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 7
March 2008
Groundfish sector allocation
Permit-history formulas advance as industry considers monumental change
DANVERS, MA – The New England Fishery Management Council has narrowed the range of permit-history alternatives for determining potential fish contributions to groundfish sectors.
At a special – and extremely well attended – Jan. 24 meeting here devoted entirely to sectors, the council picked four options to send to the groundfish plan development team (PDT) for further analysis and likely inclusion in a public hearing document for Amendment 16.
Two of the options – no action and Alternative 1 – focus strictly on landings history. The other two weight landings and vessel capacity 50/50 through a formula that uses vessel length, horsepower, and allocated Category A days-at-sea.
That was supposed to be the end of the council’s permit history discussion. But then, in an unexpected move, the council picked yet another alternative during its Feb. 12-14 meeting that uses landings history and allocated A-days only.
Industry members trying to form new groundfish sectors have pleaded with the council to take this step. Without knowing how the council intends to calculate history, sector organizers have been stymied on two counts – finalizing membership rosters and developing complete operations plans.
The amount of fish a sector will be allowed to catch directly hinges on the final permit-history formula. And right now, none of the four alternatives has universal industry support.
“We’re not advocating for one alternative over another yet,” said Vito Giacalone of the Northeast Seafood Coalition, which is sponsoring 12 of the proposed sectors. “We want to see the analysis first.”
In an effort to further hone the list and provide more guidance to industry, Connecticut council member Sally McGee urged the council to identify Alternatives 2 and 3 – the ones using both landings and capacity – as preferred.
“What I’m trying to do is keep this bus moving,” she said. “I want to show that the council is more interested in going with history and capacity vs. just history or status quo.”
Given that many fishermen have leased days-at-sea and spent considerable amounts of money to buy permits for their A-day value, McGee said, “The history-plus-capacity alternatives are more fair and equitable and do take into consideration the investments industry made.”
Too soon to pick
New Hampshire council member David Goethel was strongly opposed to picking a preferred alternative.
“I’m not ready to jump the cart that far yet,” he said. “We just set up a list of alternatives, and now we’re saying this is what we want without any analysis? I don’t know what I want yet.”
But McGee persisted.
“We need to get comfortable making decisions much more quickly than we have in the past,” she said. “Industry has been begging for a long time now for us to give them a clear indication of where we’re going.”
Although the motion to pick a preferred alternative failed, several council members over the course of the day indicated leanings toward one alternative over another.
Goethel said, “Anything that’s based purely on catch history to me is too simplistic. Too many other things have happened.”
And Maine council member Dana Rice said, “I think what appeals to me with the 50/50 mix is that it allows some flexibility. It allows us to keep people fishing and go after these species as fish stocks come back.”
Rice twice emphasized, “If we’re going to embrace this (sectors), I want to have it be as broad and open as possible for the future. We all want to protect the resource, but this is about people and their livelihoods.”
Alternative 3 added
During its mid-December meeting, the council’s groundfish committee voted to forward only three permit history alternatives to the full council for consideration on Jan. 24 – no action, landings history only, and the 50/50 landings-and-capacity formula that would allow permit holders to receive history strictly for stocks landed between 1996 and 2006.
Following that meeting, the Northeast Seafood Coalition worked determinedly to convince council members to add another alternative to the mix – the 50/50 formula applied to all allocated stocks, not just the ones landed by a permit holder.
Several industry members supported this addition.
New Hampshire fisherman Carl Bouchard said, “Many permits have changed hands in recent years. If someone in the Gulf of Maine purchased a Southern New England permit, it would be worthless” under Alternative 2 because the permit would receive allocations of Southern New England stocks instead of Gulf of Maine stocks based on its history.
“Under (Alternative 3), the permit would be worth something,” said Bouchard.
Glen Libby, representing the Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector, said his group had a meeting to discuss whether or not to support the inclusion of Alternative 3.
In the end, he said, the group agreed that an across-the-board allocation might help cover unexpected bycatch.
“It’s kind of an insurance policy,” said Libby. “It protects you from catching something you didn’t expect to catch and sinking the sector.”
Chris Brown of the Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association said Alternative 3 would better account for shifts in stock distribution that have occurred over the years.
“We have a pretty good example of what happens when you cling desperately to a very rigid allocation scheme,” he said.
“With fluke, we tried to allocate some of the stock to the north, but people to the south clung to it, and now we have bycatch problems,” he said. “Clinging desperately to hard and fast allocations can turn around and bite you. We should put in a plan that would prevent the greatest amount of discards.”
Will this help?
Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of Maine wasn’t convinced that across-the-board stock allocation was the best way to go.
“If someone in Port Clyde, ME gets a portion of Southern New England yellowtail, then someone in Southern New England gets less yellowtail,” she said. “How is that helpful for someone in Southern New England who needs that little bit of yellowtail to conduct his fishery? He’d have to scramble around to trade for it.”
Other fishermen also expressed concerns that divvying up each stock so every permit holder gets a share would result in allocations that were so small they’d be meaningless and wouldn’t do anyone any good.
Raymond said, “The question remains: Why wouldn’t you just base the formula on landings history over a 10-year period, which captures performance fairly well?”
After considerable debate, the council voted to include Alternative 3 in the list of options to be analyzed by the groundfish PDT.
A different formula
New Hampshire council member Mike Leary tried to gain support for analysis of an additional landings/capacity alternative.
“I don’t think this formula is right,” he said of the vessel length, horsepower, and A-days combination. “I don’t think it’s equitable.”
Leary moved to include an option using A-days only – without length and horsepower – for the capacity part of the formula.
“I want to see it analyzed both ways,” he said.
