New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Stock-Market Strategy Halts Fishing Collapse

Novel way to fight the decades-long decline of fish populations

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Perhaps the best way to fight the decades-long decline of fish populations, primarily from overfishing, is to give the fishing industry clearer incentives to preserve them. That conclusion leapt from a recent analysis of the effect of “catch share” incentives by resource economist Christopher Costello and others at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The researchers analyzed more than 11,000 fisheries over 50 years and found that those being managed using catch shares were about half as likely to collapse as those without catch shares. And when fisheries switched to catch shares, fish populations stopped declining and, according to some analyses, may have reversed course. “I’ll be honest,” Costello says, “I was really surprised” by the size of the effect.

The system of catch shares works somewhat like a stock market: individual fishers can net a designated percentage of the total amount of a species set aside for fishing annually. The cap on each fish type is adjusted yearly by the government according to how the species is faring. If the population increases, the shares increase in value, too. And fishers can buy and sell shares to one another.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Catch shares give fishers a financial motive to treat the ocean with care, because they are literally invested in the future of their quarry. Costello compares the difference between catch shares and traditional fishing licenses (which expire yearly) to the difference between renting and buying a house. “When you own a house, you have a strong incentive to invest in it,” he points out. “The fishermen have an incentive to grow the fish stock” by fishing responsibly.

Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who two years ago predicted the collapse of seafood as a food source by 2048, says Costello’s work is noteworthy but adds that catch shares will work better when combined with other tools, such as banning fishing in sensitive areas. 

SA Special Editions Vol 18 Issue 5sThis article was published with the title “Front Lines” in SA Special Editions Vol. 18 No. 5s (), p. 11
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanearth1208-11

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe