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
Quota allocation ‘out’ of herring Amendment 4
MYSTIC, CT – Overwhelmed by the workload involved in developing a comprehensive catch monitoring program for the Atlantic herring fishery while simultaneously developing annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs), the New England Fishery Management Council has decided to eliminate any consideration of quota allocation programs from Amendment 4.
That means individual fishing quotas (IFQs), group allocations, limited-access privilege programs (LAPPs), and sectors are all off the table as possible management options for the next major amendment to the federal herring plan.
The council made this decision on Oct. 8 following an intense debate during which supporters and opponents argued passionately for their respective stands.
Herring committee Chairman Frank Blount of Rhode Island warned the council that the decision could turn out to be the most contentious of the day. And it was.
Back at a July 30 joint meeting in Portland, ME, the council’s herring industry advisory panel voted 5-4 to remove quota allocation options from the amendment. The herring committee then took the same position in a 3-2 vote after the committee chair broke a 2-2 tie with one abstention.
“The opinions have been pretty much equally divided,” said Blount.
That statement continued to hold true during the full council meeting. Minutes after explaining the chronology of events, Blount put forward the committee’s split-but-majority motion to eliminate quota allocations.
Then Maine council member Mary Beth Tooley immediately moved to substitute the motion with one that would do exactly the opposite – retain quota allocation options.
Differing sides
Tooley outlined this summer’s disastrous fishery in Area 1A, which operated under a drastically reduced total allowable catch (TAC) that, minus deductions for research set-aside and other provisions, effectively totaled less than 41,000 metric tons.
“That created the greatest race to fish ever experienced in the fishery,” she said.
Tooley pointed out several problems associated with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) strategy to stretch out the quota by allowing herring landings to occur only on selected days each week.
“It’s a very awkward tool,” she said. “It pits gear type against gear type, fishermen against fishermen. We need to do business in a different manner. This is just not the way to manage this fishery.”
Maine council member Dana Rice said he was well aware of the problems in Area 1A and the resulting stress on the lobster bait supply, but he still strongly opposed quota allocations in Amendment 4.
“I don’t know anyone in the lobster industry who wants to solve that problem through quota allocation,” he said. “If we include quota allocation, we’re going to knock this amendment into left field.”
Tight timing
Possibly the biggest hurdle confronting the council with Amendment 4 is time – or the lack of it.
Amendment 4 must be implemented by Jan. 1, 2011 because of a new provision in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) that requires ACLs and AMs to be in effect by that date. The mandate applies to all stocks where overfishing is not occurring, which is the case for herring. Overfished stocks require compliance by 2010.
“Jan. 1, 2011 seems like a long ways off, but it’s not given the amount of work that needs to be done,” said Lori Steele, the council’s herring plan coordinator and chair of the herring plan development team (PDT).
To meet that deadline, Steele said the council should approve draft alternatives by April 2009 – a timeframe she called “extremely optimistic” since it was only six months away – in order for the PDT to have time to fully develop each proposal for public hearings at the end of next year.
Then, the council should pick final measures for Amendment 4 in April of 2010 and submit a completed document to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for approval a month or so later, giving the agency time to review, approve, and implement the measures by Jan. 1, 2011.
Complicating matters, the council will be trying to meet roughly the same deadline for two other herring actions – a framework adjustment containing 2010 fishery specifications, including area-by-area TACs, and a second framework containing 2011-2013 specifications.
Top priorities
The council agreed a year ago that the top priority for Amendment 4 would be ACLs and AMs because of the legal requirement under the MSA. But it also stated that development of a comprehensive catch monitoring program for herring, for which many members of the public fought aggressively, would be another priority.
According to council Executive Director Paul Howard, those two items alone will take an enormous amount of time, and including a third complicated program, such as quota allocation, could knock the whole amendment off track.
Massachusetts council member Rip Cunningham said he saw many similarities between groundfish and herring in that both committees were trying to do too much in a given timeframe.
