<Back to CFEC Publications by Subject >
CHANGES UNDER ALASKA'S HALIBUT IFQ PROGRAM, 1995-1996
In 1995, the National Marine Fisheries Service-Alaska Region (NMFS-AK) implemented a new Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program for management of the "fixed gear" sablefish and halibut fisheries off Alaska. These programs had been developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and approved by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The purpose of this study is to document and analyze changes that occurred during the first two years of the halibut IFQ program. The report is restricted mainly to topics that can be addressed using National Marine Fisheries Service - Restricted Access Management Division's (NMFS-RAM) administrative and catch data. Some ancillary data are also used.
The Halibut IFQ Program Basics
Quota shares (QS) are the basic use-privileges that were issued under the program. QS were issued to qualified applicants who owned or leased a vessel that made legal fixed gear landings of halibut at any time during 1988, 1989, and 1990. The regular QS units issued to a person in a management area were equal to the person's qualifying pounds for that area from the person's best five years of landings over the seven year period from 1984 to 1990.
The QS that were issued are specific to one of eight halibut management areas and one of four vessel classes. The management areas are the ones defined by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC): 2A, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E. The four vessel classes include a freezer processor vessel class and three catcher vessel classes. The three catcher vessel classes are "35 feet or less," "36 to 60 feet," and "greater than 60 feet."
In Areas 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E portions of the total allowable catch (TACs) were allocated to Community Development Quotas (CDQs) for communities in western Alaska. In Area 4E the entire TAC was allocated to CDQs and there has been no IFQ fishery. The Council compensated QS holders in these CDQ areas for the reductions in TAC due to CDQs by issuing them "CDQ compensation QS" in non-CDQ areas 2C through 4A.
A person's IFQ for an area in a given year is determined by taking the person's fraction of the total QS units outstanding in the area times the total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to the area's IFQ fishery for the year. Adjustments for the person's underages and/or overages from the previous year are then made to determine the person's final IFQ for the year.
The QS that were issued are permanently transferable and leasable albeit with many restrictions that are discussed in the report. The NPFMC wanted to achieve some of the benefits associated with IFQ management but was concerned that the program not lead to radical changes that would be deleterious to communities dependent upon the fishery. As a result, the NPFMC adopted several complex rules in an effort to constrain the changes that could occur under the program. Many of these rules are discussed and explored in the report.
Topics Covered In This Report
The topics covered in the report include basic data on the extent of consolidation of QS holdings since the beginning of the program, the volume of permanent QS transfer and QS prices, and the volume of seasonal QS lease transfers and IFQ lease prices. The report also includes detailed summary data on permanent transfers including the amount of QS transferred as sales, gift and trades, the relationships between the transferors and transfer recipients, and the finance methods used in sales transfers.
The report provides summary information related to many other topics that were important when the program was conceptualized and designed. The IFQ program contains several special features which the Council added to address specific objectives. The report provides data which highlight the importance of these features to date.
Topics examined include the amount and percentage of "blocked" QS as opposed to "unblocked" QS, the distribution of Community Development Quota (CDQ) compensation QS, the use of "swaps" of certain CDQ compensation QS across catcher vessel categories, and the use of a provision allowing for the "sweepup" of very small blocks to create more fishable blocks.
A concern of some persons is that the IFQ program might result in a radical change in the geographic distribution of QS holdings. The report provides an extensive examination of changes in the geographic distribution of QS holdings during the first two years of the program. Changes in the distribution of QS holdings are examined by state of residence, by Alaska census area, and by special resident-type designators defined for the study that classify communities as "local" or "nonlocal" to the IFQ management area and as "rural" or "urban".
Other distributional questions are also examined. These include changes in the distribution of QS by person-type, changes in the distribution of QS between initial QS recipients and new entrants, and changes in halibut harvest and delivery patterns during the first two years of the program. The report contains information on the consolidation of IFQ permit holders onto single vessel operations and the underharvest of IFQ during 1995 and 1996.
