Ben Bowman’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The single strategic coordination policy we should all be learning about and advocating is the extension of the public trust doctrine to all U.S. waters. This doctrine then makes it clear that the ocean is a commons to be managed by the people, for the people. See the attached link for more info on how roman law can save the sea. 

  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090409142252.htm

  On Obama unveils ocean protection plan posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Prof. Stavin's article is instructive but misleading. There is a need for fishery management reform -but IFQs are more piracy than panacea.

  Wild fish stocks of the United States are a public trust resource - basically you part-own them. Government manages this resource on your behalf. Their role is to determine ecologically sustainable harvest levels, and then allocate fish harvesting privileges in a fair and equitable manner.

  Unfortunately, when it come to 'sharing the fish' broad community values and expectations of good management are rarely front and centre. Self-interest and expediency - regularly blurred by spin and papered over with bogus economic analysis - too often displace the common good.

  Stavins and others that push IFQs present the public with a disingenuous characterization of fishery management problems and the solutions available. These elements have forced the notion that a policy dichotomy exists: a choice between completely fictitious unregulated fisheries (all U.S. fisheries are now heavily regulated) leading to a "tragedy of the unmanaged commons" situatation, or a quasi-private property regime.

  The National Marine Fisheries Service has not challenged or attempted to clarify this inaccurate characterization, nor developed guidelines to guide the design of IFQ programs to minimize harm to coastal communities and marine ecosystems.

  To be clear, IFQ are an economic allocation tool not a conservation tool. It is the total allowable catch (TAC) - the harvest cap - that is responsible for ending over-fishing, not the way the TAC is divided and allocated. If a TAC is set above biological limits, over-fishing will still occur - even under an IFQ program.

  This critical distinction was pointed out in the National Research Council (1999) report Sharing the Fish: '...IFQs are not primarily a biological conservation tool; the TAC and other management measures are the main conservation tools in IFQ-managed fisheries.''

  IFQ systems grant harvesting privileges that are permanent, exclusive, and tradable. From here it is a slippery slope towards consolidation and corporate control of 'our' fish resources. Society need not alienate 'our' property to individual entities to enjoy the benefits of a market system.

  Congress should hold oversight hearings to ensure that Government develops a robust fish resource allocation framework that asserts public ownership, keeps small eco-friendly fishermen on the water, and is well suited to the 21st century and the challenges forseeable ahead.

  On Using markets to make fisheries sustainable posted 8 months ago 1 Response