<Back to CFEC Publications by Subject >
CHANGES UNDER ALASKA'S SABLEFISH IFQ PROGRAM, 1995-1996
Introduction
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 sablefish IFQ program. The report is restricted mainly to topics that can be addressed using the National Marine Fisheries Service - Restricted Access Management Division's (NMFS-RAM) administrative and catch data. Some ancillary data are also used.
The Sablefish 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 sablefish 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 six year period from 1985 to 1990.
The QS that were issued are specific to one of six sablefish management areas and one of three vessel classes. The management areas are Southeast, West Yakutat, Central Gulf, Western Gulf, Aleutian Islands, and the Bering Sea. The three vessel classes include a freezer-processor vessel class and two catcher vessel classes. The two catcher vessel classes are "60 feet or less," and "greater than 60 feet."
In the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea areas 20% of the fixed gear allocations of sablefish were allocated to Community Development Quotas (CDQs) for communities in western Alaska. The Council compensated QS holders in these CDQ areas for the reductions in sablefish allocations due to CDQs by issuing them "CDQ compensation QS" in the non- CDQ Southeast, West Yakutat, Central Gulf, and Western Gulf areas.
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 report provides basic data on the extent of consolidation of QS holdings since the beginning of the program, the volume of permanent QS transfers, QS prices, the volume of seasonal QS lease transfers, and QS lease prices. The report also includes detailed summary data on permanent transfers including the amount of QS transferred as sales, gifts 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 an 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 sablefish 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 has 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 last fourteen 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 the extent to which the numbers of 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.
Key Results:
The number of QS holders declined in all management areas over the two year period due to transfers and consolidation of QS holdings. The declines ranged from 3.0% in the Aleutian Islands to 14.1% in the Southeast area. The declines were larger in the four non- CDQ areas.
Average and median QS holdings increased in all areas as the number of QS holders declined. The increases in the average number of QS units ranged from 3.1% for the Aleutian Islands to 15.8% for the Southeast area.
The number of QS holders declined over the two year period in the two catcher vessel categories in all areas. The number of freezer vessel QS holders increased slightly in four of the six areas (in the West Yakutat, Central Gulf, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands areas).
The largest percentage decline in QS holders over the two year time period occurred in the "60 feet or less" catcher vessel category in Southeast (-15.8%).
The largest percentage increase in average QS held also occurred in the "60 feet or less" catcher vessel category in Southeast (18.8%).
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 to 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 statistical models are used to project a more detailed breakdown of 1995 and 1996 QS prices where existing data are too sparse.
Key Results:
QS holder transfer rates were higher than QS transfer rates in non-CDQ areas. The average QS holder transfer rates over both years in these areas ranged from 11.4% in the Western Gulf area to 20.6% in the Southeast area.
QS holder transfer rates in the CDQ areas over the two year period were 9.0% in the Aleutian Islands area and 7.7% in the Bering Sea area.
For most sablefish area and vessel categories for which an adequate number of priced sales observations were available, the average price per QS (expressed in dollars per pound of IFQ) increased from 1995 to 1996.
Estimates based upon statistical models of 1995 and 1996 QS prices in the Southeast, West Yakutat, Central Gulf and Western Gulf areas suggested that the price of a sablefish QS unit varied positively with block size.
The price of any given type of QS unit, as estimated from the statistical models, tended to be higher in 1996 than in 1995. There was less consistency in quarterly patterns within a year.
Chapter 5 Sablefish 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 sablefish 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.
Key Results:
QS leases occurred in all sablefish areas. Average QS lease rates ranged from 1.4% in the West Yakutat area to 16.8% in the Aleutian Islands area over the two year period.
QS holder lease (lessor) lease rates ranged from 2.0% in Southeast to 5.9% in the Aleutian Islands area over the two year period.
Leasing of sablefish QS was largely confined to freezer-processor vessels. QS lease rates for freezer-processor QS ranged from 14.1% in the Central Gulf area to 30.5% in the Aleutian Islands area over the two year period.
There was very little sablefish catcher vessel QS leased, and catcher vessel QS lease rates were less than 1% in all areas and vessel categories over the first two years of the program.
The small number of sablefish catcher vessel QS leases may have been due 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.
The average lease price of freezer vessel QS, calculated over all areas, increased from $0.75 per pound of sablefish IFQ in 1995 to $0.96 per pound of sablefish IFQ in 1996.
The average lease price of blocked QS appeared to be less than the average lease price of unblocked QS in both 1995 and 1996 when calculated over all areas and vessel categories.
In 1995, the average lease price for blocked QS was $0.63 per pound of IFQ and the average lease price for unblocked QS was $0.76 per pound of IFQ when calculated over all areas and vessel categories.
In 1996, the average lease price for blocked QS was $0.88 per pound of IFQ and the average lease price for unblocked QS was $0.97 per pound of IFQ when calculated over all areas and vessel categories.
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.
Key Results:
The percentage of QS transferred in "priced sales" transfers ranged from 64.5% in the West Yakutat area to 75.7% in the Aleutian Islands area over the two year period.
The percentage of QS transferred that was classified as "other sales" (no prices available) ranged from 0.0% in the Bering Sea area to 2.9% in the Southeast area over the two year period.
The percentage of QS transferred that was classified as "gift" was relatively small ranging from 0.0% on the Western Gulf and Bering Sea areas to 4.2% in the Southeast area over the two year period.
The percentage of QS transferred that was classified as "trades" was also relatively small in most areas ranging from 0.1% in the Western Gulf area to 9.0% in the Bering Sea area over the two year period.
Brokers were utilized in a high percentage of QS transfers. Brokers were used for some QS transfers in all of the areas where transfers occurred. In 1996 the percentage of QS permanently transferred with the help of a broker ranged from 53.2% in the Southeast area to 85.5% in the Western Gulf area.
In all areas, the majority of the QS was transferred between parties who indicated that there was "no relationship" between them. The percentage of the QS transferred where there was no relationship ranged from 57.5% in the Southeast area to 77.6% in the Bering Sea area over the two year period.
The percentage of the QS transferred between family members ranged from 0.2% in the Aleutian Islands area to 9.5% in the Southeast area over the two year period.
The percentage of the QS transferred between friends ranged from 0.6% in the Western Gulf area to 16.1% in the Southeast area over the two year period.
The percentage of the QS transferred between partners ranged from 0.0% in the Bering Sea area to 10.4% in the Aleutian Islands over the two year period.
In four of the six areas "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 24.2% in the Aleutian Islands area to 58.2% in the West Yakutat area over the two year period.
The percentage of QS transferred in priced sales transactions that indicated "bank" as a finance source ranged from 27.9% in the Southeast area to 62.9% in the Bering Sea area over the two year period.
The percentage of QS transferred in priced sales transactions that indicated "seller" as a finance source ranged from 0.9% in the Western Gulf area to 24.5% in the Aleutian Islands area over the two year period.
"DCED and CFAB" and "processors" also financed a significant amount of the QS transferred in priced sales transactions in the Southeast, West Yakutat, and Central Gulf areas.
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 20% of the fixed gear sablefish allocation in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea sablefish areas 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 (the Southeast, West Yakutat, Central Gulf, and Western Gulf areas). These compensatory shares were termed "CDQ compensation QS".
Regulations provide that if a person is issued CDQ compensation QS for an area and vessel category where the person already has QS, then the CDQ compensation QS is combined with the existing QS and 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 and vessel category 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.
Key Results:
CDQ compensation QS initially represented approximately about 3.4% of the total QS issued in the non-CDQ areas (in the Southeast, West Yakutat, Central Gulf, Western Gulf areas).
Non-swappable CDQ compensation QS was rolled into a person's blocked or unblocked QS at initial issuance. At year-end 1996, the percentage of QS classified as unblocked had increased slightly in all areas.
The amount of swappable CDQ compensation QS had declined 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 1.8% in the Central Gulf area to 38.5% in the West Yakutat area over the two year period.
Chapter 8 "Sweep-ups" of Small QS Blocks
Prior to the IFQ program the sablefish 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 sablefish fishery at any time during the 1988, 1989, or 1990 seasons.
Because of this, large numbers of persons with small 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 3,000 pounds of a hypothetical IFQ. In December, 1996 the sweep-up block size limit was raised to 5,000 pounds of a hypothetical sablefish IFQ.
Chapter 8 examines the extent to which the sweep-up provisions were used during the first two years of the sablefish IFQ program. The tables in the section are based on the new higher sweep-up limits.
Key Results:
Sweepable blocks were a substantial percentage of the total blocked QS in each area, ranging from 18.4% in the Western Gulf area to 85.4% in the Aleutian Islands area at year- end 1996.
Substantial percentages of QS holders held sweepable blocks at the end of 1996. Persons holding sweepable blocks represented from 35.5% of all QS holders in the Western Gulf area to 69.6% of all QS holders in the Bering Sea area at year-end 1996.
The new higher sweep-up limits did not go into effect until late 1996 and thus had little impact in 1995 or 1996. There were relatively few sweep-up transactions and all of these occurred in the non-CDQ Southeast, West Yakutat and Central Gulf areas.
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.
Key Results:
The amount of QS held by individuals declined in all the areas except the Aleutian Islands area over the two year period.
Crew persons, meaning individuals (natural persons) who were not initial QS recipients, acquired QS in all the areas. By the end of 1996, crew holdings ranged from 0.1% of the QS in the Bering Sea area to 5.0% of the QS in the Southeast area.
The percentage of the QS held by corporations (including new corporations) fell in the Southeast area and rose in the other areas over the two year period. At the end of 1996, the percentage of QS held by corporations varied from 11.8% in the Southeast area to 67.2% in the Bering Sea area.
The percentage of QS held by partnerships was relatively small and fell in all areas over the two year time period. At the end of 1996, the percentage of QS held by partnerships varied from 3.3% in the West Yakutat area to 11.8% in the Aleutian Islands area.
Chapter 10 Distribution of QS by State of Residence
Prior to the IFQ program, persons participating in the sablefish fishery came from Alaska and from other states, particularly Washington and Oregon. A concern in Alaska is that QS holdings might gradually transfer to holders outside of Alaska thereby reducing the economic impacts of the sablefish 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.
Key Results:
Persons from Alaska held the highest percentage, and in fact a majority, of the QS in the Southeast area at both initial issuance and at year-end 1996.
Persons from Washington held the highest percentages of QS in all areas except Southeast both at initial issuance and at year-end 1996. The percentage of the QS held by persons from Washington varied from 27.5% in the Southeast area to 70.9% in the Aleutians area at year-end 1996.
Persons from Alaska showed slight increases in QS holdings in all areas over the two year period.
Persons from Alaska were the most numerous of QS holders at initial issuance and at the end of 1996 in the Southeast, West Yakutat, Central Gulf, and Western Gulf areas. Persons from Washington were the most numerous of QS holders in the Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea areas.
The average QS holdings of persons from Washington were higher than the average QS holdings of persons from Alaska in all areas at initial issuance and at year-end 1996.
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 sablefish 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 sablefish management area. Persons within each community can then be placed into one of five resident-types relative to the sablefish management area for which a QS applies. These are as follows:
Alaska Rural Local (ARL) Alaska resident residing in a rural community that is local to the sablefish management area.
Alaska Urban Local (AUL) Alaska resident residing in an urban community that is local to the sablefish management area.
Alaska Rural Nonlocal (ARN) Alaska resident residing in a rural community that is nonlocal to the sablefish management area.
Alaska Urban Nonlocal (AUN) Alaska resident residing in an urban community that is nonlocal to the sablefish management area.
Nonresident Nonresidents of Alaska
Chapter 11 examines the distribution of QS and QS holders by these five special resident-types.
Key Results:
AULs received significant amounts of QS in the Southeast (45.6%) and the Central Gulf (17.2%) areas, very small amounts in the West Yakutat, Western Gulf, and Bering Sea areas, and none in the Aleutian Islands area. AUL holdings increased in the Southeast, Central Gulf, and Bering Sea areas and decreased in the West Yakutat and Western Gulf areas by the end of 1996.
ARNs received small percentages of the QS in all management areas. These percentages ranged from less than 1% in the Southeast and Aleutian Islands areas, up to 2.5% in the West Yakutat area at initial issuance. By year-end 1996, ARN holdings had declined in the West Yakutat and Central Gulf areas, and risen in the Southeast, Western Gulf, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands areas.
AUNs received QS in all areas and received over 20% of the QS in the West Yakutat, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands areas at initial issuance. AUN holdings had increased in the West Yakutat, Central Gulf, Western Gulf, and Aleutian Islands areas and declined in the other areas by year-end 1996.
Nonresidents received QS in every area. They received over 60% of the QS in all the areas except Southeast. By year-end 1996, nonresident QS holdings had declined slightly in all areas.
Changes in the distribution of QS holdings by resident-type were the result of transfers, migrations and revocations. The net results of transfers were generally 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 Sablefish 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 sablefish 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.
Key Results:Nonresidents held a majority of the QS in all areas except Southeast.
QS holders from most census areas decreased or remained unchanged in the management areas between initial issuance and the end of 1996. This reflects the overall decline in QS holders due to transfers and consolidation.
The decline of QS holders in non-CDQ management areas is relatively high for some census areas. This may be partially due to QS holders in 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 sablefish 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 sablefish fishery, and new entrants to the IFQ program are all differentiated.
Key Results:
New entrants to each management area held substantial amounts of the QS in each management area by the end of 1996. The percentage of QS held by new entrants to each management area ranged from 4.6% in the Central Gulf area to 8.3% in the Southeast area.
New entrants to each management area represented a substantial portion of the QS holders in every management area by the end of 1996. The percentage of QS holders represented by new entrants to each management area ranged from 6.7% in the Bering Sea area to 15.6% in the Southeast area.
New entrants to the sablefish IFQ fishery program represented a substantial portion of the QS holders in all management areas by the end of 1996. The percentage of QS holders represented by new entrants to the sablefish fishery ranged from 3.7% in the Bering Sea area to 15.3% in the Southeast area at the end of 1996.
The percentage of QS holders represented by new entrants to either of the IFQ programs ranged from 3.7% in the Bering Sea area to 12.2% in the Southeast area at the end of 1996.
In 1996, new entrants received some QS leases in all areas. The percentage of lessees who were new entrants to the area ranged from 25.0% in the Bering Sea area to 44.4% in the Southeast area.
Chapter 14 Changes In Harvest and Delivery Patterns
Chapter 14 concentrates on sablefish 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 sablefish by state of delivery. The harvest delivered within Alaska is broken out by Alaska census area. These data are for the 1991-1996 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.
In addition, the chapter provides data on the harvest of IFQ sablefish by year and quarter and the harvest of IFQ sablefish 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.
Key Results:
The Kenai Peninsula/Anchorage aggregated census area received the highest percentage of the sablefish pounds delivered in Alaska. This has not changed under the IFQ program.
The Kenai Peninsula/Anchorage aggregated census area typically received a fifth to a quarter of the landings between 1991 and 1994. This pattern continued in the first two years of the program.
The percentage of sablefish pounds delivered to the Sitka/Juneau/Haines aggregated census area have risen slightly over levels between 1991 and 1994. This period of increasing harvests appears to have begun in the year prior to the program, however.
The percentages of sablefish pounds delivered to the Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon census area during the two years of the program are similar to the percentages delivered from 1991 to 1994.
The percentages of sablefish pounds delivered to the Kodiak census area during the two years of the program are somewhat below the percentages delivered from 1991 to 1994. The lower landings under the program may be a continuation of a percentage decline that began in 1994.
The vast majority of the sablefish 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 with harvests were Alaskans in the Southeast, West Yakutat, and Central Gulf areas. In the Western Gulf, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands areas the majority of QS holders with landings were from Washington.
The majority of the pounds harvested in the Southeast area were credited to Alaska QS holders during the first two years of the program. In the other areas Washington QS holders took the largest percentages of the harvest, and usually a majority of the harvest.
Hired skippers were used in all areas during the first two years of the program and their use increased in 1996 over 1995. In 1996, the percentage of the harvest attributed to hired skippers ranged from 10.1% in the Southeast area to 70.4% in the Bering Sea area.
Chapter 15 Overharvest and Underharvest of IFQ and TACs
This chapter examines the overharvest and underharvest of IFQ and TACs in the first two years of the IFQ program. This chapter also examines the amount of totally unfished IFQ held by initial QS recipients who have not altered their QS holdings.
Key Results:
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 all six areas.
During 1996, the percentage of the TAC harvested ranged from 72.6% in the Bering Sea area to 97.1% in the Central Gulf area.
In the Southeast, West Yakutat, and Central Gulf areas the percentage of the available IFQ harvested was somewhat similar across vessel categories in the first two years of the program.
In the Western Gulf, Aleutians, and Bering Sea areas there were sometimes large differences between vessel categories in the percentage of harvested IFQ. For example, in the Western Gulf in 1995 the percentage of IFQ harvested in the freezer vessel category was 97.0% but the percentage harvested in the "60 foot or less" category was 75.0%.
The amount and percentage of QS that belongs to persons who have not altered their holdings since the beginning of the program should decline each year. The percentage of QS that was held by persons who had not changed their holdings by the end of 1995 ranged from 75.0% in the Southeast area to 91.6% in the Western Gulf area. These percentages declined in 1996 in all areas and ranged from 60.9% in the Southeast area to 83.2% in the Aleutian Islands area.
Significant numbers of the persons who had not altered their holdings did not harvest their sablefish IFQs. In 1996, the percentage of initial QS recipients who had not altered their holdings and also did not harvest ranged from 15.1% in the Southeast area to 37.8% in the Bering Sea area. In each area in each year these persons had substantially lower average QS holdings than the persons who did not alter their holdings but who did make some harvest with those holdings.
Chapter 16 Consolidation of IFQ Permit Holders On Vessels
The consolidation of QS holdings is one way that the number of fishing operations is reduced under the IFQ program. Reductions can also occur on a seasonal basis when IFQ holders combine and fish their IFQ holdings from a single vessel.
Chapter 16 provides time series data on the sablefish fishery over the 1991 to 1996 time period. These data suggest the extent to which vessels have been used by more than one persons both before and since implementation of the IFQ program. The report also provides data from the IFQ fishery in 1995 and 1996 that break out the harvest by all three QS types including freezer vessels (category A).
Key Results:
The numbers of persons with catcher vessel landings rose from 1994 levels during the first two years of the IFQ program in the West Yakutat, Western Gulf, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands areas.
The numbers of vessels with catcher vessel landings fell from 1994 levels during the first two years of the IFQ program in the Southeast, West Yakutat, and Central Gulf areas.
The numbers of vessels with catcher vessel landings rose from 1994 levels during the first two years of the IFQ program in the Western Gulf, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands areas.
The ratio of "persons with landings" to "vessels with landings" rose above 1991-1994 levels in all six management areas during the first two years of the IFQ program. The data suggest that some IFQ permit holders are combining their effort in a single operation.