Bycatch Fees Used in Conservation
Proposal to Charge for Offsetting Losses Rather Than Close Fisheries
Endangered species at risk from net entanglement would be helped using money from mitigation fees. Fishermen get incentives to reduce chances of fishing gear deaths.
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 the money from 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 reduce 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 fishery. And the cost of rat removal was 1/6th of the cost of closing the fishery. Solution: levies on the ETBF to pay for rat control on the island.
The authors stress that prevention is the most important goal, with reduction of impact following a close second and mitigation a last resort to avoid fisheries closures. Albatross losses were significantly decreased in the ETBF 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 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. Especially in cases like the shearwaters where other negative impacts, such as predation by invasive alien species, are causing as much if not more loss. And places where there are likely to be effective mitigation options. Boats involved in these fisheries are more easily regulated so the monies will be collected.
Where it is unlikely to work
High seas fisheries are not well regulated. Enforcing levies on these fisheries will be more difficult. Determining appropriate mitigation and gaining agreement from all nations participating in the fishery will not be easy. And some 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.
