Saving Seafood

Opinion

The Inflation Reduction Act Offers Hope for Fishery Friendly Climate Action

August 5, 2022 — The following was released by Fishery Friendly Climate Action:

The Inflation Reduction Act introduced in the Senate last week has been lauded as the most
significant piece of climate legislation in history and a last chance to put the U.S. on track to
meet greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Almost unthinkable a mere week and a half ago, the new bill could position the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by about 40% from peak levels by 2030, compared to estimates of 24% to 35% without any new policies.

For commercial fishing communities, who are among the Americans most directly affected by climate change, passage of the Act would have another important benefit, especially when contrasted with an emissions-reduction scenario based on presidential action alone. With its power of the purse, Congress has the opportunity to throw a kitchen sink of subsidies and tax incentives at a diverse array of emissions-reductions technologies, each of which can contribute in its own way solving the climate crisis. These include tax credits, grants, and loans for energy efficient buildings and appliances, solar energy, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, geothermal, biofuels, sustainable aviation fuel, soil carbon conservation, low-carbon construction materials, and many more.

In contrast, a purely presidential approach would lean almost exclusively on fast-tracking industrial offshore wind in federally managed waters – a move that stands to endanger coastal communities more than climate change alone would do. Accelerating offshore wind development has been a major concern of coastal communities worldwide, and the U.S. fishing industry stands united under the leadership of the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) in seeking to address these concerns. While the Inflation Reduction Act does include supports for offshore wind development — including the reinstatement of a production tax credit for turbine components and wind farm construction vessels, as well as a directive to the Department of Interior to issue wind energy leases in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and U.S. territories — it also extends, reinstates, introduces, and increases a panoply of incentives to support the growth of other, more fishery friendly climate solutions. 

At this critical juncture in the race to solve climate change, it is vital to have a full range of options in the mix – not only for achieving emissions targets faster, but because this diversity allows for greater selectivity when choosing the most appropriate mix of emissions reduction strategies for a given region, state, or community.

To be clear, the Inflation Reduction Act is far from perfect. Simply fanning the flames of low-carbon growth will not ensure that the energy transition is just or that it respects the fragility of natural ecosystems that may find themselves in the sightlines of green development. Framers of the Inflation Reduction Act recognized this in part and took steps to embed social equity considerations into many of the Act’s incentive provisions, such as offering bonus tax credits for projects that offer prevailing wages and apprenticeships, utilize domestic content, or are located in economically disadvantaged communities and communities formerly dependent on fossil fuel production. 

Unfortunately, the Act neglects to include analogous provisions that would protect landscapes, seascapes, and resource dependent communities from the most damaging aspects of industrial low-carbon energy development. For example, there is no incentive to place solar arrays on rooftops instead of clearcutting forests, and no incentive to place wind turbines on working farms where they can supplement agricultural incomes instead of placing them offshore where they may displace fishermen from their traditional fishing grounds and cause untold ecological impacts. A more ideal version of the Act would lift up the most environmentally friendly climate solutions by introducing bonus incentives for projects that boast low environmental impacts, deliver environmental co-benefits, and count on local community support. 

Nonetheless, given the short timeline available Congress to act, the best thing that fishermen and their allies can do right now is to advocate for the Act’s passage. Not only is the Inflation Reduction Act the country’s best chance to keep its greenhouse gas emissions within levels that are safe for the climate; it is also fishing communities’ best hope for a national climate plan that is not almost exclusively dependent on sacrificing U.S. fisheries for industrial offshore wind.

Court ruling again highlights need for better data about how lobster fishing impacts right whales

July 15, 2022 — A federal judge ruled last week that federal fisheries regulators are not doing enough to protect North Atlantic right whales, an endangered species, from fishing gear used by New England’s lobster and crab fisheries.

The ruling – and the changes that it might compel – are another blow to Maine’s lobster industry. But, more, it is a condemnation of the National Marine Fisheries Services plans to protect the whales, which are thought to number less than 400. The judge, James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, blasted the agency for approving a plan last year that allowed for continuing entanglements of whales in lobster and crab gear while gear changes were implemented to reduce these entanglements. For example, the plan allowed 2.6 entanglements in lobster and crab gear that could cause death or serious injury to right whales each year through 2025, although NMFS calculated that only 0.8 entanglements should be allowed in federal waters to preserve the whale population.

At the same time, we’d encourage the lobster industry to move beyond messages that emphasize fighting regulations to highlight some of the many changes they have already made to reduce the threat to right whales. For example, many lobstermen in Maine are in the midst of replacing their trap lines with lines that will break away if hit by a whale. They are also marking their gear to better identify if rope from Maine is entangling right whales.