The report contains a total of sixteen chapters. The first two chapters provide an introduction and background information on the fishery and the new IFQ program. The last fourteen chapters contain the results of the study. The following sections provide brief synopses of the topics covered in each of these chapters and the key results.
Chapter 3 Consolidation of QS Holdings, 1995-1996
The Council's IFQ program provides for permanent transferability of QS. The Council intended some consolidation of QS to occur to spread out the fishing season. The Council hoped that a longer and slower-paced fishery would improve ex-vessel prices, provide for greater safety and less wastage and enhance the profitability of individual fishing operations. However, the Council built many features into the program to constrain the extent and the nature of QS consolidation.
Chapter 3 provides a broad overview of the extent to which QS holdings were consolidated and QS holders were reduced during the first two years of the program. Data are presented comparing distributions at initial allocation and at year-end 1996.
The number of QS holders declined considerably in non-CDQ areas 2C through 4A over the first two years of the program due mainly to transfers and consolidation. These declines ranged from 17.0% in Area 3A to 20.3% in Area 3B.
Chapter 4 QS Transfers and QS Prices
Consolidation of QS and changes in the distribution of QS can occur through permanent transfers of QS. Chapter 4 provides a broad overview of the extent of permanent transfers of QS in the first two years of the program. Any transaction resulting in a permanent change of ownership is treated as a transfer in the chapter. These include regular transfers, sweep-ups of small QS blocks, and administrative transfers due to court action or other causes.
Data are presented on QS transfers, the amount of QS transferred, and the number of unique transferors over the first two years of the program. QS transfer rates and QS holder transfer rates are defined and calculated.
Chapter 4 provides estimates of QS prices over the first two years of the program based upon analyses of priced sales transactions. Estimates are provided for QS sold with and without the associated current year IFQ. Estimates from regression models are used to project a more detailed breakdown of 1995 and 1996 QS prices where existing data are too sparse.
Chapter 5 Halibut QS Leases
The Council's IFQ program provides for restricted leasing of QS on a seasonal basis. Holders of freezer vessel QS can lease all of the IFQ associated with that QS. Holders of catcher vessel QS can lease up to 10% of that QS.
Chapter 5 examines the extent to which the leasing provisions were used during the first two years of the halibut program. Data are presented on the amount and percentage of QS leased and the number and percentage of QS holders who leased out QS. QS and QS holder lease rates are defined and calculated.
For some leases, price information was available. These data are used to provide statistics on IFQ lease prices during the first two years of the program.
Leases occurred in non-CDQ Areas 2C through 4A and in CDQ Area 4B. No leases occurred in CDQ areas 4C through 4E.
QS lease rates over both years were low in all areas, ranging from 0% in Areas 4C through 4E to 1.4% in Area 4A. QS holder lease rates were also low and had a similar range.
Leasing of halibut QS was largely confined to freezer processor vessels. QS lease rates for freezer processor QS ranged from 15.6% in Area 2C to 39.5% on Area 3B over the two year period.
There was very little catcher vessel QS leased, and catcher vessel QS lease rates were .3% or less in all areas and vessel categories over the first two years of the program.
The small number of catcher vessel QS leases may have been due partially to the interaction of the blocking rules and the 10% leasing restriction for catcher vessel QS during most of the first two years of the IFQ program.
The use of a hired skipper may have been a better alternative than leasing for some initial QS recipients over this time period.
Over all areas, the average lease price of freezer vessel QS increased from $.84 per pound of IFQ in 1995 to $.99 per pound of IFQ in 1996.
Chapter 6 Types of Transfers, Financing of Transfers, Relationships between Transferors and Transfer Recipients, and Use of Brokers.
Persons who want to transfer QS must complete a transfer application form. The transfer application form collects basic information on each transfer.
Chapter 6 summarizes some of this basic information. Data are provided which classify permanent transfers as sales, gifts, trades, or other. Summary data are included that classify transfers by the nature of the relationship between the parties to the transfer (e.g., family, friend, business partner, or "no relationship"). The chapter also includes data on the use of brokers to facilitate QS transfers.