Fisherman Erik Anderson of New Hampshire supported the proposal.
“I think there’s validity in this, just to look at something a little broader,” he said. “All you’re trying to do is make a more informed decision down the road.”
Goethel acknowledged that horsepower and length might “not be good for judging capacity in hook boats or gillnetters.”
“Length is not a proxy for capacity in fixed gear,” he said.
And Connecticut council member David Simpson questioned the very premise behind the length/horsepower/A-day capacity formula. He expressed concerns that it seemingly “had been pulled out of the air.”
Vito Giacalone argued, “We have no problem with you analyzing something other than the 10-to-1 length-to-horsepower relationship, but we need length and horsepower. You have a very different result when you just use A-days and take out length and horsepower.”
In the end, the motion to include another alternative with just A-days for calculating capacity failed by a large margin.
Complicating factors
Rhode Island fisherman Harold Loftes had a broader concern about the fairness of using landings history when fishermen for years now had been banking on days-at-sea.
“I spent a lot of money for a boat with 42 days-at-sea. There was very little history on the permit,” he said. “I bought that boat for the days-at-sea, not the history.”
Brian Loftes, who also bought his permit for the A-day value, added, “Now we’ll have to live and die by the history of the past owner on the permit.”
Carl Bouchard said he was well aware of the numerous complicating factors associated with sector allocations.
“We need an allocation system that has a direct correlation to days-at-sea,” he said. “Like it or not, days-at-sea is the currency of opportunity we have all invested in. While it might be legal to change from days-at-sea to a history-based allocation system, it might not be morally or ethically correct.”
Maine fisherman Mike Love also expressed concern over the allocation system, acknowledging that his own permit situation was complicated. Even though he primarily fishes the Gulf of Maine, his permits largely have Georges Bank history.
“The rank-and-file fishermen are not so ready to jump over the sector allocation cliff as some of the people in this room,” he said.
“The sectors aren’t going to be ready until 2010, so please stay with the days-at-sea system,” he said. “The best thing is to stay with what we know.”
Timing
The whole issue of whether or not the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) could implement sectors in 2009 was raised several times.
In a Dec. 7 letter to the council, NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul urged the council to delay sector implementation to 2010 (see CFN January 2008 for details).
The council’s groundfish committee opted to continue pursuing sectors for 2009, but on Jan. 24, groundfish committee Chairman Rip Cunningham said, “I think it’s quite evident that even if the committee has said we want to push forward for 2009, it’s going to be 2010.”
Cunningham added, “We have made substantial progress on this, but I think we make a big mistake in promising the industry we can get this done on time for 2009.”
Mid-Atlantic council representative Jimmy Ruhle said timing was the fundamental question.
“Can this physically be done in Amendment 16?” he asked. “We need to answer that question so industry doesn’t have false expectations. Don’t mislead this industry if it can’t be done.”
Industry pressure
Ruhle also expressed grave concerns about the amount of pressure sector formation was putting on fishermen who now felt they had no choice but to join a sector or be greatly disadvantaged by remaining in the common pool.
“Sectors are supposed to be voluntary,” said Ruhle. “But now people feel, ‘If we don’t get in a sector, we’re out.’ We have removed the voluntary part of sectors.”
New Jersey fisherman Jim Lovgren of the Fishermen’s Dock Cooperative in Point Pleasant Beach said fishermen in his area were beginning to grasp the ramifications of sectors.
“Apparently, if you don’t join a sector, you’re gonna be the ones who are going to drown,” he said.
New Jersey fishermen didn’t submit a sector proposal in time for consideration under Amendment 16, but many of them catch blackbacks over the course of their fishing year.
“A sector might be perfect for New Jersey,” said Lovgren. “I’d like to see the sector door open again. We’re just saying, ‘Don’t forget us. We’re still here.’”
Can’t make more fish
Rhode Island council member Frank Blount worried that people were losing sight of what a sector could and couldn’t do for them.
Scientists involved in the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM) are in the process of assessing the status of each groundfish stock to determine whether stocks are meeting their rebuilding targets.
“We don’t know what the GARM is going to say,” said Blount. “If the GARM says we need a 50% cut, the sector will have a 50% cut.
“The bottom line is there aren’t any more fish,” said Blount. “Because you’re in a sector doesn’t mean you have any more fish to catch.”
Allocation
Rhode Island fisherman Phil Ruhle said he was not at all against sectors.
However, he said, “What I do find problematic is the way the council is going about doing the allocations under the guise of sectors. I feel the council should be having the discussion about allocation. Take sectors out of it.
“Once you decide on allocation, then you can do anything efficiently – sectors, points, ITQs, area management, whatever,” Ruhle said.
Rhode Island fisherman Joel Hovanesian also urged the council to slow down on sectors.
“We need alternatives to days-at-sea, there’s no doubt about it,” he said. “But rushing willy-nilly into a plan that’s so complicated is unjustified.”
A week earlier, Hovanesian presented the groundfish committee with a petition signed by 21 fishermen urging the council to support the NMFS position to delay sector implementation.
“While we recognize that sectors are a viable alternative that should be looked into in the future, we feel that with all the uncertainty with the science and with catch history data, now is not the right time to pursue this approach,” stated the petition.
Put it off
As the meeting wound down, John Williamson of the Ocean Conservancy repeated the same message he’s brought forward at most other meetings.
“We are strongly urging you to put sector development on the back burner,” he said. “Let these allocation issues simmer. Do a basic process for incorporating annual catch limits and accountability measures into the days-at-sea plan and develop basic measures around the days-at-sea program.
“Once those obligatory items are out of the way, you’re free of the deadlines,” he said. “Then the sectors would be part of an allocation amendment.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
