15Establish Sablefish Individual Fishing Quotas, Establish Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program
Purpose and Need
In 1987, the Council recognized a need to take management action with regard to the sablefish fishery because it was exhibiting significant problems created by a short-season, derby-style fishery. Over time, with the constant increase of new entrants in the fishery, the sablefish fixed gear fishing seasons had degenerated to several short seasons each year. Typical problems included allocation conflicts, gear conflict, deadloss from lost gear, increased bycatch and discard mortality, excess harvesting capacity, decrease in product wholesomeness, safety concerns, and economic instability in the fisheries and fishing communities. In December 1988, the Council decided that the status quo was unacceptable and expressed a desire to explore the limited access options of license limitation, Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs), and annual fishing allotments in a draft EIS. In January 1990, the Council decided to focus on IFQ options as an alternative to the status quo. The IFQ approach was preferable in that it provided fishermen with the authority to decide how much and what type of investment they wished to make to harvest the resource (by guaranteeing a certain amount of catch at the beginning of the season and extending the season over a period of 8 months), while also addressing the problems created by a derby-style fishery. In addition, in early 1991, the Council found that the management problems in the fixed gear sablefish fishery also afflicted the halibut fishery, and therefore decided to consider a similar IFQ system for the halibut fishery. The intent was that a single IFQ program would apply to both fisheries.
The IFQ Program is a regulatory regime designed to promote the conservation and management of the halibut and sablefish fisheries, and to further the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act. The program essentially assigns the privilege of harvesting a percentage of the sablefish and halibut quota to specific individuals with a history of harvest in the fisheries. The rights given to each person are proportional to their fixed gear halibut and sablefish landings during the qualifying period determined by the Council and are represented as quota shares. Under this program, only persons holding quota shares are allowed to make fixed gear landings of halibut and sablefish in the regulatory areas identified.
Analysis
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement (final draft dated September 1992) and several appendices containing background information and an evaluation of the New Zealand Individual Transferrable Quota program were prepared for the initial review of the IFQ management alternative. Two alternatives were considered: 1) the status quo open access system characterized by fixed quotas for each regulatory area, and 2) IFQs. In addition, the document recognized the Council’s previous determination that open access or more traditional management measures are not acceptable for the sablefish fishery. The Council rejected license limitation on the basis that it may not be possible to reduce the fleet size in an equitable manner, and because of the significant potential for the reduction in vessel number to be offset by an increase in fishing power per vessel. Annual fishing allotments that were also considered previously were deemed a more complicated management program that would not solve the race for fish. With the preferred IFQ alternative, the Council intended to acknowledge and reward long-term and consistent participation in the fisheries; those whose catch histories showed less dependence on and participation in the fisheries were supposed to receive relatively small amounts of quota share. However, the method by which initial quota shares were calculated also allowed for one to two years of poor performance in the fishery due to circumstances beyond a persons control.
Regulation Summary
The IFQ Program was approved for the Pacific halibut and sablefish fixed gear fisheries in the Federal waters of the BSAI and GOA, and these fisheries have been managed under the program since 1995. The regulations outline several key provisions of the program: initial allocation of quota shares; vessel categories; transfer provisions; use and ownership provisions; the annual process for allocating quota shares (QS); and the establishment of Community Development Quotas. The regulations state that legal landings of halibut or sablefish harvested with fixed gear had to occur at any time during 1988-1990 to qualify for an initial allocation of quota share. Generally, if a vessel owner or lessee is qualified, their initial quota share would be based on their highest total landing of halibut for any 5 years of the 7-year base period 1984-1990. For sablefish, the initial quota share would be based on the highest total landing of sablefish for any 5 years of the 6-year base period 1985-1990. Each person eligible to receive quota share would have it assigned to one of four vessel categories:
-freezer vessels of any length;
- catcher vessels greater than 60';
- catcher vessels less than or equal to 60' for sablefish, or between 35'-60' for halibut;
- catcher vessels less than or equal to 35' for halibut.
Initial quota share would be assigned to the vessel category that a person=s most recent fixed gear landings of groundfish or halibut were caught by that vessel. Various restrictions on transfer and ownership are designed to maintain the owner/operator characteristics of the fleet, and to prevent consolidation of QS in the hands of a few participants.
Results
The fixed gear halibut and sablefish IFQ program continues to rationalize the fishery and is generally considered a successful market-based management system to address overcapitalization. Overall, for the combined sablefish and halibut fisheries, an estimated total of 5,875 vessel owners received initial quota shares, and as expected, the number of quota shareholders has decreased over time. The total number of initial issuees (unique number of people) in the halibut fishery was 4,827, which was reduced to 3,795 by the end of 1998. The total number of issuees in the sablefish fishery was 1,048, reduced to 919 by the end of 1998. The fishing season was converted from several 24-hour period openers each year to an eight-month season from March 15 to November 15. Among some of the anticipated and realized benefits are bycatch reductions and safety improvements. Bycatch reduction was inherent in the program, due to the close interaction between sablefish and halibut fisheries. Much of the longline bycatch of halibut occurred in the sablefish fisheries, and many fishermen fish for both (and received IFQ for both). To the extent sablefish fishermen have halibut IFQ, this halibut is now retained and counted against the target quotas, as opposed to being caught as bycatch and discarded (by regulation it previously had to be discarded). This resulted in an immediate reduction of the GOA halibut Prohibited Species Cap from 750 metric tons annually to around 150 metric tons annually (Oliver and Pautzke 1997). Likewise, improved safety is inherent in the program; instead of having to fish intensely under any weather conditions, fishermen can choose their fishing weather considering the seasons, grounds, and size and sea worthiness of their vessel.
In addition, IFQs have reduced gear conflicts and fishing mortality due to lost gear within the sablefish and halibut fisheries by reducing the intense competition for grounds in a short time. Product quality and price has also increased under the IFQ Program, as fishermen have more time to cater to the fresh fish market. At the time of the Council decision, analysts estimated that the total annual benefits of the IFQ program would range from $30.1 to $67.6 million.
Subsequent regulations were proposed following the final rule for Amendments 15/20, to refine various portions of the regulations implementing the IFQ Program and make the program more responsive to the conservation and management goals specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Some of the changes were intended to clarify ambiguous regulations, and others were new provisions designed to make the program more effective. The comprehensive list of regulatory provisions added or amended is contained in the final rule (60 FR 87).