Topics include the new skate stock information, industry concerns around sector managment, the accuracy of pollock science, U.S.–Canada transboundary arrangement, whether joining sectors was really voluntary, whether sectors are catch shares, and whether there is appropriate economic analysis of fishing regulations.
by Jonathan Hemmerdinger
Saving Seafood Contributing Writer
New skate stock information emerges
New skate studies indicate that skate catch reductions under the soon-to-be-implemented Amendment 3 are not needed. "More recent information and the errors have led us to understand that those reductions aren't necessary," said Tom Dempsey, a policy analyst with the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association. "There is no conservation benefit of these cuts. Harvest at the status quo is acceptable."
It's a critical issue, Dempsey added, because many ground fishermen, now facing possible cuts under sector management, also rely on skate revenue. The new skate regulations, which cut the daily trip limit from 10,000 to 1,900 pounds of skate wings, may result in $9 million of lost revenue, say the group. Most impacted will be the communities of Chatham and New Bedford, Mass., and Point Judith, R.I., where some vessels may see revenue fall up to 50 percent.
In a Feb. 17 letter to regional administrator Patricia Kurkul, CCCHFA said the new regulations will "force hundreds of struggling fishermen out of business while serving absolutely no conservation purpose."
The group requested NMFS "fast track the incorporation of the most recent skate assessment data and set FY2010 total allowable catch and trip limits accordingly."
Julie Wormser of the Environmental Defense said the new information could lead to increases in skate catch. "There are three fisheries in New England in which new data would appear to increase the [annual catch limits], skate, pollock and dogfish," Wormser said in an email. "It looks like skate is on track to have this new data considered by the New England Council at its April meeting … This could increase the 2010 [skate catch] in time for the start of the fishing season."
CCCHFA staffers and fishermen are planning a March 15–16 trip to Washington, D.C., to discuss skate and dogfish concerns with law and policy makers, said Dempsey.
See related: Fishermen: Catch limits go too far, Cape Cod Times
Sectors raise industry concerns
Many fishermen and industry insiders fear that Amendment 16's sector management plan for Northeast multispecies will lead to industry consolidation and lost fishing jobs.
Even Council members concede sectors will likely lead to job loss. In an interview, Thomas Nies, a fishery analyst on the New England Fisheries Management Council, said, "It is completely realistic that there will be fewer fishermen. There isn't any question that will happen. It's an expected outcome."
And the sector program’s requirement that all sector fishing cease once fishermen reach their quota on any of some twenty species may cause sectors to shut in only months, say some.
Vito Giacalone, policy director at Gloucester-based Northeast Seafood Coalition, said fishing rests on the “weakest link”—species with small quotas that act as the “circuit breaker of the system.” Once that species' quota is reached, he said, “the system shuts down.”
Brian Rothschild agreed. "Once you reach your [limit], everybody has to close down," he said.
Pollock are one of several so-called “weakest links," also called "choke stocks," that fishermen fear can cause sector-wide closures.
Carlos Rafael, whose 44 ground fish permits make him one of the largest permit holders in Massachusetts, explained: boats that target gray sole or plaice, he said, also likely haul pollock as bycatch—all three species swim in the same deep ocean water.
But pollock quotas might be lower than sole or plaice quotas—possibly much lower. "If you haul 500 pounds of pollock [but] you only have 50 pounds of quota … you shut down the whole sector," Rafael said.
In his letter to Lubchenco, Frank said he fears job loss from sectors. “Recommendations for severe reductions in catch to ground fish species such as Pollock as well as the restrictive allowable catch of cod and yellowtail would all but ensure that many who rely on this commercial fishery will be forced out,” he wrote.
Frank urged NOAA “do everything within its power” to increase access to fish stocks that are harvested under allowable limits. In addition, he urged the agency to develop a strategy to avoid bycatch—“the needless waste of fish that are simply thrown overboard, with most dying or already dead”—a practice that he said results in the loss of millions of dollars in revenue that could otherwise benefit fishermen.
Frank said he is “generally opposed to sectors” and concerned the plan will leave fishermen in economic distress. “Who will bail them out?” he asked.
Lubchenco responded that while not a “panacea” for every fishery, sector management plans are worthy for consideration. And the plan was originally proposed by members of the ground fish industry, she said. Lubchenco added that two existing sector management plans in New England have proven successful.
As for reducing bycatch, Lubchenco said the agency isn’t relying on sectors alone. But she said the plan’s provisions require sector vessels to land only legal-size fish, which “should help reduce” legal-size discard. “Common pool” vessels—those whose owners chose not to join a sector—are required under Amendment 16 to use selective gear to minimize the catch of overfished stocks, she said.
