITQ system, working under heavy pressure from the Congress to halt overfishing.
The new study, funded by the Lenfest Ocean Program and published by the Journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that catch share programs tend to eliminate erratic fluctuations in fishing rates, landings and stock sizes, but may not necessarily lead to larger fish populations.
“Catch shares are one potential method for improving fisheries management, but we shouldn’t expect these programs to be a panacea”, said the author, Dr. Tim Essington of the University of Washington in Seattle.
Essington had studied 15 catch share programs in the US and Canada, but admitted that a larger number of fisheries globally need to be assessed.
“We still don’t know how much they help to end overfishing,” Essington pointed out. “Analysis of a larger set of catch share programs could also help identify fishery and program-design characteristics that make these programs more effective in achieving better ecological outcomes.”