This chapter compares the actual initial distribution of halibut QS through 19951 with the distribution predicted using the best available data prior to the program. The NPFMC analyzed potential impacts of the halibut IFQ program prior to adopting their plan. The probable initial distribution of QS was one of the topics explored.
To analyze the initial QS distribution and other issues, NPFMC and NMFS research staff constructed a data file from 1984-1990 halibut catch data and sundry sources on vesselownership. The staff estimated who owned the vessel at the time the landing occurred using available data sources on the vessel.
Estimates of the initial QS distribution from these data were reported in NPFMC reports and staff analyses.2 Sometimes these estimates were shown in terms of IFQ assuming 1991 TACs. While most persons expected such estimates to represent reasonable "ball park" figures, nobody expected the estimates to be completely accurate because there were many places that errors could arise, even with the best available data.
There could be many reasons why the actual initial QS distribution might vary from earlier predictions. The following paragraphs provide a few examples:
1. The computerized halibut catch file could contain data errors on amount of catch, location of catch, and the vessel used in making the landing. These types of errors would be discovered during the initial allocation process.
As can be seen, there are many reasons why predictions from the data available prior to the IFQ program could vary somewhat from the actual initial allocation. The list of reasons provided above are only examples and do not exhaust the possible reasons for potential differences between the actual and predicted distributions.
This chapter will examine the actual initial distribution of QS from several perspectives and compare it with the distribution that would be predicted using the data used in the earlier NPFMC studies.3 The authors will highlight the similarities and differences between the distributions as shown in the tables. However, where differences exist, no attempt will be made to explain the precise reasons for the differences.
2.2 Predicted and Actual Distribution by Management Area and QS Size Category
Table 2.2-1 compares the actual initial distribution of halibut QS with the distribution predicted using the earlier data prepared for NPFMC analyses. It is organized by halibut management area and the size category of QS holding. As can be seen, at this level of disaggregation the distributions are quite similar.
The actual number of QS recipients was higher than predicted in Areas 2C, 3B, and 4A. In Areas 3B and 4A the number and percentage of persons with less than 5,000 QS units were much higher than predicted from the earlier data. This may be partially due to the fact that a number of persons issued CDQ compensation QS for these areas were not counted in the earlier analyses.
The actual number of QS recipients was lower than predicted in Areas 3A, 4B, 4C, and 4E. This may be partially due to some entities not applying for QS, or partnership agreements where multiple persons agreed to have the QS issued to only one partner.
2.3 Predicted and Actual Distribution by Management Area and Vessel Category
Table 2.3-1 compares the actual distribution of the initial allocation of halibut QS by management area and vessel category with the initial allocation that would be predicted using the best available data prior to the program. The table shows both the percentage of the area's QS recipients that received QS for a vessel category and the percentage of the area's QS that fell into that vessel category. Note that a person may be allocated QS in more than one vessel category in an area; therefore, the sum of persons in this table may differ from others in this chapter.
With respect to the distribution of QS, the table shows the following (note that some data are confidential and can't be reported):
With respect to the distribution of persons who received QS, the table shows the following:
2.4 Predicted and Actual Distribution by Management Area and Area of Residence
Table 2.4-1 compares the actual initial distribution of halibut QS by management area and resident category of the QS holder with the distribution predicted using the data used in the earlier NPFMC analyses.4 For Alaskan residents, the resident category was a 1990 Alaskan census area; an "Outside Alaska" category was used for nonresidents. Resident categories were assigned based upon the address of the entities on the respective data files.
The table shows the amount and percentage of QS and the number and percentage of QS recipients that fall into each resident category. These variables are reported for both the actual initial QS distribution and the predicted distribution from the earlier data.
The amount and percentage of halibut QS that was issued to entities from the "Outside Alaska" resident category were greater in most halibut management areas than would have been predicted from the earlier data. The only exception to this rule was Area 4E.
In some areas the percentage of QS issued to entities from the "Outside Alaska" resident category was much higher than had been predicted in some areas. For example, predictions based upon the earlier data suggested that approximately 62.6% of Area 4D's QS would be issued to entities from "Outside Alaska". In actuality, 87.7% of Area 4D's QS was issued to entities from "Outside Alaska". Similarly, predictions based upon the earlier data suggest that approximately 25.3% of Area 3A's QS would be issued to entities from "Outside Alaska". In actuality, 36.0% of Area 3A's QS was issued to entities from "Outside Alaska".
The number and percentage of QS recipients in an area who were from "Outside Alaska" were also greater in most halibut management areas than would be predicted from the earlier data. Again, Area 4E was the only exception to this result.
For example, in Area 2C predictions based upon the earlier data suggest that approximately 12.3% of the entities receiving initial allocations of QS would be from "Outside Alaska". In actuality, 17.5% of the entities receiving initial QS allocations in Area 2C were from the Outside Alaska category. Similar results occur in Areas 3A through 4D.
