Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:26:23.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Buyback Programs for Capacity Reduction in the U.S. Atlantic Shark Fishery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Sherry L. Larkin ,
Walter Keithly ,
Charles M. Adams  and
Richard F. Kazmierczak Jr.
Sherry L. Larkin
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Walter Keithly
Affiliation:
Coastal Fisheries Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Charles M. Adams
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, and marine economics specialist, Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Richard F. Kazmierczak Jr.
Affiliation:
Center for Natural Resource Economics & Policy, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Declining fishery stocks, increasing fishing effort, and adverse market conditions have produced difficult financial situations for fishermen worldwide. Several high-valued fisheries are considered to be overcapitalized. The purchase and permanent retirement of fishing vessels and/or permits under a buyback program is one approach for reducing fishing capacity. Evidence from previous programs, however, suggests that buybacks are not a panacea for solving overcapacity problems. Whether such programs can help rebuild stocks and improve the financial condition of fleets in any specific fishery depends on a multitude of factors. We consider the potential of a buyback program for the U.S. Atlantic shark fishery.

Keywords

buyback programsfishing capacityfishing permitslatent permitsmarine fisheriesvessel decommissioning schemesQ22Q28
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , August 2004 , pp. 317 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chambers, R.G. “On the Design of Agricultural Policy Mechanisms.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(1992):646–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C.W., and Munro, G.R.. “The Problem of Overcapacity.” Bulletin of Marine Science 70(2002):473–83.Google Scholar
Clark, C.W., and Sumaila, U.R.. “Subsidies, Buy-backs and Sustainable Fisheries.” Three Essays on the Economics of Fishing. Sumaila, U.R., ed. Fisheries Centre Research Reports Volume 11 Number 3. Vancouver: The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2003.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Fishing Vessel (Decommissioning) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2003. Statutory Rule 2003 No. 366, United Kingdom, 2003.Google Scholar
European Parliament. The Common Fisheries Policy Beyond 2002: Alternative Options to the TACS and Quotas System for the Conservation and Management of Fisheries Resources. Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry Series (E-7/Fi-nal), Directorate General for Research, Luxembourg, 1997.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1995.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1999.Google Scholar
Funk, R.D., Griffin, W.L. Sr., Mjelde, J.W., and Ward, J.M.. “A Simulation Model of License Buy-back in the Texas Bay Shrimp Fishery.” Marine Resource Economics 18,1(2003):33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gréboval, D., and Munro, G.. “Overcapitalization and Excess Capacity in World Fisheries: Underlying Economics and Methods of Control.” Managing Fishing Capacity: Selected Papers on Underlying Concepts and Issues. Gréboval, D., D., ed. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 386. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1999.Google Scholar
Hannesson, R. “Comments on James E. Wilen's: 331 Rent Generation in Limited Entry Fisheries.” Rights Based Fishing. Neher, P.A., Arnason, R., and Millet, N., eds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1989.Google Scholar
Hogarth, W.T.Testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, August 2, 2001.Google Scholar
Holland, D., Gudmundsson, E., and Gates, J.. “Do Fishing Vessel Buyback Programs Work: A Survey of the Evidence.” Marine Policy 23,1(1999):47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hueth, E. “The Goals of U.S. Agricultural Policy: A Mechanism Design Approach.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(2000):14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isé, S., and Sunding, D.L.. “Reallocating Water from Agriculture to the Environment Under a Voluntary Purchase Program.” Review of Agricultural Economics 20,1(1998):214–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitts, A., Thunberg, E., and Robertson, J.. “Willingness to Participate and Bids in a Fishing Vessel Buyout Program: A Case Study of New England Groundfish.” Marine Resource Economics 15,3(2000):221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkley, J., Ward, J., Waiden, J., and Thunberg, E.. The Estimated Vessel Buyback Program Costs to Eliminate Overcapacity in Five Federally Managed Fisheries: A Preliminary Report. Silver Spring, MD: Division of Fisheries Statistics and Economics, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002.Google Scholar
Klemperer, P. “Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature.” Journal of Economic Surveys 13,3(1999):227–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latacz-Lohmann, U. “Advice On Bidding and Evaluation Systems in Support of the Fishing Vessel Decommissioning (Scotland) Scheme 2001.” Report for the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Edinburgh, 2001.Google Scholar
Leipzig, P.Pacific Groundfish Buy-Back Proposal and the Final Summary and Analysis. Eureka, CA: Fishermen's Marketing Association, 2001.Google Scholar
Macinko, S., and Bromley, D.W.. Who Owns America's Fisheries? PEW Science Series, The Pew Charitable Trusts. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Morgan, L.E., and Chuenpagdee, R.. Shifting Gears: Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters. PEW Science Series, The Pew Charitable Trusts. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003.Google Scholar
National Research Council. Sharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Read, A.G., and Buck, E.H.. Commercial Fishing: Economic Aid and Capacity Reduction. CRS Report for Congress. Washington, DC: Environment and Natural Resource Policy Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1997.Google Scholar
Sun, C.-H. “Optimal Number of Fishing Vessels for Taiwan's Offshore Fisheries: A Comparison of Different Fleet Size Reduction Policies.” Marine Resource Economics 13(1998):275–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Federal Fisheries Investment Task Force Report to Congress. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1999.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Final United States National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 2001.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Draft United States National Plan of Action for Management of Fishing Capacity. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003a.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Final Amendment I to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003b.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 2004.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. Entry of Fishermen Limits Benefits of Buyback Programs. Publication No. GAO/RCED-00-120. Report to the House Committee on Resources. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 2000.Google Scholar
Waiden, J.B., Kirkley, J.E., and Kitts, A.W.. “A Limited Economic Assessment of the Northeast Groundfish Fishery Buyout Program.” Land Economics 79,3(2003):426–39.Google Scholar
Wilen, J.E. “Rent Generation in Limited Access Fisheries.” Rights Based Fishing. Neher, P.A., Arnason, R., and Millet, N., eds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1989.Google Scholar
Young, R.Personal communication. Member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee, 1985-2000. Crescent City, CA, 2003.Google Scholar