Chapter 6 also examines priced QS transfers and includes a breakdown of the finance sources used by buyers. The finance sources include bank, Commercial Fishing and Agricultural Bank (CFAB), Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), personal, processor, and other.
The percentage of QS in non-CDQ areas transferred in "priced sales" transfers ranged from 69.2% in Area 4A to 75.9% in Area 2C. Over 50% of the QS transferred in CDQ Area 4B and 48.8% of the QS transferred in CDQ Area 4D occurred in priced sales transfers.
The percentage of QS transferred that was classified as "other sales" (no prices available) ranged from 0.0% in Area 4C to 31.2% in Area 4D over the two year period.
The percentage of QS transferred that was classified as "gift" was relatively small, ranging from 0.0% on Areas 4B and 4D to 8.6% in Area 2C over the two year period.
The percentage of QS transferred that was classified as "trade" was also relatively small in most areas, ranging from 0.0% in Areas 4A and 4D to 27.9% in Area 4C over the two year period.
Brokers were utilized in a high percentage of QS transfers. In 1996, brokers were used for some QS transfers in six of the seven areas where transfers occurred. The percentage of QS permanently transferred with the help of a broker in these six areas ranged from 55.3% in Area 2C to 87.2% in Area 4D in 1996.
In most areas, the majority of the QS that was transferred between parties indicated "no relationship." The percentage of the QS transferred where there was no relationship between the transferor and transfer recipient ranged from 41.8% in Area 4C to 67.5% in Area 4D over the two year period.
The percentage of the QS transferred between family members ranged from 0.0% in Area 4D to 36.4% in Area 4C over the two year period.
The percentage of the QS transferred between friends ranged from 2.6% in Area 4C to 20.9% in Area 4A over the two year period.
The percentage of the QS transferred between partners ranged from 1.2% in Area 2C to 17.7% in Area 4D over the two year period.
"Personal Resources" were the primary source of financing indicated for "priced sale" transfers. The percentage of QS transferred in "priced sales" transactions that indicated "personal resources" as a finance source ranged from 60.3% in Area 4B to 79.0% in Area 4D over the two year period.
The percentage of QS transferred in priced sales transactions that indicated "bank" as a finance source ranged from 0.0% in Area 4D to 21.9% in Area 4B over the two year period.
The percentage of QS transferred in priced sales transactions that indicated "seller" as a finance source ranged from 0.0% in Area 4D to 15.1% in Area 3A over the two year period.
Alaska's Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the Commercial Fishing and Agricultural Bank financed a small number of QS transfers in non-CDQ areas. "Processors" also provided a source of financing in a small number of transfers.
Chapter 7 Distribution of QS By Blocking Factor, CDQ compensation QS, and CDQ Compensation QS Swaps.
Prior to implementation of the IFQ program, the Council added several special features to their IFQ plan. The Council decided that QS units that were worth less than 20,000 pounds of a hypothetical IFQ when they were issued would be placed into a nonseverable "block" and thereafter could only be transferred as a block.
The Council also restricted the number of these blocks that a person could hold in an area. If the person held any unblocked QS in an area they could only hold one block of QS for the area. If the person did not hold unblocked QS for an area then the person could hold up to two blocks for that area. The objective of these blocking rules was to preserve a portion of the QS for the fleet of small part-time operators.
Another feature of the program was the allocation of certain portions of the TAC in halibut areas 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E to Community Development Quotas (CDQs). This had the result of reducing the available catch for QS holders in these areas. The Council decided that it wanted to make QS holders in all areas share proportionally in this loss by compensating the QS holders in the CDQ areas with an allocation of QS in the non-CDQ areas of 2C, 3A, 3B, and 4A. These compensatory shares were termed "CDQ compensation QS".
Regulations provide that if a person is issued CDQ compensation QS for an area where the person already has QS, then the CDQ compensation QS is combined with the existing QS and is either "blocked" or left "unblocked" depending on the total amount of the QS.
