Bycatch Fees Used in Fish Conservation
Proposal to Charge for Offsetting Losses Rather Than Close Fisheries
Jul 24, 2007
A new study is suggesting that the best way to compensate for the loss of some marine animals due to fisheries entanglements may be to use fees collected from fishermen to fund conservation work that would do the most to help the species in question. In addition to reducing the need to close fisheries to protect endangered species, fishermen would receive incentives for improving nets and other fishing gear to prevent entanglements. While the idea has obvious merit, it is not likely to work in all situations.
The Proposal
Josh Donlan and Chris Wilcox, authors of the study on compensatory mitigation, base their proposal on their findings from the Australian Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF), which has a serious detrimental effect on flesh-footed shearwaters (Puffinus carneipus). They found that losses to the breeding population of shearwaters on Lord Howe Island from introduced alien rats were higher than those from the tuna and billfish fishery. And the cost of rat removal was 1/6th of the cost of closing the fishery. Solution: levies on the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery to pay for rat control on the island.
The authors stress that fisheries bycatch prevention is the most important goal, with reduction of impact on endangered species following a close second and mitigation for marine animal losses a last resort in the effort to avoid fisheries closures. Albatross losses were significantly decreased in the Eastern Tuna Billfish Fishery by prohibiting longline sets during daylight hours and use of heavily weighted lines. These changes did not help the shearwaters as their feeding behavior is very different from the albatross. Continuing to encourage fisheries to develop new ways of preventing endangered species bycatch will have to go hand in hand with mitigation measures.
Where the program is likely to work
Restricted fisheries within national waters are most likely to effectively use this method of bycatch reduction. This is especially true in cases such as that of shearwaters where other negative impacts, including predation by invasive alien species, are causing as much if not more loss. In places where there are likely to be useful mitigation options for the bycatch conservation fees this program may also be effective. Boats involved in these fisheries are more easily regulated making collection of mitigation fees possible.
Where it is unlikely to work
High seas fisheries are not well regulated. Enforcing levies on these fisheries will be more difficult. Determining appropriate bycatch mitigation and gaining agreement from all nations participating in the fishery will not be easy. Additionally, some of these fisheries are the most important sources of losses of endangered species.
The concept of incentives to reduce bycatch is important to all fisheries. However, to be effective, any offsetting mitigation should save more endangered animals than would be saved by closing the fishery.
 |
