Trawl fisheries, catch shares and the protection of benthic marine ecosystems: Has ownership generated incentives for seafloor stewardship?

Proponents of catch share-based fisheries have claimed ecological stewardship can result from the assignment of individual catch quotas. This claim is examined by analyzing the distribution of benthic habitat protection measures adopted by quota-owning industry sectors within the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the U.S. (Alaska), New Zealand, and high seas seamounts within the Southern Indian Ocean Deepsea Fishers Association (SIODFA) competence area. Results suggest the protection of both benthic ecosystems and essential fish habitat (EFH) are marginal at best when quota owners have primacy in determining the boundaries of bottom trawl closures. The majority of the areas in these three regions that are closed to trawling are too deep to fish, may not contain vulnerable marine ecosystems, and do not have high abundances of commercially important species. “Freezing the footprint” of bottom trawling is not the best method for benthic habitat protection in areas where the fishing industry is actively fishing vulnerable habitats. Analytical methods should be applied to help determine boundaries of future bottom trawl closures rather than allowing the fishing industry to place benthic protection areas (BPAs) in areas where they are not interested in fishing.

► Benthic closures were studied in Alaska, New Zealand, and Indian Ocean areas.
► The protection of benthic ecosystems is weak when proposed by quota owners.
► Most areas closed to trawling are too deep to fish and may not protect vulnerable marine ecosystems.
► We suggest that catch share management of trawl fisheries does not lead to stewardship of habitat.
► In New Zealand, the benthic protection areas have been ignored when permitting seafloor mining.