In coastal communities around the United States, commercial fishermen are struggling with a painful imbalance that threatens a centuries-old way of life. Too many people are trying to catch too few fish.

New England and the West Coast have suffered sharp declines of groundfish in the last decade—most notably cod in the East and some species of rockfish along the Pacific Coast. Management strategies relying on permits, seasons and fleet-wide quotas sometimes lead fishing fleets to race for fish as soon as a season opens, resulting in glutted markets, depressed prices and lives lost at sea.

UC Davis Marine Fisheries Specialist Christopher Dewees recently took 20 U.S. fishing industry leaders on a tour in New Zealand to learn about another solution—quotas that allocate a percentage of total catch to individuals or groups. Dewees has been studying quota management systems for most of his career and led the tour during a third sabbatical to New Zealand.

New Zealand has been using individual fishing quotas for two decades, and a similar system has been in place for Alaska halibut since 1995. Commercial seafood harvesters and government regulators are exploring the use of quotas for other fisheries.

From an environmental perspective, the “New Zealand experiment” appears successful for many fish stocks. Some 80 percent of 492 fish stocks (92 species) in the country have been rebuilt to sustainable levels.

That success has come at a price, though. The New Zealand quota system essentially privatized the right to harvest its commercial marine species. “Quota share immediately became a valuable, tradable commodity that over time has consolidated under the control of large seafood processors,” Dewees said. “Because there are few aggregation limits, the five biggest companies now own about 85 percent of the quota.” In some ports, small fishing operations have virtually disappeared.

That consolidation left many on the tour troubled with how a quota system might affect seaside cities and towns back in the states. “I’m not sure how we could adapt this system,” said Jan Margeson, a fisherman from Brewster, Mass. “New England is all small, independent owners.”

Consolidation can be managed, believes Dewees, by setting and enforcing limits on the amount of quota that an individual, company or group may own. Those amounts can be low, as they are for Alaskan halibut, or higher in areas, like New Zealand, that are looking for economic efficiency and maximized export earnings.

There can be other benefits to quotas, as well, including returning some fishing rights to native peoples. New Zealand’s 57 indigenous Maori tribes are now faring well under the system. They own more than 50 percent of the country’s entire quota, though it was something they had to fight for in a protracted legal battle.

The tour was made possible by funding from the California Sea Grant program, with which Dewees is affiliated, and three foundations with an interest in sustainable fisheries: the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Sand County Foundation and the Alex C. Walker Foundation. Tour participants wasted no time in sharing what they learned in New Zealand upon returning to their respective fishing communities.

Some like Larry Collins of San Francisco encouraged fellow crab and salmon fishermen to document catch history because quota is usually allocated to participants based on what they caught in the past. Some bristled for philosophical reasons alone at the thought of privatizing a public resource.

Tommy Ancona, president of the Fishermen’s Marketing Association in Fort Bragg and a participant in the design of a similar system for the Pacific Coast trawl fleet, thinks a quota system would be beneficial. “When we have healthy fisheries, the local economy is making money and is healthy,” he said. “We’ve got to have property rights to resources, just like farmers and foresters.”

— John Stumbos

Photo: John Stumbos

UC Davis Magazine Online. Volume 24, Number 1. Fall 2006.