The largest differences occurred in Area 4D. Predictions based upon the earlier data suggest that approximately 53.0% the entities receiving QS in Area 4D would be from the Outside Alaska category. In actuality, 68.7% of the entities receiving initial QS allocations in Area 4D were from the "Outside Alaska" category.
Some of these differences can likely be explained by CDQ compensation. As the initial distribution of QS described in Table 2.4-1 suggests, historically, a large percentage of the persons who fished in Areas 4B through 4D were nonresidents of Alaska. Initial QS recipients from these areas received QS in Areas 2C through 4A under the rules for CDQ compensation, thereby increasing the number of nonresidents in those areas.
Within Alaska, the actual initial allocations appear to follow a pattern where entities from census areas that are more "local" to a halibut management area tended to have been issued a significant portion of the QS for that area. This roughly follows fishing patterns that existed during the qualification years.
Nevertheless, some of these "local" census areas received lower initial allocation percentages than were predicted using the earlier NMFS data. For example, in Area 3A predictions based upon the earlier data suggested that 32.1% of the entities receiving QS in the Area would be from the Kenai Peninsula and 23.6% of the QS allocated for the area would be issued to entities from the Kenai Peninsula. In actuality, only 27.4% of the entities who received QS for Area 3A were from the Kenai Peninsula and these entities were initially issued only 19.4% of the quota for the area.
Similar patterns can be found in other halibut management areas for some "local" census areas. Examples are QS allocations to entities from the Petersburg-Wrangell census area for Area 2C and allocations to entities from the Kodiak Borough census area for Area 3B.
In summary, persons from "Outside Alaska" appeared to do better than predicted in initial QS allocations in most halibut management areas.
2.5 Predicted and Actual Distribution by Area of Residence
Table 2.5-1 is organized by resident type, and again uses the data that was available to the NPFMC prior to the IFQ program to compare the number of persons predicted to receive an initial allocation of QS with the number of persons that actually were issued QS. The resident categories are divided into Alaska census areas plus an "Outside Alaska" category.
The table is meant to be a succinct summary of the unique number of entities holding QS by resident type across all areas. However, the reader should be cautious when interpreting the table. A person may be issued halibut QS in multiple management areas, and QS from one area will not be worth the same halibut IFQ as QS from another area. The table does not take into account the types of QS held, or the 1995 IFQ associated with the types and amounts of QS.
In Table 2.5-1, the unique number of entities are added and percentages are calculated for each resident category that received any type of halibut QS. An overall total unique number of entities receiving QS is also provided.
The data indicate that over all resident categories, the number of entities who actually received any type of halibut QS was less than the number of entities that were predicted by the NMFS data used for the earlier NPFMC analyses. As noted before, there may be many reasons for these differences.
The "Outside Alaska" resident category shows the most dramatic increase when the actual initial allocation is compared to the predicted. 844 different entities from the Outside Alaska resident category received some type of initial allocation. This represents approximately 17.6% of all entities that received an initial allocation. This compares to a prediction of 698 entities from the Outside Alaska resident category or 12.7% of all the initial QS recipients using the NMFS data from the earlier analyses.
In most of the Alaskan census areas slightly fewer persons than predicted actually received some type of initial halibut QS allocation. The initial QS recipients from most Alaska census areas also represented a smaller percentage of the overall total than predicted by the earlier data. The few exceptions to this generalization do not represent substantial changes.
2.6 Predicted and Actual Distribution by Census Area and Management Area
Table 2.6-1 provides information on the predicted and actual distribution of halibut QS by census area and management area. Again, the predictions were made using the NMFS data that was used in the earlier NPFMC studies.
For each census area, the table provides data on the number of persons who received QS in each management area and the amount of QS which they received in each management area. The table also provides the percentage of QS recipients in each management area who were from the census area and the percentage of QS in each management area that was issued to persons from that census area.
Note that Table 2.6-1 differs from Table 2.5-1 in that Table 2.5-1 reports the unique number of persons by census area, whereas this table will count a person more than once if they received QS in more than one management area.
Table 2.6-1 is really another view of information provided in Table 2.4-1. Table 2.6-1 highlights the data by census area. For each census area the table shows the halibut areas where persons from the area tended to get their QS. The table again demonstrates that persons from Alaska census areas that are more "local" to a particular halibut management area(s) tended to get significant percentages of the QS in those local management areas. This is true of both the distribution predicted from the earlier data and the actual initial QS distribution. Again, the reader should bear in mind that QS can be worth different amounts of IFQ by area and year depending upon the total QS in the area and the TAC available to the IFQ fishery. The QS to IFQ ratios for the different areas are summarized in Table 1.3-1 in Chapter 1.
However, the data suggest that some of the census areas that were local to a management area received a lower portion of the initial allocation of QS from that management area than would be predicted from the earlier data. In contrast, persons from outside Alaska took a greater portion of the initial allocation of halibut QS than predicted in all areas except for Area 4E.
<Back to Table of Contents>