“We have a history of putting too many ornaments on the tree,” he said. “I’m concerned about the deadline. Staff is telling us they only have time to develop two things. I can’t see anything but us getting ourselves into trouble by adding a third.”
Major concerns
The council expressed two different concerns about quota allocation. Some worried about the extensive time it would take to develop workable allocation programs while needing to meet the MSA deadline for ACLs and AMs. On the other hand, others fundamentally opposed the whole idea of quota allocation, at least for Amendment 4.
New Hampshire council member David Goethel fell into both categories and thought the allocation details would be impossible to develop under the current time constraints.
“I’d be happy to see us get improved monitoring at the end of the 18 months,” he said.
Maine council member Jim Odlin found himself in a difficult position, saying he typically supported quota allocation programs.
However, he said, “Normally, you get to this stage several years after you establish limited entry. We just implemented limited entry in this fishery. Some people are still under appeal.”
Odlin said he knew of people who already had been financially ruined by the new limited-entry program under herring Amendment 1.
“If we do something like this now, we’ll bankrupt additional people,” he said.
New Hampshire council member Doug Grout said he, too, was torn by the decision.
After chairing ASMFC’s herring days-out meetings this summer, Grout said, “I’ve clearly seen that the system set up by ASMFC is broken. We need some other tools to manage this quota.”
Nonetheless, Grout said he also recognized ACLs and AMs needed to be implemented by 2011 and that development of a catch monitoring program would take a great deal of time.
While not a perfect fix, Grout said the ASMFC herring section would be working on an addendum in late October so states could implement “additional tools to more equitably allocate the quota and make it last a longer time.”
That, he said, might provide an interim solution if the council couldn’t move ahead with quota allocation.
Tie to monitoring
As it became increasingly clear that the majority of the council intended to vote against quota allocation for Amendment 4, Connecticut council member Sally McGee suggested linking the development of sectors, LAPPs, or other quota allocation measures to a “significantly improved quota monitoring program.”
“That signals that catch monitoring is still a priority in the amendment,” she said. “The council would develop quota allocations only if it developed a significantly improved monitoring system.”
Connecticut council member Dave Simpson expressed some support for at least pursuing sectors, not so much to deal with quota allocations but to give industry a vehicle for joining together to help develop industry-funded observer programs.
“I think the industry needs to pick up some of the burden for monitoring in this fishery,” he said.
George Darcy, representing the NMFS Northeast Regional Office in Gloucester, said he, too, was reluctant to drop the sector opportunity.
“I think sectors are worthy of further consideration at this point – with the understanding that catch monitoring and ACLs remain the priority,” he said.
Industry plan?
Once it was obvious that most council members agreed the 2011 ACL/AM deadline and catch monitoring were the top priorities and would defeat the motion to include quota allocation, Peter Moore, representing the American Pelagic Association and NORPEL, made a request.
“At least consider allowing permit holders and processors to come back to you with one or two or three fully fleshed-out possibilities,” he said. “Otherwise, we’re not going to be able to revisit any of this until god knows when – 2012? There are definitely ways of moving this fishery forward to refine the ‘race’ mentality. And this would take the burden off the council.”
However, no one on the council followed up on that request, and the council voted to eliminate all quota allocation programs from consideration in Amendment 4 in a 12-4 vote with one abstention.
The following day, as the council attended to “other business” and prepared to adjourn its three-day meeting, Tooley reintroduced the idea of allowing industry to develop proposals.
She made this move following several hours of discussion by the council about the need to inform industry that it was moving toward “output” controls – meaning quota allocations systems – for groundfish.
In light of this stated direction, Tooley urged the council to support a “placeholder” in herring Amendment 4 to allow participants in the directed herring industry to “create proposals for sectors or LAPPs.”
Council Chairman John Pappalardo, however, ruled the motion out of order, noting that no one had raised that possibility during the herring discussion the day before.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