See related: Sector Management promises benefits, faces obstacles, and raises concerns.
Is pollock science accurate?
In his letter to Lubchenco, Barney Frank said he is concerned about disagreement over the science used in the pollock stock assessment. “The stock could be very abundant,” Frank wrote, and the total allowable catch (TAC) could have been “set too quickly.”
"This is no small matter as this species could trigger the shut down of the entire multispecies fishery."
In her response, Lubchenco said her agency will conduct a “benchmark assessment” of pollock stocks in June 2010. “This will be a complete reexamination of the pollock resource and will be independently reviewed through the New England Fisheries Science Center’s Stock Assessment Review Committee.”
“I agree that, given the importance of stock assessments to the management of our fisheries, it is vital that we involve the industry to hear their concerns, answer their questions and help them understand our science,” Lubchenco wrote.
In a Jan. 29 letter responding to Lubchenco, Frank said the NOAA head had "squandered" the opportunity make changes to pollock and other quota, it was reported.
Agreement or understanding? The U.S.–Canada Transboundary arrangement
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, most overfished stocks are required to be rebuilt within ten years. However, the act has an exception for fish stocks “under and international agreement.”
But the U.S. State Department has said the U.S.-Canada fisheries arrangement is an “understanding,” not an agreement. That means tighter restrictions on fishermen.
In his letter to Lubchenco, Frank said the agreement could negatively impact U.S. fishermen. He suggested that the "issues and complications" not be addressed piecemeal, but “rather in comprehensive and strategic fashion.”
“I suggest you form a NOAA task force involving your staff and members of the industry to develop a comprehensive plan for fisheries interactions with Canada,” Frank said. He called on Lubchenco to be directly involved in the discussions.
In her response, Lubchenco said the U.S/Canada management issue is “important” to NOAA and that the agency has been working on the issue with congressional staff and the fishing industry.
In December, Frank and Maine Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R) each introduced legislature to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act so that the United States-Canada Transboundary Resource Sharing Understanding is defined as an agreement.
Economic analysis of proposed fishing regulations
In his letter, Barney Frank said all proposed fishing regulations—including the northeast sector management plan—should be accompanied by “readily available and substantive economic analysis.” “This information must be provided in a manner that is both accessible and easily understood by those who are most affected: fishermen, shore side businesses, coastal communities, etc.”
Frank added, “I am concerned that the catch share concept may not be viable for some sector groups.”
Lubchenco responded that economic analysis are “routinely conducted” to inform the Council about the impact of regulatory actions. The analysis, Lubchenco added, “are a requirement of both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act” and can range from “qualitative discussions to detailed quantitative estimates.”
As for sectors, Lubchenco agreed “that it will be critical to fully understand the economic impact” and that analysis should be shared with “impacted stakeholders.”
Frank’s concerns mirror industry concerns. Most catch-share programs—similar to sector plans—grant fishing rights (in the form of quota) to fishermen. Quota can also be bought and sold.
In the United States, 15 catch-share programs manage species including red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, sablefish in the Pacific Northwest, and king crab in the Bering Sea, according to a report by the environmental arm of nonprofit Pew Charitable Trusts.
Environmentalists say catch shares align fishermen’s interests with environmental interests (healthy oceans mean more valuable shares, they say),
But the programs add a cost structure to fishing—fishermen must buy (or be granted) shares. That, said Bonnie McCay, chair of the department of human ecology at Rutgers University, can disrupt the traditional career progression of aspiring fishermen. In the past, kids worked their way up from crewmembers to small-boat owner-operators. But catch shares impose a massive cost of entry on fishing because you have to first buy shares. As a result, many kids from poor coastal communities no longer can afford to work for themselves.
The programs can also lead to consolidation of fishing rights under corporations. Linda Behnken, executive director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association in Sitka, Alaska, said the catch-share plan implemented in the Alaska crab fishery in 2004 has caused the loss of virtually all crab jobs in small, rural Alaskan fishing communities. The fleet consolidated, she said, under few owners, some who lived nowhere near the sea.
See related: Sector Management promises benefits, faces obstacles, and raises concerns.
Are sectors really voluntary?
Under questioning from Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) in a Feb. 24 budget hearing, NOAA Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere Mary M. Glackin called the sector management plan a voluntary program that most fishermen had chosen to join.
"In the Northeast, in the sector management there, 95 percent of the fishermen, even though it's a voluntary program, have enrolled," Glackin said.
