The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
solution, the Minister may appoint a commissioner to hold an inquiry and report back to the Minister. All such disputes will be resolved by the Minister.
Addition of New Species to the Quota Management System. The government intends to move all commercially harvested species into the QMS over the next three years. Twenty percent of all new quota will be allocated to the Maori. For most species, the remainder of the quota will be allocated on the basis of catch history. There will be an appeals process for quota allocations, but the process will be stricter than previously. The process will not result in any increases to TACs, and there will be a time limit for filing appeals.
Simplification of the Quota Management System. The new Fisheries Act separates the property right (ITQ) from the catching right by introducing a system of annual catch entitlements (ACEs). For most species, fishermen will no longer be required to hold ITQs before going fishing but will be required to hold ACEs. At the beginning of each fishing year, every person who holds quota will be allocated an ACE based on the amount of quota held. ACEs are superficially similar to an annual lease of quota and are tradable rights like ITQs. When the catch exceeds the ACE, a deemed value is payable. The existing provision allowing 10% overrun of ITQs (with mitigating remedies required) will be abolished.
Institutional Reform. Another issue is the reform of the delivery of fisheries management services. Recent reforms include the provision of services by agencies outside the Ministry of Fisheries (including fisheries research), the transfer of fisheries stock assessment research into a Crown Research Institute, and the establishment of a stand-alone Ministry of Fisheries. The role of the Ministry of Fisheries is being reduced to one of policy advice; determining the standards and specifications for, and purchasing, monitoring, and auditing of, the contestable services; liaison and facilitating conflict and dispute resolution; and enforcement, compliance, and prosecutions.
All the programs evaluated here had operated under some combination of traditional management measures prior to creation of the IFQ program. Attempts had often been made to achieve the same objectives as IFQs through such mechanisms as trip or vessel quotas, restricted seasons or areas, or even license limitation systems. The transition from traditional management to IFQ management
The committee reviewed the four U.S. IFQ programs, plus the IFQ programs of Iceland and New Zealand. The following summary comments focus on these programs, although additional examples are drawn from quota programs in Canada, Norway, and The Netherlands.