However, if a person is issued CDQ compensation QS in an area for which the person has no other QS, then the CDQ compensation QS is left unblocked. Moreover, if the CDQ compensation QS is catcher vessel QS, it can be fished on any size catcher vessel and upon first transfer can be permanently assigned to the specific catcher vessel category designated by the transfer recipient. This ability to "swap" certain CDQ compensation QS across catcher vessel categories within an area is termed "swapability" in the report. The ability to swap such QS across catcher vessel categories expires upon the first transfer.
Chapter 7 examines the distribution of QS by block status at initial issuance and at year-end 1996. The block status can be "blocked", "unblocked", "non-swappable" CDQ compensation QS, or "swappable" CDQ compensation QS.
CDQ compensation QS initially represented approximately 2.1% of the total QS issued in non-CDQ Areas 2C through 4A.
Non-swappable CDQ compensation QS was rolled into a person's blocked or unblocked QS at initial issuance. Swappable CDQ compensation QS is classified as unblocked upon first transfer. At year-end 1996, the percentage of QS classified as unblocked had increased slightly in Areas 2C through 4B.
The amount of swappable CDQ compensation QS had declined sharply by year-end 1996. Transfers either with or without an accompanying swap reduce the amount of swappable QS because the privilege to swap across catcher vessel categories disappears upon the first transfer. The decline in swappable CDQ compensation QS ranged from 44.3% in Area 4A to 86.9% in Area 3B over the two year period.
Chapter 8 "Sweep-ups" of Small QS Blocks
Prior to the IFQ program the halibut fishery was characterized by short derby-like openings with a large turnover of participants on an annual basis. The Council's initial allocation methodology included persons who owned or leased a vessel(s) that made landings in the halibut fishery at any time during the 1988, 1989, or 1990 seasons.
Because of this, large numbers of persons with only a small amount of landings received a small initial allocation of QS. The IFQ regulations put initial QS allocations into non-severable blocks if the amount of the QS was worth less than 20,000 pounds of a hypothetical IFQ. Many of the QS blocks were very small and some were too small to make a fishing trip worthwhile.
In an effort to enhance consolidation of these blocks, the Council adopted a "sweep-up" provision for small blocks of QS. Originally it allowed a QS holder to acquire a number of small blocks and combine them into a single block as long as that single block was still worth less than 1,000 pounds of a hypothetical IFQ. In December, 1996 the sweep-up block size limit was raised to 3,000 pounds of a hypothetical halibut IFQ.
Chapter 8 examines the extent to which the sweep-up provisions were used during the first two years of the halibut IFQ program. The tables in the section are based on the new higher sweep-up limits.
Sweepable blocks were a substantial percentage of the total blocked QS in each area, ranging from 9.8% in Area 4B to 27.2% in Area 4C.
Substantial percentages of QS holders hold sweepable blocks. Persons holding sweepable blocks represented from 31.2% of all QS holders in Area 4B to 64.4% of all QS holders in Area 3B at year-end 1996.
There were relatively few sweep-up transactions in 1995 and 1996. All of the transactions occurred in non-CDQ areas 2C through 4A.
The new higher sweep-up limits did not go into effect until late 1996 and thus had little impact in 1995 or 1996.
Chapter 9 Changes In QS Holdings By Type of Person
Under the Council's IFQ program, QS can be owned by individuals (natural persons who were initial QS recipients), corporations, one-owner corporations, estates, partnerships, crew (natural persons who were not initial QS recipients but who met the qualifications to acquire QS), and other entities. However, the Council has included provisions which should encourage QS to move gradually to individual owner-operators.
Chapter 9 provides data on the amount and percentage of QS held and the number and percentage of QS holders by person-type. Data are provided for the fishery at initial issuance and at year-end 1996.
The amount of QS held by individuals declined in Areas 2C to 4A and rose in areas 4B to 4D over the two year period.
Crew persons, meaning individuals (natural persons) who were not initial QS recipients, acquired QS in all the seven areas where transfers occurred. By the end of 1996, crew holdings ranged from 2.6% of the QS in Area 4B to 12.3% of the QS in Area 4A.
The percentage of the QS held by corporations (including new corporations) rose in Areas 3A and 3B and fell in areas 2C, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D over the two year period. At the end of 1996, the percentage of QS held by corporations varied from 2.3% in Area 2C to 52.5% in Area 4D.
The percentage of QS held by partnerships was relatively small and fell in all areas except 4D and 4E over the two year time period. At the end of 1996, the percentage of QS held by partnerships varied from 0.0% in area 4E to 11.6% in Area 4D.
Chapter 10 Distribution of QS by State of Residence
Prior to the IFQ program, persons participating in the halibut fishery came from Alaska and from other states, particularly Washington and Oregon. A concern in Alaska is that QS holdings might gradually drift to holders outside of Alaska thereby reducing the economic impacts of the halibut fishery on Alaska.
Chapter 10 examines the distribution of QS and QS holders by state of residence (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and other). The tables provide a broad overview of how these distributions have changed in the first two years of the IFQ program.
In Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4C, and 4E persons from Alaska held the majority of QS at both initial issuance and at year-end 1996. In Area 4A persons from Alaska held the highest percentage of the QS at both initial issuance and year-end 1996.
Persons from Alaska showed slight increases in QS holdings in Areas 2C, 3A, 4C, and 4D over the two year period and slight decreases in QS holdings in Areas 3B, 4A, and 4B over the two year period.
In all areas except 4D, the majority of QS holders were from Alaska both at initial issuance and at year-end 1996.
Persons from Washington held the majority of the QS in areas 4B and 4D both at initial issuance and at year-end 1996. The percentage of the QS held by persons from Washington varied from 8.9% in Area 4E to 69.5% in area 4D at year-end 1996.
The average QS holdings of persons from Washington were higher than the average QS holdings of persons from Alaska in most areas.
Chapter 11 Changes By Management Area, Rural-Urban, Local-Nonlocal
Under Alaska's limited entry program, there has been a movement of permits away from holders who live in rural areas that are "local" to limited fisheries to holders who live in urban areas that are "nonlocal" to the limited fisheries. Some persons are concerned that similar results might occur under the halibut IFQ program.
Chapter 11 examines changes in QS holdings within Alaska and between Alaska and other states using special resident-type classifications. All communities within Alaska are classified as "rural" or "urban" based largely upon 1990 census definitions and as "local" or "nonlocal" to each halibut management area. Persons within each community can then be placed into one of five resident-types relative to the halibut management area for which a QS applies. These are as follows:
Alaska Urban Local (AUL): Alaska resident residing in an urban community that is local to the halibut management area.
Alaska Rural Nonlocal (ARN): Alaska resident residing in a rural community that is nonlocal to the halibut management area.
Alaska Urban Nonlocal (AUN): Alaska resident residing in an urban community that is nonlocal to the halibut management area.
Nonresident: Nonresidents of Alaska
Chapter 11 examines the distribution of QS and QS holders by these five special resident-types.
AULs receive an initial allocation of QS in Areas 2C (50.7%), 3A (42.7%), and 4A (2.5%) only. By year-end 1996 AULs held a small percentage of the QS in Area 4B also. AUL holdings had increased in Area 2C and 4A and declined in Area 3A.
ARNs received small percentages of the QS in all management areas. These percentages ranged from less than 1% in Areas 2C, 4C, and 4D up to 6.8% in Area 4A at initial issuance. By year-end 1996, ARN holdings had declined in Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, and 4A and risen in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D.
AUNs received QS in all areas and received over 20% of the QS in Areas 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4E at initial issuance. AUN holdings had increased in areas 3A, 4D, and 4E and declined in the other areas by year-end 1996.
Nonresidents received QS in every area. They received over half of the QS in areas 4A, 4B, and 4D and over 35% in six of the areas. By year-end 1996, nonresident QS holdings had declined in Areas 2C, 3A, 4C, and 4D and increased slightly in 3B, 4A, and 4B.
Changes in the distribution of QS holdings by resident-type were the result of transfers, migrations and revocations. The net results of transfers were the most significant factor in changes, but migrations also played an important role in some areas.
The percentage of intra-cohort and cross-cohort transfers varied widely by resident-type and area.
Chapter 12 Distribution of Halibut QS By Census Area
Within Alaska there have been concerns that the IFQ program might result in a dramatic restructuring that will increase the role of the halibut fishery in some areas while reducing its impact in other areas. Chapter 12 provides another view of the changes that have occurred in the geographic distribution of QS holdings since initial issuance.
In this chapter, QS holders within Alaska are assigned to census areas based upon their addresses. Nonresidents are placed into an "Outside Alaska" classification. The distribution of QS and QS holders are then examined at initial issuance and at year-end 1996.
Nonresidents held substantial portions of the QS in all areas except 4E. Nonresidents held a majority of the QS in areas 4A, 4B, and 4D.
The number of persons who held QS declined in most census areas. This parallels the overall decline in QS holders due to transfers and consolidation.
The percent decline of QS for non-CDQ management areas 2C through 4A is relatively high for some census areas. This may be partially due to QS holders for CDQ areas transferring their CDQ compensation QS.
Chapter 13 New Entrants In The Fishery
The Council provided a means under the IFQ program for new persons to receive halibut QS through transfer and enter the fishery. Any person from the United States can acquire freezer-processor (category A) QS. Only persons who are initial QS recipients or IFQ crew members may receive catcher vessel QS through transfer. Under the IFQ program, an IFQ crew member is defined as any individual who has at least 150 days experience working as part of a harvesting crew in any United States commercial fishery or as any individual who receives an initial allocation of QS.
New entrants may also occur by regulations which allow an individual to transfer QS to the individual's solely owned corporation (a new entity). New entrants might also occur because of transfers due to court order, operation of law, or as part of a security agreement. However, in these latter cases IFQ is not assigned unless the person receiving the QS transfer meets all of the eligibility requirements.
Chapter 13 examines the distribution of QS ownership between initial QS recipients and new entrants at year-end 1996. New entrants to the management area, new entrants to the halibut fishery, and new entrants to the IFQ program are all differentiated.
New entrants to each management area held significant amounts of the QS in each management area except 4E (where no transfers have occurred) by the end of 1996. The percentage of QS held by new entrants to each management area ranged from 4.6% in Area 4B to 18.1% in Area 4A at the end of 1996.
New entrants to each management area represented a significant portion of the QS holders in every management area except 4E by the end of 1996. The percentage of QS holders represented by new entrants to each management area ranged from 6.3% in Area 4C to 15.4% in Area 3B at the end of 1996.
New entrants to the halibut IFQ fishery program represented a significant portion of the QS holders in all management areas except 4E by the end of 1996. The percentage of QS holders represented by new entrants to the halibut fishery ranged from 5.0% in Area 4B to 12.6% in Area 3A at the end of 1996.
The percentage of QS holders represented by new entrants to either of the IFQ programs also ranged from 5.0% in Area 4B to 12.6% in Area 3A at the end of 1996.
In 1996, new entrants received some QS leases in Areas 2C through 4A. The percentage of 1996 lessees who were new entrants to the area ranged from 27.3% in Area 2C to 100.0% in Area 4A.
Chapter 14 Changes In Harvest and Delivery Patterns
Chapter 14 concentrates on halibut harvest data as opposed to QS holdings. The chapter examines the distribution of harvest and deliveries in several different ways.
Data are provided on the delivery of Alaska caught halibut by state of delivery and by Alaska census area of delivery. These data are for the 1990-1996 time period, which covers the immediate period prior to the IFQ program and the two years since the IFQ program was implemented. These data highlight the variation in delivery patterns over the time period.
Data are also provided which compare the number of persons recording individual landings in the years preceding the IFQ program with the number of persons recording landings in the first two years of the IFQ program.
In addition, the chapter provides data on the harvest of halibut by year and quarter and the harvest of halibut by the state of residence of the permit holder. A special section is also included which estimates the use of hired skippers in the fishery under the IFQ program.
The Kodiak Island Borough census area and the Kenai Peninsula/Anchorage aggregated area receive the highest percentage of the halibut pounds delivered in Alaska. This has not changed under the IFQ program.
The percentage of halibut pounds delivered to the Sitka census area and the percentage delivered to the Wrangell/Petersburg census area have increased during the first two years of the program over 1990 to 1994 levels.
The percentage of halibut pounds delivered to the Valdez-Cordova census area and the Aleutians/Alaska Peninsula/Bering Sea aggregated area (excluding CDQ catch) has decreased during the first two years of the program over 1990 to 1994 levels.
In 1995, the number of persons who recorded landings was lower than the average number of persons recording landings over the 1990 to 1994 period in all halibut areas where an IFQ fishery occurred. However, in 1996 the number of persons recording landings was higher than the 1990 to 1994 average in Areas 3B, 4A, and 4D.
The number of persons recording landings has fallen substantially under the IFQ program in Areas 2C, 3A, and 4C relative to 1990 to 1994 levels.
The vast majority of the halibut harvest in the first two years of the IFQ program occurred in the second and third quarters of each year in all management areas.
During 1995 and 1996, the majority of the QS holders credited with harvests were from Alaska in Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4C. In Areas 4B and 4D the majority of QS holders with landings were from Washington.
The majority of the pounds harvested in Areas 2C, 3A, and 4C were credited to Alaska QS holders during the first two years of the program. The majority of the pounds in Area 3B went to Alaska QS holders during 1996.
Hired skippers were widely used in all areas except Area 2C during the first two years of the program and the use of hired skippers increased in 1996 over 1995. In 1996, the percentage of the harvest attributed to hired skippers ranged from 1.2% in Area 2C to 56.2% in Area 4D.
Use of hired skippers occurred in all vessel classes. However, usage was more common in the freezer processor class and the "greater than 60 feet" catcher vessel class.
Chapter 15 Overharvest and Underharvest of IFQs and TACs
This chapter examines the overharvest and underharvest of IFQ and TACs in the first two years of the IFQ program. The chapter also examines the amount of totally unfished IFQ held by initial QS recipients who have not altered their QS holdings.
The TAC was underharvested in all areas during the first two years of the IFQ program. However, the percentage of the TAC harvested increased in 1996 over 1995 in six of the seven areas where an IFQ fishery occurred.
During 1996, the percentage of the TAC harvested ranged from 77.0% in Area 4C to 96.5% in Area 3A.
During 1995 and 1996 the harvest in most areas and vessel categories was less than the total available IFQ. However, the percentage of harvested IFQ in most areas and vessel categories increased from 1995 to 1996.
There were often large differences between vessel categories within an area in the percentage of harvested IFQ, especially in 1995.
The percent of initial QS recipients who had not altered their QS and who did not fish in 1996 ranged from 23.3% in Area 2C to 45.0% in Area 4C.
Chapter 16 Consolidation of IFQ Permit Holders On Vessels
One way a reduction in the number of fishing operations occurs under the IFQ program is the consolidation of QS holdings. Another way a reduction can occur is when IFQ holders combine and fish their IFQ holdings from a single vessel.
Chapter 16 provides time series data on the halibut fishery over the 1990 to 1996 time period. These data suggest the extent to which vessels have been used by more than one person both before and since implementation of the IFQ program.
In Areas 2C and 3A the number of person landing days and vessel landing days rose substantially under the IFQ program despite the reduction in the number of persons and vessels with landings.
The ratio of number of persons with landings to number of vessels with landings rose in 1995 over the 1990-1994 average. This provides evidence that some persons are using the same vessel and that the practice of multiple persons recording a landing off a single vessel has increased under the IFQ program.
The ratio of the number of persons with landings to the number of vessels with landings increased from 1995 to 1996 in six of the seven areas where an IFQ fishery occurred.