2.  Definition: “ Catch share” is a general term for several fishery management strategies that allocate a specific portion of the total allowable fishery catch to individuals, cooperatives, communities, or other entities. Each recipient of a catch share is directly accountable to stop fishing when its specific quota is reached (Draft NOAA Catch Share Policy ).

3.  Catch share is a term that encompasses several types of management strategies;  Fishing privileges can be allocated to a wide range of interest groups including individuals, regional fishing associations (RFAs), and fishing communities (FCs); I will have more to say about RFAs FCs later.  Catch shares do not negate the need to determine Total Allowable Catch (or the Annual Catch Limit, ACL);

4.  Fundamentally, catch share participants know up front how much fish they can catch and/or the area to which they are allowed exclusive access. This provides clarity and security for fishermen in return for individual accountability to remain within their designated amount of catch. Catch shares are highly flexible and can be customized … to meet the various needs and goals of a fishery. (Source: Catch Shares Design Manual )

5.  MSA Reauthorization :  End overfishing by 2011 (2010 for species currently undergoing overfishing). The Reauthorization requires the use of ACLs to prevent overfishing.  Catch Share Programs (LAPPs in MSRA)have been found to mitigate many of the problems often encountered in many of the more traditional management measures and have been found to increase profitability among shareholders (at least original shareholder

6. As such, NOAAs draft catch share policy states … “ To achieve long-term ecological and economic sustainability of the Nation’s fishery resources and fishing communities, NOAA encourages the consideration and adoption of catch shares wherever appropriate in fishery management and ecosystem plans and amendments and will support the design, implementation, and monitoring of catch share programs.” Keep in mind, however, what I stated at the last Council meeting……

7.  … there is no guarantee that catch shares are going to outperform other management approaches and outcome is dependent upon both the fishery being considered and the management objectives;  Hopefully, I also left you with the impression from the last meeting that development of a workable catch share program in the U.S. Caribbean represents a real challenge!

8. Are catch shares practical/feasible? Some potential problems and limitations; (A) Is ‘real time’ monitoring adequate and/or can appropriate steps be taken? (B) Federal/Territorial (Commonwealth) jurisdictional issues (C) Are stock assessments adequate/reliable? (D) Can we compensate for possible incomplete catch histories (fishermen, communities, etc); (E) Collection of cost recovery fees; (F) Permitting is a prerequisite; and finally…

9.  (F) …Will the industry be receptive to the concept of catch shares?  Let’s look at some of these issues in a bit more detail

10.  The discussion yesterday (as well as common knowledge) suggests real-time monitoring is not in place (hope was expressed that within the next couple of years...)  While one should never give up hope, a more reasonable starting point is to consider whether a catch share program can be developed given the current situation. This is where FCs and/or RFAs may play a role.

11. The term "fishing community" means a community which is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United States fish processors that are based in such community;

12.  The term ‘regional fishery association’ means an association formed for the mutual benefit of members— (A) to meet social and economic needs in a region or subregion; and (B) comprised of persons engaging in the harvest or processing of fishery resources in that specific region or subregion or who otherwise own or operate businesses substantially dependent upon a fishery.

13.  Possible required information in plan:  A statement of how the entity as organized meets eligibility criteria established by Council;  A plan on how the harvesting privileges will be used and by whom;  A plan to show how actual harvest of the group will not exceed the allotted harvesting privileges. This should include provisions for monitoring of all catch (note: this is the key) see Anderson and Holliday (2007) for additional details

14.  RFAs cannot receive a catch shares as part of the initial allocation while FCs can. As such, initial allocation would need to be assigned to members/potential members of RFA (or subsequently purchased).  Use of FCs may be advantageous when limited individual catch records for assessing initial allocations;  Not all fishermen may choose to join an RFA or fall in a designated FC. As such, some groups may operate within a catch share program while others may not (and would likely have a different set of regulations);

15.  Can RFAs and/or FCs mitigate this issue?  Are there other means of developing catch share programs that would mitigate this issue?

16.  Two points to consider:  Is there any larger problem if they are inadequate under a catch share management system than if they are inadequate under the current management system?  Feedback from fishermen, FCs, RFAs (and quota prices ) can help ‘fine tune’ ACLs over time.

17.  One of the goals of working through a fishing community system or a RFA system is that it brings fishermen more directly involved in the management system; in other words, it becomes more of a joint stewardship management process.  By bringing the fishermen more into the management process, additional benefits may accrue (information for stock assessments, etc.)

18.  Designing the catch share program  Before you begin:  Need to identify your goals (what do you plan to achieve?)  What fishing sectors do you want to include?  Who are the stakeholders?

19.  Step 1: Define and quantify the available resource;  Step 2: Define the privilege ;  Step 3: Identify eligible participants and transferability criteria;  Step 4: Assign the privilege;  Step 5: Administer the program; See Catch Shares Design Manual: A Guide for Fishermen and Managers for additional detail

20.  Development of a ‘white paper’ based on literature and examination of other catch share programs (emphasis given to programs associated with small-scale fisheries and challenges previously outlined is continuing and will be completed shortly. This paper analyzes catch shares in the Caribbean under two scenarios: (1) the current data collection system and (2) real-time monitoring. Will need significant input on a number of issues including program goals, species/areas to consider, design of program, etc.

21.  Creation of panel(s) to assist in development of any catch share program is essential. As noted this panel (or panels) will provide key information associated with specifying goals, areas/species to consider, design of program, etc.  I would ask at this point that the Council select a panel (panels) as quickly as possible since I plan to conduct much of the work this summer and early fall.

22.  Several meetings with relevant parties is envisioned and after each meeting the paper will be revised based on input. The goal is to reach some consensus on the general issues related to catch shares. The Council will be kept abreast of activities throughout the process.  After consensus is reached on general principles, movement will be made for considering catch shares for individual fisheries, groups of fisheries, areas, etc. The process for consideration of catch shares for individual fisheries (groups of fisheries) will follow a similar pattern to that previously discussed. One area of particular interest at present is the West Coast of Puerto Rico.  At the conclusion of the project, a brief report will be prepared for use by the Council.

23. And ….. Questions?