Should federal fisheries policy incorporate cost-recovery mechanisms for research in support of science-based management?University of Washington Sixth Undergraduate Research Symposium (2003)
AbstractStatutes governing current federal fisheries management require measures to be based upon the best scientific information available. Environmentalists, fishermen, managers, and scientists all agree that such scientific information is sparse and that increased research would benefit both sustainable food production and conservation concerns. Science, however, does not come cheaply, and the question remains: how should such research be funded? One alternative is to increase the amount of funding derived directly from the fishing industry in the form of extraction royalties. Advocates suggest that such policy assures incorporation of such expense in fishing markets, encouraging more efficient means of producing information and serving as a disincentive to overexploitation. Opponents warn that such a model may be dysfunctional, having distributional effects with grave socioeconomic consequences and compromising scientific independence and integrity. Whether such a model would work in U.S. federal fisheries remains debatable, however, experiences abroad in other countries offer some clues to its potential in a domestic application. A review of alternate fisheries governance structures details benefits and obstacles to pursuing management reform incorporating “user fees” for participation in federal fisheries.
Publication DateMay 16, 2003
Citation InformationJames Mize. "Should federal fisheries policy incorporate cost-recovery mechanisms for research in support of science-based management? " University of Washington Sixth Undergraduate Research Symposium. Seattle, Washington, USA. May. 2003.