Judge Boasberg acknowledged this work, but essentially warned that it might not be enough. In his opinion, which is littered with marine metaphors, he also recognized the harm that more stringent restrictions could have on the lobster industry. That, he wrote, is why he asked the parties to work together to come up with more protective solutions.

As years of negotiations, rule changes and lawsuits have shown, this is no easy task. But, it is better than having draconian measures imposed by a court.

Read the full article at Bangor Daily News

Justin Mello: First, ground fishing takeover — next is the scallop industry

July 8, 2022 — I’ve spoken at every scallop leasing meeting and webinar against consolidation, leasing, stacking. Whatever name they throw on it, it’s bad.

We can clearly see the negative impacts on crew and community in other fisheries, for example, ground fish. Many companies, including my father’s, suffered after changes were made in the ground fish industry. I myself witnessed the quick transition when I first started unloading boats. We would unload many draggers when I first started. And about three years later we didn’t have one left. And we transitioned mostly to scallops.

The big companies push for this every so many years. They come up with different angles every time. Flexibility, safety, efficiency. But it only comes down to greed. And the sad part is, every year there are less and less voices to speak up. Especially in a year like this. Many single boat owners are selling. And there are less voices to communicate the point we are trying to make.

The bigger the company, the more bills they have, the more they take from their money makers: the boats. Even when they say they don’t take from the crew, they just take off the top. So it comes off the crew one way or another. So who’s to say they won’t pass off leasing costs? No one. All they do is add a little section on your settlement and call it “miscellaneous expense” and take whatever they want or need.

Read the full story at The New Bedford Light

Opinion: Menhaden fishing is a lifeline for Virginia workers

July 7, 2022 — The following is an excerpt of an op-ed by Ken Pinkard, a 38-year, third-generation menhaden fisherman in Virginia’s Northern Neck region. It was published yesterday by the Daily Press and the Virginian-Pilot.

The Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing Association’s Mike Avery inaccurately claims that the Chesapeake Bay’s menhaden fishery is hurting striped bass (“Advocates call for limits of menhaden fishing in Virginia”). In reality, menhaden fishing is not only sustainable, it’s a critical economic engine for Virginia’s Northern Neck.

For decades, menhaden fishermen have worked in the Chesapeake Bay alongside crabbers, oystermen and other watermen. The menhaden fishery is currently the largest employer of minority and union workers in rural Northumberland County, and Virginia will not attract “good-paying” jobs by destroying it. The proposals Avery promotes would have a devastating impact on hardworking Virginians whose families rely on the fishery for their livelihoods.

The economy of the Northern Neck depends on Omega Protein and affiliated companies, just as Detroit depends on GM and Ford. Omega Protein and its fishing partners offer the highest blue-collar wages with the most generous benefits in the Northern Neck. These are union jobs. Every worker has a voice. Some 98% of our Reedville-based employees live in Virginia and 90% live in the Northern Neck.

Read the full op-ed with a subscription at the Daily Press

Our View: We must have a say in offshore wind plans

June 30, 2022 — Few dispute the need to develop alternative ways to generate electricity that don’t produce greenhouse gases, but our response to a proposed floating offshore wind farm in Washington state isn’t a straightforward “yes.”

Similar complications arise regarding floating wind turbines off the southern Oregon Coast. These prompted the Astoria City Council and the Port of Astoria Commission to recently ask the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Oregon Department of Energy to take their time before granting permission. Local officials want a demonstration project before grander plans are authorized, along with a full-scale environmental impact analysis.

In Washington state, the development being pursued by Seattle-based Trident Winds is generating misgivings among some users of offshore waters, who fear the wind farm located about 45 miles west of the mouths of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor — and the cables linking it to the shore — could be one more blow to fisheries and the environment.

To put these concerns in a historical context, hydropower development in the 20th century in the Columbia River watershed came with many promises about preserving salmon runs and small-town economies. We all know how that turned out.

Read the full story at The Daily Astorian

 

Don’t endanger aquatic ecosystems in the name of solving climate change

June 20, 2022 — In New England, too, we are being told that jeopardizing fishery-supporting ecosystems is the price we must pay to solve climate change. Here, the argument is coming from offshore wind proponents, who are working hand-in-glove with the Biden administration to set a course to install 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030 — from a baseline of almost zero in just eight years — and 110 gigawatts by 2050, with most of the initial development taking place off New England and the mid-Atlantic and limited environmental review taking place prior to the issuance of leases.