But fishermen call NOAA's claims misleading and they say the agency rigged the system so that the alternative to joining a sector—fishing in the so-called common pool—is not a viable option for most.
In a sector, fishermen are guaranteed a portion of the quota based on their catch history. But the common pool has a common quota, based on all fishermen's catch history. And the common pool is derby-style—fishermen race to fish before the quota is reached.
Giacalone said fishermen with substantial catch histories have no incentive to fish in the common pool, where other fishermen can catch their quota. And once the quota is reached, regardless of who catches it, the common pool closes. "If someone goes fishing before you and catches a large amount … the entire common pool is shut down," Giacalone said.
Because sectors guarantee fishermen at least a portion of the quota, they are the only real option for most fishermen. "When you restrict and limit … the alternatives so that the only thing left is the one that gives you even a half of chance, how voluntary is that?" Giacalone said.
David Goethel, a New Hampshire ground fisherman who joined a sector, agreed. "For most people with any history at all, they will do poorly in a sector but disastrous in the common pool."
Giacalone added that Glackin's comments wrongly imply fishermen "asked to have" sectors. "It looks like NOAA is looking to use industry leaders as scapegoats for creating this," he said. "It makes me feel like I am being thrown under the bus."
Are sectors catch shares?
The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines Limited Access Privilege Programs, of which individual fishing quotas are a type, as programs granting fishermen a share of the total catch, commonly called a catch share. Under most LAPPs the shares act as property that can be bought and sold.
In the 2007 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, a provision spearheaded by Barney Frank was added requiring that Northeast LAPPs be approved by fishermen. "The New England and Gulf Councils may not submit, and the Secretary may not approve or implement, a fishery management plan or amendment that creates an individual fishing quota program … unless such a system … has been approved by more than 2⁄3 of those voting in a referendum among eligible permit holders," said the act.
The Northeast sector management plan, however, was not considered an IFQ program by NOAA. No vote was held.
In a Sept. 2007 letter to Council Executive Director Paul Howard, NOAA Regional Administrator Patricia Kurkul said the agency determined that under the Magnuson reauthorization "an IFQ does not, for the purposes of the referendum requirement, include a sector allocation."
And "sector allocations, as currently implemented by the Northeast Multispecies [Fisheries Management Plan], do not appear to be LAPPs because they do not "involve the allocation of specific quantity of fish or a portion of the TAC," Kurkul said.
But the sector plan acts very much like a LAPP, some say, because it guarantees fishermen a portion of the catch and allows transfer of quota.
"If it walks like a duck, it's a duck," said Brian Rothschild. "People are being allocated the public's resource."
Even NOAA has called sectors catch shares. In a Dec. 11 editorial in the Gloucester Daily Times, NMFS head Jim Balsiger wrote, "One of four new catch share programs expected to start in the next year is the sector program in the northeast groundfishery."
Some in the industry says NOAA's decision not to classify sectors as LAPPs allowed the agency to push through a catch-share style plan without a vote.
"What I [don't] like is that sectors were a way to circumvent the referendum," said Harriet Didrickson, who owns New Bedford Ship Supply and has been involved with the fishing industry most of her life. "If they went to ITQs, they [would need] a referendum" of fishermen, she said.
Rothschild added he thinks NOAA's decision to forgo of referendum contradicts the "intent of Congress, which is that you don't go into a property rights systems in the Northeast without having a referendum," he said. "There is no question that sectors are property rights systems."
But some industry insiders see benefit to the sector plan not being classified as an LAPP.
Vito Giacalone, policy director at Gloucester-based Northeast Seafood Coalition, said because LAPP's involve property rights—fishermen own shares—changes to the plans can be difficult to implement.
"If it was LAPP, [the shares are a] commodity," Giacalone said. "It's hard for council to take [those] away" from fishermen.
That's an important point, Giacalone said, because sector management is brand new and its impact is unknown. Many fishermen fear the plan will cause widespread job loss. Others think the industry will consolidate under corporate ownership.
If such problems arise, the sector management plan could be modified more easily because it's not an LAPP. Improvements could be made without disenfranchising fishermen of property rights.
"[This plan] is a benefit to the fishery [over an LAPP]," he said. "It's more open to management changes if it turns into a problem … the fishery can respond to negative social and economic consequences."
Property rights granted under LAPPs can also attract non-fishing investors, Giacalone said, which could push share prices above levels ordinary fishermen can afford.
That's another reason he thinks sector quota must not be confused with LAPP property ownership. "This may mitigate some of the negative socio-economic effects that many quota share systems have experienced."