COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 35 Number 3
November 2008
Groundfish headed toward quota management
MYSTIC, CT – Following an unexpected debate, the New England Fishery Management Council voted to send a “clear message” to industry that it intends to move toward “an output-based management system” for groundfish – partially through Amendment 16 and then more fully in Amendment 17.
Output-based management tools typically involve hard quotas in one form or another and include allocation strategies such as individual fishing quotas (IFQs).
The council took this action during its Oct. 7-9 meeting here in response to a short discussion that happened during a Sept. 16 groundfish advisory panel meeting.
While they “assumed” the council was moving toward a quota or catch-limited system, the advisers pointed out that the council had never specifically spelled out “its vision,” making it difficult for fishermen to decide whether or not to join sectors under Amendment 16 or remain within the “common pool.”
“I think we need to be clear, to the extent we can be, that this is the direction we want to go in,” said Rhode Island council member Dave Preble, who made a motion to proclaim the council’s definitive shift toward quotas.
“The old system of days-at-sea management is dying, and the faster we can put a bullet in it the better,” he said.
While the course-change toward quota management seemed obvious to many, council Chairman John Pappalardo argued strongly that the council needed to “telegraph” the message.
Massachusetts council member Rodney Avila agreed.
“It informs the people who don’t come here to these meetings which direction we’re going in,” he said.
Sally McGee of Connecticut backed that up.
“As simple as it seems, we need this statement,” she said.
The council’s motion, which passed in a 12-5 vote, also reiterated that the council intends to manage groundfish “based on the best available science.”
Is it necessary?
Audience members fell into two camps. Some applauded the council’s decision to boldly articulate the path it was taking, while others considered the statement to be “motherhood and apple pie,” distracting everyone from continuing to work on the hard details of Amendment 16.
“This is not going to offer a lot of guidance to the industry. We’re already there,” said Vito Giacalone of the Northeast Seafood Coalition. He urged the council to return to its previous discussion of the groundfish plan development team’s report on stock rebuilding needs.
But Eric Brazer, manager of the Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector, disagreed.
“It’s pretty clear the direction we’re moving in, but we need to codify that,” he said. “I only wish someone had come up with this months or years ago. We need a vision. We need to move away from this unreliable system.”
Peter Baker of the Pew Environmental Group added, “I think what everyone needs is to hear the council say, ‘We’re moving away from days-at-sea and we’re moving toward sector management in Amendment 16.”
Common pool
While many consider sectors to be an “output-based” management strategy because sectors must work under hard quotas, Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of Maine expressed concern about the council’s intent.
“If you are going to move towards quota-based management in Amendment 16 and you’re categorizing that as sectors, well, there are a whole lot of people not signed up for sectors. We need to have something that works for them, too,” she said.
Amendment 16 contains two types of management alternatives for nonsector fishermen who, by default, will end up in the common pool. One involves hard total allowable catch (TAC) limits, possibly divided into trimesters to slow down the anticipated derby fishery. The second involves differential days-at-sea counting, which will be adjusted the following year if catch limits are exceeded.
The council won’t pick a final alternative for the common pool until later in 2009, but Pappalardo said he wanted to brace industry for the chance that hard TACs may be used even for the common pool.
If common pool fishermen are caught unaware of this possibility, Pappalardo said he feared the council would not have a “smooth transition” from the current management program to Amendment 16.
Pappalardo left no question that he supported moving toward quota management.
“It’s easy to say what’s wrong with our system. It’s not always easy to figure out how to make it right,” he said. “But if we continue to rely on days-at-sea and trip limits, we are going to continue to have loss-of-yield and horrible discards. The promise of this new system is to increase profitability while rebuilding those stocks that need rebuilding.”
Tough choice
Massachusetts council member David Pierce has long been troubled by the prospect of using hard TACs for nonsector fishermen in Amendment 16.
“A hard TAC for the common pool without some sort of strategy to allocate the TAC (like IFQs) will be history revisited. I don’t want to go there,” he said. “We need to get to Amendment 17. That way we can transition from the common pool and sectors to the next phase, which will be output controls.”
New Hampshire council member David Goethel had concerns as well.
“You’re putting people in an impossible position,” he said. “They either end up in something with a hard TAC, or they have to join a sector. The sectors are self-selecting. Suppose nobody wants you?”
Maine council member Jim Odlin, too, worried about the message being sent for Amendment 16.
“Some people truly thought we would have a portion of the fishery stay under days-at-sea,” he said.
The council long ago decided it would not accept any new sector applications under Amendment 16, and Odlin said membership in the existing 19 sectors had pretty much “maxed out.” Few sectors logistically could handle more people.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) extended the deadline for sectors to submit final membership rosters to Sept. 1, 2009. That’s also the deadline for sectors to submit operations plans, signed contracts, and environmental assessments.
Few sectors, however, will wait that long because NMFS must have all necessary paperwork in hand 60 days prior to when a sector can be told what it’s annual catch entitlement will be for groundfish stocks. And without knowing its TAC share for 2010, sectors will have a difficult time making business plans.
A new direction
The council tweaked the language of its message several times over the course of its extensive debate, but in the end, the basic theme remained the same: quotas will be the wave of the future for groundfish, even if days-at-sea need to remain a temporary “relic” in Amendment 16.
Peter Shelley of the Conservation Law Foundation strongly supported the council’s move.
“We see Amendment 16 as a critical opportunity to move this fishery to as close to quota-based management as possible,” he said. “I think it’s very important for the council to show leadership.”
John Williamson of The Ocean Conservancy agreed.
“This shows there’s a commitment to greater accountability, a commitment to a more responsive approach to groundfish management, and a commitment to greater management certainty, which will lead to greater stability in the industry,” he said.
Jennifer Litteral of the Island Institute, representing the Midcoast Fishermen’s Association, whose members have formed a sector, said sectors were spending considerable time and money to fulfill sector requirements and be ready for implementation in 2010.
“We’re all looking for clarity in Amendment 16 to know that we’re moving in the right direction,” she said.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
