If/How to address the question of catch allocation

[bsnouffer]

By addressing issues brought up in the Anderson et al 2018 paper (#218), a static caveat was added to catch limit options.

In general, total allowable catch systems can establish competition among fishermen, to achieve catch before others. This induces a "derby" or "race-to-fish", where fisheries invest in larger/faster/more powerful boats, additional gear, or more crew, so as to attain an advantage over others. This can result in an economic "tragedy of the commons" where the total harvesting capacity exceeds that needed to achieve the TAC, such that overall profit is zero. However, individual fishing quota systems can strengthen TAC-based management by dis-incentivising discarding, quota over-ages, and politically inflated TAC levels. If transitioning to an individual transferable quota system, social impacts can include consolidation, and a change in employment profiles from numerous short-term jobs to fewer, longer-term jobs. Such effects may be mitigated by capping individual quota holdings (to limit consolidation), or allocating some quota share to community groups.

The caveat brings up the idea of allocation and quota systems. Currently, the concept of catch allocation is not discussed in the Tool. Since they are now being brought up in a caveat, Natalie and I were discussing that they should probably be at least touched upon in the Tool. Therefore, we are suggesting a small update to the catch limit category description (update in bold):

Catch limits aim to directly manage the fishing mortality of target species by setting a maximum for how many individual, or how much weight of, fish can be removed (including bans) by a fishery in a given time period and/or for specific areas. After a maximum catch is set, allocation of catch is a secondary consideration that managers may address. Methods to do this such as catch shares or quota systems are not discussed in detail in FishPath.

When discussing whether we should include allocation and quota system and if so, then how, Natalie gave this rationale, which led us to decide on suggesting just a short mention in the category description:

You know, I was struggling with whether to mention these at all. I did so only because of the review of the Anderson et al. paper I undertook. My overriding sense was to avoid ITQs, IFQs and catch share issues entirely, because, to me, these are about how a TAC is allocated or distributed, which is secondary to the recommendation of a sustainable level of total removals. That is, they are more managerial/policy/allocation issues than harvest strategy issues. If anything, I say we just add them to the catch limit category description, while emphasising that these are secondary to the determination of an overall level of sustainable catch.

Before making the update to description, we would like to pose this question to the team. Does this seem like a reasonable route to go or are there other opinions about how to approach the question of allocation?

[jonowilson]

I really like the static caveat description as well as the addition to the category description. Perhaps we could offer a link to a resource describing catch shares? such as https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/catch-shares

[shcaba]

Hi all,

Allocation is a thorny issue that deserves some attention, but I don't think we could break it down in a way that wouldn't make the FishPath guidance utterly confusing. I like the idea of maybe pointing to documents or reference one could read deeper into the issue.

This could also also be an issue we bring up to the FishPath reviewers. In general, it might be a good idea to ask the reviewers their opinions on balancing exhaustive detail and parsimony in FishPath. FishPath cannot become a wikipage for all things in fisheries management. We need enough to identify major pitfalls and discussion points to move along the decision making process, but I don't feel it prudent to outline all varieties and issues of any given subject. That is what the note taking box is for!

-Jason

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:59 AM jonowilson notifications@github.com wrote:

I really like the static caveat description as well as the addition to the category description. Perhaps we could offer a link to a resource describing catch shares? such as https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/catch-shares

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/shcaba/FishPath-updates/issues/352#issuecomment-665812738, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB6IZLTKTXP3CMUN2HVFYGLR6BPQFANCNFSM4PK2ASGA .

--

Jason M. Cope, Ph.D.Research Fishery Biologist Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Blvd. East

Seattle, WA 98112-2013 NOAA Fisheries

jason.cope@noaa.gov email@noaa.gov206.302.2417www.nmfs.noaa.gov http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

[bsnouffer]

Sounds like there is agreement around this is worthy of a mention, but to avoid going into detail about the issue. Also sounds like people agree on providing a resource for users to explore further on their own if desired. Is there agreement upon using the NOAA link? Or should another resource be used or added? Another possibility is listing the Anderson et al. reference.

[bsnouffer]

Next week (Wed, Sept 2nd) I will add the proposed update to the catch limit category description along with the link suggested by Jono unless any concerns are stated. @jonowilson @shcaba @NatalieDowling

[NatalieDowling]

I agree with Jono and Jason and I reiterate my opinion that we need to tread very lightly around the issue of allocation. I'm happy with what is proposed. Perhaps in the user guide we add my favourite onion diagram which shows that allocation is a higher-level issue that isn't the remit of harvest strategies.

[bsnouffer]

Added the description and link to all the options that have the static caveat discussed. This is all catch limit options except "daily trip limit, with or without a TAC" and "gear unit limits, with or without a TAC".