Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 201–215 | Cite as

An Overview of Fishing Rights

Special Segment: Rights Based Fisheries

Abstract

Coastal state management of marine harvests within 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones was a new and innovative process during the period from the late 1970s through the 1980s. The spread of conservation-focused harvest management was a key step in the evolution of fishing rights, followed in some nations by a second step of creating more exclusive, individual or group fishing rights. The three main forms of more exclusive fishing rights – limited entry permits, individual fishing quotas (IFQs), and local community-based or co-operative harvesting – vary widely in content and detail. But, when successful, they all increase the economic efficiency of fisheries, and they reshape the economic and political landscape of fisheries. All three types, but particularly IFQs, may initiate radical changes in the economic organization of the fishery, ultimately changing who fishes, where and when they fish, the products sold, the balance of power among industry sectors, incentives to support conservation, the size of incomes from fishing, and the location of shore-side economic activity. Changes of this sort are bound to provoke controversy. The controversies over fishing rights take three forms: disagreements over the meaning and intent of fishing rights, disputes over the distribution of rights and associated economic gain, and concern for disruptions imposed on people who are dependent on the “old order”. This paper provides a short review of the underlying concepts, rights systems, and current controversies concerning fishing rights.

Keywords

conservation economics fishing rights incentives individual quotas license limitation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J.L. 1997

    The growth of salmon aquaculture and the emerging new world order of the salmon industry

    Pikitch, E.K.Huppert, D.D.Sissenwine, M.P. eds. Global Trends: Fisheries ManagementBethesdaMD175184American Fisheries Society Symposium 20
    Google Scholar
  2. Anferova, E., Vetemaa, M., Hannesson, R. 2004Fish quota auctions in the Russian Far East: A failed experimentMar. Policy294756Google Scholar
  3. Arnason, R. (2005) Property Rights in Fisheries: Iceland’s Experience with ITQs. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries. This issue.Google Scholar
  4. Aswani, S. 2005Customary sea tenure in Oceania as a case of rights-based fishery management: Does it work?Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries15263285Google Scholar
  5. Bromley, D.W. (2002) Rights-based fishing: The wrong concept and the wrong solution for the wrong problem. In: Managing Marine Fisheries in the United States: Proceedings of the Pew Oceans Commission Workshop on Marine Fishery Management. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  6. Bromley, D.W. 2005Purging the frontier from our mind: Crafting a new fisheries policyRev. Fish Biol. Fisheries15193207Google Scholar
  7. Casey, K.E., Dewees, C.M., Turris, B.R., Wilen, J.E. 1995The effects of individual vessel quotas in the British Columbia halibut fisheryMar. Resou. Econ.10211230Google Scholar
  8. Christy, F.T. (1973) Fisherman Quotas: A Tentative Suggestion for Domestic Management. Occasional Paper #19. Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.Google Scholar
  9. Christy, F.T. (1982) Territorial Use Rights in Marine Fisheries: Definitions and Conditions. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 227. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, D.H., Grossman, P.Z. 2002The meaning of property rights: Law versus economics?Land Econ.78317330Google Scholar
  11. Copes, P. 1986A critical review of the individual quota as␣a device in fisheries managementLand Econ.62278291Google Scholar
  12. Criddle, K.R., Macinko, S. 2000A requiem for the IFQ in US fisheries?Mar. Policy24461469Google Scholar
  13. Crutchfield, J.A. 1955Collective bargaining in the Pacific Coast fisheries: The economic issuesIndust. Labor Relat.854156Google Scholar
  14. Crutchfield, J.A. 1979Economic and social implications of the main policy alternatives for controlling fishing effortJ. Fisheries Res. Board Can.36742752Google Scholar
  15. Crutchfield, J.A., Zellner, A. 1962Economic aspects of the Pacific halibut fisheryFishery Indust. Res.11117Google Scholar
  16. Defeo, O., Castilla, J.C. 2005More than one bag for the world fishery crisis and keys for co-management successes in selected artisanal Latin American shellfisheriesRev. Fish Biol. Fisheries15243261Google Scholar
  17. Dupont, D., Grafton, Q. 2000Multi-species individual transferable quotas: The Scotia-Fundy mobile gear groundfisheryMar. Resou. Econ.15205220Google Scholar
  18. Exel, M., Kaufmann, B.,  et al. 1997

    Allocation of fishing rights: Implementation issues in Australia

    Pikitch,  eds. Global Trends: Fisheries ManagementBethesdaMD246255American Fisheries Society Symposium 20.
    Google Scholar
  19. Gordon, H.S. 1954The economic theory of a common property resource: The fisheryJ. Political Econ.62124142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grafton, R.Q., Squires, D., Fox, K. 2000Private property and economic efficiency: A study of a common-pool resourceJ. Law Econ.XLIII 679713Google Scholar
  21. Hannesson, R. 2004The Privatization of the OceansThe MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardin, G. 1968The tragedy of the commonsScience16212431248Google Scholar
  23. Higgins, K. (1999) The Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative: As Good as IFQs? Master’s Thesis. School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  24. Huppert, D. (2004) Partial Auctions of IFQs: A Means to Share the “Rent”. Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Gordon Munro, University of British Columbia, July, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. Huppert, D., Knapp, G. 2001

