Rights-based fisheries and contested claims of ownership: Some necessary clarifications

The fisheries literature is undermined by incorrect use of essential legal concepts: (1) property; (2) rights; and (3) property rights. These three ideas are often conflated when the term “rights-based” is applied to fisheries in which individual transferable quotas (ITQs) have been gifted to fishing firms. The confusion then leads to misleading suppositions concerning fishing behavior. For instance, it is often presumed that a “right to fish” (alleged to be represented by an ITQ) is behaviorally analogous to an ownership interest in fish still in the water. This erroneous extension from alleged “ownership” of a quota share to alleged “ownership” of fish stocks gives rise to confusion about how to assure sustainable fisheries governance. Talk of “perfect property rights” associated with an ITQ ads to the conceptual confusion. It is imperative that policy makers understand the difference between an alleged right to hunt for fish (such as a fishing permit or an ITQ) and a property right with respect to fish remaining in the water. The necessary implication for public policy is that private ownership of a natural resource offers no assurance that the resource will be managed sustainably. In fact, the existence of public parks and wilderness areas is evidence that private interests cannot be counted on to align with public interests.