What would this scale of development look like? With today’s technology, 110 gigawatts would be almost 8,500 turbines — 137 times the size of the Vineyard Wind facility planned for south of Cape Cod. It would mean near-continuous construction on the continental shelf for three decades. While no one knows what the ecological impacts of such construction might be (and that’s precisely our point), evidence suggests they may include alterations of the acoustic and sensory environment, electromagnetic fields, and current and wind patterns, affecting a variety of species whose survival depends on these aspects of the underwater world.

Offshore wind off New England and mining in the Bristol Bay watershed are linked by more than just spurious ultimatums invoking climate catastrophe as the inevitable consequence of keeping these wild places wild. It also happens that offshore wind, which requires hundreds of miles of electrical cables measuring up to 11 inches in diameter, is the most copper-intensive of all renewable energy technologies. Every mile of cable laid across the ocean floor will spur greater pressure to mine copper in precious, irreplaceable places like Bristol Bay.

Read the full op-ed at The Boston Globe

Letter: Act brings fishermen back to grant process

June 16, 2022 — The president just signed a bill, passed by the Senate and House, regarding Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant funds.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will no longer select those who apply. This bill will create an advisory panel as there was in 1954. The American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act brings back the board of experts, with members chosen regionally and across all sectors of the fishing industry, to bring fishermen back into the process of identifying needs and funding priorities. Up to now NOAA has had complete control [over who] would receive these funds.

Read the full letter at the Gloucester Times

Terry Haines: American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act Will Identify The Needs of the Industry

June 3, 2022 — Alaska’s senators are proudly touting a recently passed law that creates an American Fisheries Advisory Committee.

After its passage Sen. Dan Sullivan, who introduced the bill, said “… our fishermen will again have a seat at the table to offer appropriate input and oversight of the Saltonstall-Kennedy grant process …” But what’s the big deal? Why do we need another committee? And what the heck is a Saltonstall-Kennedy grant process?

Well, it’s all about pots of money.

The United States imposes tariffs on imported fish products. These tariffs are on imported “… fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, aquatic plants and animals, and any products thereof …” Interestingly, most of these products are not destined for the dinner table. In 2017, approximately 77% of revenues from these tariffs were from duties collected on imports of non-edible marine products, including jewelry, ink, various chemicals, and skins. The remaining 23% of revenues were from duties on imports of edible seafood products.

The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act of 1954 requires the secretary of agriculture to transfer 30% of the money from these tariffs into NOAA‘s Promote and Develop American Fisheries Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries Fund, also known as the P&D account. This account is what is known in government-ese as a “pot” of money. This is how public entities keep track of the public’s money to be sure it is used as intended. Every different pot of money has its own rules limiting and specifying the use of the money that goes into it. So, for instance when your local government has tax dollars going into the road maintenance account, it has to be used to fill potholes, not to fix pilings in the harbor.

Read the full opinion piece at Seafood News

Opinion: What lessons can Alaska learn – and share – on Arctic fisheries?

March 15, 2022 — Although focus is increasingly placed on sustainability policies and blue economy models among Arctic nations, the systematization of structured transnational collaboration in the circumpolar north has been underdeveloped. Over the past three years, as one of its objectives, the AlaskaNor project has aimed to identify the economic and social effects of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Alaska and North Norway in a comparative context and make this knowledge available for relevant stakeholders and decision-makers.

Through a comprehensive quantitative assessment of the status quo, challenges and opportunities of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in both Arctic regions, the project demonstrated that both Alaska and North Norway are strong frontiers in fisheries and aquaculture production, with outstanding economic performance on the global market. The project’s assessment aimed at helping both regions to develop platforms and networks for further interaction while achieving sustainable and diversified economies.

Knowledge exchange

With salmon production being an invaluable source of income and employment in both regions, there is potential for Alaska and North Norway to learn from each other’s practices, despite salmon industries being carried out in a fundamentally different manner. While finfish farming is forbidden by Alaska law, Alaska’s successful development of hatcheries and the management of salmon stocks could offer sustainability lessons to Norwegian businesses. In turn, North Norway’s highly profitable aquaculture could offer successful strategies for reaching and maintaining new markets. Groundfish fisheries management could also benefit from knowledge and best practice exchange, given that both regions are currently exposed to the impacts of climate change, including diminishing Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification and higher sea surface temperatures, all of which affect groundfish habitation, nutrition and migration patterns.

Read the full opinion piece at the Anchorage Daily News