Political Economy and Profit Maximization in the Eastern Bering Sea Fishery for Walleye Pollock

Despite their apparent economic benefits to harvesters, Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) have only been adopted in three U.S. fisheries: Mid-Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog; South Atlantic wreckfish; and, North Pacific halibut and sablefish. During the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Congress temporarily blocked implementation of additional IFQ programs in U.S. fisheries. This Congressional action led directly to the emergence of a new institutional structure, the fishing cooperative. Cooperatives offer the advantage of eliminating production externalities that may remain under an IFQ program with relatively large owner classes. Development of IFQ programs appears to be increasingly overwhelmed by the proliferation of both equity concerns and seemingly interminable rent-seeking behavior—both issues that can effectively block adoption of IFQs. By reducing the scope of the equity issues acknowledged, the cooperative alternative narrows the pool of claimants and modifies the behavior of the remainder so as to make implementation more likely. Ironically, while IFQs are widely thought to be best designed at the local/regional level, part of the appeal of the cooperative model is that it appears to shortcut the often-protracted nature of the local/regional political process

Lipstick and catch shares in the Western Pacific: Beyond evangelism in fisheries policy?

The push for catch shares is on in the United States, nationwide generally, and in the western Pacific specifically. The prevailing understanding of catch shares emphasizes individual private property rights and changes in fisher behavior are understood to result from changes in rights in accordance with a long-established canon in fisheries economics. It is argued that this orthodoxy misses the causal factor in catch shares and thus constricts the range of policy options for catch shares. Moreover, this standard understanding of catch shares fosters opposition. Opposition to catch shares in the western Pacific can be understood as a specific variant of a generic pattern of opposition that is often centered on concerns for distributional impacts. Blind to the fact that their own misunderstanding fuels opposition, proponents of privatization resort to explaining opposition in terms of a simple, but inaccurate, for-or-against-catch-shares dichotomy. Perpetuation of this dichotomy has become a tool in the promotion of one particular ideological conception of catch shares and is a disservice to the public policy process. A possible path forward in the context of the western Pacific is presented that is based on diminishing the role of outside policy experts while encouraging local design of programs to meet local goals. Such an approach is consistent with the nature of development as local people adopt and adapt outside influences on their own terms. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd

Fishing Communities As Special Places: The Promise And Problems Of Place In Contemporary Fisheries Management

A thematic focus on special strategies for protecting special areas gives rise to several questions of a definitional nature. For example, what do we mean by “protecting”—protection from what and for what purpose (or even, a bit anthropocentrically, for whom)? Or, perhaps more importantly, what do we mean by special areas? It seems to be the norm these days in discussions of marine policy to use “special areas” as a sort of shorthand for (special) areas deserving protection through the application of a (special) tool known as MPAs—marine protected areas. But the whole thing is a bit circular—MPAs are a special strategy for protecting special areas, which are defined as areas protected by MPAs. I want to address a different kind of special area and a different kind of protection strategy. One meaning of special areas is special places. And the special places I wish to address are fishing communities. Fishing communities warrant at least some of our attention when thinking about place-based strategies for management. In this paper, I argue that management for fishing communities as special places has promise, but that place-based management is thwarted by the fusion of two contemporary streams of thought in fisheries management: conflation of interest groups and “communities,” and the emphasis on “rights-based” fishing. In Part II, I explore the concept of place—what I mean by place, the importance of place to people, the contrast between place-based management when the focus is on marine organisms as opposed to when it is on human communities, and the potential contribution of place-based strategies to fisheries management in the future. Despite the promise, place-based management faces substantial impediments and in Part III, I discuss how the coalescing interest in “property rights” and “community-based management”—in concert with a complementary legal ruling—impedes broader recognition of fishing communities as special places and experimentation with place-based management. In Part IV, I return to the idea that place-based management holds considerable promise for the benefit of fishing communities and the biological communities they exploit

Lipstick and catch shares in the Western Pacific: Beyond evangelism in fisheries policy?