    Technology and Property Rights in Fisheries Management

    Anderson, T.L.Hill, P.J. eds. The Technology of Property RightsRowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Lanham, MDchapter 5.
    Google Scholar
  26. Huppert, D., Ellis, G.M., Noble, B. 1996Do Permit Prices Reflect the Discounted Value of Fishing? Evidence from Alaska’s Commercial Salmon FisheriesCan. J. Fisheries Aquat. Sci.43761768Google Scholar
  27. Hoag, S., Peltonen, G.J. and Sadorus, L.L. (1993) Regulations of the Pacific Halibut Fishery, 1977–1992. International North Pacific Halibut Commission, Technical Report No. 27. Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, R.N., Libecap, G.D. 1982Contracting problems and regulation: The case of the fisheryAm. Econ. Rev.7210051022Google Scholar
  29. Kitts, A., Edwards, S. 2003Cooperatives in US fisheries: Realizing the potential of the fishermen’s collective marketing actMar. Policy27357366Google Scholar
  30. Leal, D. 2002Fencing the Fishery: A Primer on Ending the Race for FishPERC The Center for Free Market Environmentalism. BozemanMTGoogle Scholar
  31. Marine Fish Conservation Network (2004) Individual Fishing Quotas: Environmental, Public Trust, and Socioeconomic Impacts. Washington, DC (http://www.conservefish.org).
  32. Macinko, S. and Hennessey, T. (2002) Fishery management tools: Questions and some partial answers/thoughts. In: Managing Marine Fisheries in the United States: Proceedings of the Pew Oceans Commission Workshop on marine Fishery Management. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  33. Matulich, S.C., Mittelhammer, R.C., Reberte, C. 1996Towards a more complete model of individual transferable fishing quotas: Implications of incorporating the processing sectorJ. Environ. Econ. Manage.31112128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCay, B.J. 1980A fishermen’s cooperative, limited: Indigenous resource management in a complex societyAnthropol. Quart.532938Google Scholar
  35. Moloney, D.G., Pearse, P.H. 1979Quantitative rights as an instrument for regulating commercial fisheriesJ. Fisheries Res. Board Can.36859866Google Scholar
  36. National Marine Fisheries Service1994The IFQ Program: Insights and UpdatesAlaska Regional Office, Restricted Access Management Division. JuneauAKGoogle Scholar
  37. National Marine Fisheries Service (2002) Annual Report IFQ Fee (Cost Recovery) Program: Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. Alaska Region, NMFS, Restricted Access Management Program. Juneau, AK.Google Scholar
  38. National Research Council1999aThe Community Development Quota Program in AlaskaNational Academy PressWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. National Research Council1999bSharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing QuotasNational Academy PressWashington. DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Neher, P.A.Arnason, R.Mollett, N. eds. 1989Rights Based FishingKluwer Academic PublishingDordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostrom, E. 1990Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective ActionCambridge University PressCambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  42. Ruddle, K. 1989

    The organization of traditional inshore fishery management systems in the Pacific

    Neher, P.A.Arnason, R.Mollett, N. eds. Rights Based FishingKluwer Academic PublishingDordrecht, Netherlands7385
    Google Scholar
  43. Ruddle, K., Akimichi, T. 1984

    Sea tenure in Japan and the southwestern Ryukyus

    Cordell, J.C. eds. A Sea of Small Boats: Customary Law and Territoriality in the World of Inshore FishingStanford University PressStanford, CA
    Google Scholar
  44. Runolfsson, B. and Arnason, R. (2001) Initial Allocation of IQs in the Icelandic Fisheries. In Shotton, R. (ed). Case Studies on the Allocation of Transferable Quota Rights in Fisheries. Fisheries Technical Paper 411. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome, pp. 24–31.Google Scholar
  45. Scott, A. 1955The fishery: The objectives of sole ownershipJ. Political Econ.63116124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott, A. 1989

    Conceptual origins of rights based fishing

    Neher, P.A.Arnason, R.Mollett, N. eds. Rights Based FishingKluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht, Netherlands7385
    Google Scholar
  47. Scott, A. 1993Obstacles to fishery self-governmentMarine Resource Economics8187199Google Scholar
  48. Shotton R. (ed.) (2000) Use of property rights in fisheries management. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  49. Shotton, R. (ed.) (2001) Case Studies on the allocation of transferable quota rights in fisheries. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Fisheries Technical Paper 411. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  50. Sullivan, J.M. (2002) Harvesting cooperatives and US antitrust law: Recent developments and implications. Presented at the International Institute of Fisheries Economics 2000 Conference, Microbehavior-Macroresults, Corvallis, OR, July 10–15 Online: http://www.osu.orst.edu/dept/IIFET/2000/papers/sullivan. pdf.
  51. Torres-Peña, J. 1997Political economy of fishing regulation: The case of ChileMar. Resou. Econ.12253280Google Scholar
  52. Vetemaa, M., Eero, M., Hannesson, R. 2002The Estonian fisheries: From the Soviet system to ITQs and quota auctionsMar. Policy2695102Google Scholar
  53. Waknitz, F.W., Tynan, T.J., Nash, C.E., Iwamoto, R.N., and Rutter, L.G. (2002) Review of Potential Impacts of Atlantic Salmon Culture on Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-53, 83 pp.Google Scholar
  54. Washington Department of Natural Resources2004DNR Annual Report 2003OlympiaWashingtonGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilen, J. 1985Towards a theory of the regulated fisheryMar. Resou. Econ.1369388Google Scholar
  56. Wilen, J., Homans, F. 1997

    Unraveling rent losses in modern fisheries: Production, market, or regulatory inefficiencies?

    Pikitch, E.K.Huppert, D.D.Sissenwine, M.P. eds. Global Trends: Fisheries ManagementBethesdaMD256263 American Fisheries Society Symposium 20.
    Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Marine AffairsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations