exclusively from public revenue. The factors that must be assessed in order to ascertain the overall costs and benefits from the implementation of an IFQ program include the following:
In many cases, it is difficult to distinguish between costs incurred by general fishery management practices and those incurred in IFQ management. As the following analysis will shows, there are not adequate data to perform a complete cost-benefit analysis for any U.S. IFQ fishery.
Although open-access fishery management systems may require a permit, endorsement, license, or other form of certification, fees from these systems are usually insignificant compared to the other costs required to engage in fishing (e.g., labor, gear, fuel, equipment) and usually do not generate substantial tax revenue. Exceptions, however, include among others a 2% landings tax in Alaska that provides significant revenues to local and state governments.
Several difficulties arise in assessing the potential revenues generated by IFQ management compared to other forms of fishery management. In many cases, it is difficult to obtain accurate estimates of quota price and therefore the value of the quota in the U.S. programs. The Alaskan halibut and sablefish IFQ programs have the best information available concerning variations in quota price, due in part to research conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), and independent quota brokers, as well as the large volume of transactions.
There are several ways in which revenue can be derived from IFQ fisheries. First, the potential increases in net revenue due to the improved efficiency of the IFQ fishery can provide increased revenues to the fishery (e.g., reduced variable costs through the use of less gear and cost efficient equipment). Second, revenue can increase due to changes in harvest patterns and product forms (e.g., increased exvessel prices due to handling and closer alignment of landings with market demand). Fiscal revenue (transfers of revenues from the fishery to government), can be generated through a combination of corporate and business taxes, capital gains taxes, landings taxes, and vessel fees. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides several mechanisms for assessing fees on the operation of IFQ fisheries. The act