The push for catch shares is on in the United States, nationwide generally, and in the western Pacific specifically. The prevailing understanding of catch shares emphasizes individual private property rights and changes in fisher behavior are understood to result from changes in rights in accordance with a long-established canon in fisheries economics. It is argued that this orthodoxy misses the causal factor in catch shares and thus constricts the range of policy options for catch shares. Moreover, this standard understanding of catch shares fosters opposition. Opposition to catch shares in the western Pacific can be understood as a specific variant of a generic pattern of opposition that is often centered on concerns for distributional impacts. Blind to the fact that their own misunderstanding fuels opposition, proponents of privatization resort to explaining opposition in terms of a simple, but inaccurate, for-or-against-catch-shares dichotomy. Perpetuation of this dichotomy has become a tool in the promotion of one particular ideological conception of catch shares and is a disservice to the public policy process. A possible path forward in the context of the western Pacific is presented that is based on diminishing the role of outside policy experts while encouraging local design of programs to meet local goals. Such an approach is consistent with the nature of development as local people adopt and adapt outside influences on their own terms. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd

Searching for subsistence: In the field in pursuit of an elusive concept in small-scale fisheries

In small-scale fisheries, there can be no more vulnerable participants than those comprising the subsistence fishing sector. Yet subsistence is an ambiguous term in fisheries management and there is little applied research directed at this sector. The first step towards incorporating subsistence fishing into formal strategies for managing small-scale fisheries will be the attainment of a fuller understanding of subsistence fishermen and their activities. This article builds off earlier work by the authors (surveying conceptual variation in the literature and worldwide attempts at formal management regimes for subsistence fishing) by reporting on field efforts to locate and define subsistence fishing activities in a specific location - Rhode Island, USA. Substantial methodological and institutional challenges were encountered and these challenges are reviewed in terms of the implications for informed consideration of the place of subsistence fishing in small-scale fisheries

Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: What\u27s in a word?

Consideration of subsistence fishing activities seems particularly relevant to coastal fisheries policy, yet formal recognition of subsistence fishing is often absent from associated policy frameworks. A critical problem is the very meaning of the term subsistence. A review of the literature on subsistence, dominated until recently by North American research, reveals a schism between interpretations emphasizing material aspects of subsistence and interpretations highlighting cultural aspects. The North American literature on the subject is heavily influenced by a focus on Arctic indigenous populations emphasizing cultural survival. Ultimately, subsistence can be a matter of survival in the belly, the soul, or both. International case studies suggest that different interpretations of subsistence are appropriate in different circumstances, and that appropriate policy can be fashioned only after the local context of subsistence is understood. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

A Requiem For the IFQ in U.S. Fisheries

Despite their apparent economic benefits to harvesters, Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) have only been adopted in three U.S. fisheries: Mid-Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog; South Atlantic wreckfish; and North Pacific halibut and sablefish. During the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Congress temporarily blocked implementation of additional IFQ programs in U.S. fisheries. In this paper, we argue that because of the emergence of an alternative, the cooperative, it is unlikely that new IFQs will be adopted in federally managed U.S. fisheries. From an economic perspective, cooperatives offer the advantage of eliminating production externalities that may remain under an IFQ program with relatively large owner classes. More significantly, development ofIFQ programs appear to be increasingly overwhelmed by the proliferation of both equity concerns and seemingly interminable rent-seeking behavior-both issues that can effectively block adoption of IFQs. Ironically (and paradoxically?), by reducing the scope of the equity issues acknowledged, the cooperative alternative narrows the pool of claimants and modifies the behavior of the remainder so as to make implementation more likely. A further irony exists in that IFQs are widely thought to be best designed at the local/regional level while part of the appeal of the cooperative model is that it appears to shortcut the often protracted nature of the local/regional political process by relying on direct Congressional intervention

Fish on the range: : the perils of crossing conceptual boundaries in natural resource policy

This paper examines the recurring theme that fisheries management ought to emulate the institutional arrangements governing other natural resources, such as public rangelands. Overly facile comparisons between fisheries and range have been based on a misguided vision of range policy and an obsession with the structure of property rights. The result has been a condition of "structural narcosis" that obscures obvious but important differences between range and fisheries and obstructs more productive and sophisticated attempts at comparative inquiry. This paper provides a more detailed contrast between past range and current fisheries policy in the United States, in pursuit of more realistic lessons for policy makers. Range management, the paper concludes, is evolving in directions that are instructive for fisheries, but the crossing of conceptual boundaries between these two resources must be undertaken with care and greater attention to detail.Fisheries management Individual transferable quotas

Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: What's in a word?

Consideration of subsistence fishing activities seems particularly relevant to coastal fisheries policy, yet formal recognition of subsistence fishing is often absent from associated policy frameworks. A critical problem is the very meaning of the term "subsistence." A review of the literature on subsistence, dominated until recently by North American research, reveals a schism between interpretations emphasizing material aspects of subsistence and interpretations highlighting cultural aspects. The North American literature on the subject is heavily influenced by a focus on Arctic indigenous populations emphasizing cultural survival. Ultimately, subsistence can be a matter of survival in the belly, the soul, or both. International case studies suggest that different interpretations of subsistence are appropriate in different circumstances, and that appropriate policy can be fashioned only after the local context of subsistence is understood.Subsistence Subsistence fishing Fishery management