3.8 Article

Towards individual-owned and owner-operated fleets in the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ program

期刊

MARITIME STUDIES
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1186/s40152-015-0037-6

关键词

Active participation measures; Owner-on-board; Hired skipper; Second-generation shareholders; Adaptive management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although numerous IFQ programs include active participation measures intended to retain or transition fishing privileges to active fishermen, there has been limited research on the efficacy of these measures. This study addresses this gap by examining the impacts of active participation measures in the Alaska halibut and sablefish IFQ program, which were intended to provide for an ultimate transition of the catcher vessel fleets in these fisheries to becoming fully individual-owned and owner-operated. This paper shows that the effectiveness of these measures has been mixed and constrained by apparently strong incentives for many initial recipients of quota shares to effectively lease their annual IFQ allocations (through the use of hired skippers) rather than to sell their quota shares. Perhaps most problematic is the emergence of a class of wholly absentee quota shareholders, who hold only nominal interest in the vessel upon which their IFQ is fished, do not share in the risk of fishing, and continue to profit from the fishery while residing far away from the actual fishing grounds. There is also anecdotal evidence of differing cultural contexts for hired skipper use and second-generation entry between the Seattle and Alaska-based fleets in the Alaska halibut and sablefish fisheries. Wherein acting as a hired skipper may be analogous to an apprenticeship that facilitates quota share acquisition in the Seattle fleet, Alaskan hired skippers may be more analogous to strict lessees, who ultimately compete for quota shares in a market that includes initial recipients and second-generation shareholders both of whom were gifted quota shares.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据