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 34 Number 9
May 2007
NE council races to formulate sector policy
MYSTIC, CT – The idea of forming sectors has become increasingly attractive to numerous fishermen who are starting to think they might be better off managing themselves.
In the Northeast, the groundfish fishery already has two sectors in operation.
A group of limited-access scallopers from New Jersey who hold more than 10% of all limited-access scallop permits is proposing to form a new scallop sector. And other groundfish fishermen are discussing the possibility, as are members of the herring industry.
In an effort to form an overall sector policy before the floodgates open completely, the New England Fishery Management Council set up an omnibus sector committee to work out a definition of sectors and develop an overall – or omnibus – amendment that could be used to modify each of the council’s fishery management plans (FMPs) to include the resulting guidelines.
Committee Chairman John Nelson of New Hampshire briefed the full council during its April 10-12 meeting on the committee’s progress.
“We’re not recommending anything at this time,” he said. “At the June council meeting, we hope to provide you with an overall position. At that time, I imagine there’ll be a healthy discussion by the council about whether we want to continue to develop an amendment with alternatives or whether we want to adopt this as a general policy and then let sector plans develop within the individual committees.”
No easy feat
Forming an overall policy has proved to be a considerable challenge for the committee.
Committee member Sally McGee of Connecticut urged the council to not think of the policy as an end-all.
“I do think we need to consider that there are going to be different needs for different fisheries,” she said. “The sector committee is not going to be able to come up with something to cover two completely different fleets. We should encourage the species committees to allow that discussion to happen rather than have a one-size-fits-all that ultimately is not going to work.”
However, New Hampshire council member David Goethel expressed concern about people forming sectors before the council had an overall policy in place.
“Personally, I’d rather see this committee finish its work before we allow any more sectors to go forward,” he said. “If we continue to allow this, we’re going to end up with a hodgepodge of sectors.”
Many fishermen fear that allocations of fish among sectors won’t be fair if people within different sectors receive allocations under different allocation formulas.
Furthermore, one industry member said he and others feared that sectors could be used to push through a “backdoor individual transferable quota (ITQ) program here in New England with little due process.”
Already in place
Vito Calomo, executive director of the Massachusetts Fisheries Recovery Commission, said, “The perception of sectors at this time is problematic for the fishing industry. I think the precautionary approach would benefit everyone. Take it easy until you can do it right.”
Yet Massachusetts council member Rip Cunningham noted that Amendment 13 to the groundfish plan already contained sector provisions.
“The regulations are in place to allow people to form these sectors,” he said. “Under these regulations, I’m not sure we can stop the formation of sectors, at least not in groundfish.”
But Vito Giacalone of the Northeast Seafood Coalition wasn’t convinced the existing groundfish sector language was appropriately serving the industry.
“I think we need to have the groundfish committee and advisers deal with this as soon as possible,” he said.
Magnuson-Stevens Act
Council Executive Director Paul Howard had another concern. He questioned whether the council needed to wait to finalize a sector policy until after the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued guidance on the limited-access privilege program (LAPP) provisions contained in the newly reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The MSA now contains specific language about what can and can’t be done within LAPPs.
“It has huge implications for how we do sectors,” said Howard.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration attorney Gene Martin, however, didn’t think the council had to stop its work pending the forthcoming NMFS guidance.
“There are certain things that are clearly LAPPs and some that aren’t,” he said.
While the guidance will provide further clarification about LAPPs, Martin said, “You don’t have to wait” to move along with a sector policy.
Definitions
The council provided the sector committee with eight “terms of reference” to guide its work.
One of the committee’s charges was to clearly define what is meant by the term sector.
According to John Nelson, the committee at the moment is using two “working definitions,” which may or may not be combined and/or modified before June.
Under these working definitions, a sector is a group of individuals who hold limited-access vessel permits and who have voluntarily entered into a contract to comply with certain fishing restrictions for a specified period of time and who have been granted either:
• “A specified fishing privilege or privileges” (working definition 1); and/or
• “A total allowable catch (TAC) or TACs” (working definition 2).
Preliminary decisions
As a result of its Feb. 22 and March 29 meetings, the omnibus sector committee further decided – at least for now – that each sector will “adopt annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for species managed under the sector’s FMPs.” Each sector also will have to adopt ACLs and AMs for incidentally caught species regulated under other FMPs.
Furthermore, the committee’s current position is that sector shares should be allocated as a percentage of each species’ overall ACL.
These new terms – ACLs and AMs – are contained within the reauthorized MSA and will be used to gauge overfishing in the future.
The committee also discussed how to handle discards and overages. Using the sector provisions in Amendment 13 as a base, the committee agreed that:
• “If the sector does not exceed its assigned share or percentage in a given fishing year but other sectors or the common pool do, the sector’s allocation will not be reduced;
• “If the sector exceeds its annual allocation but others do not, then the sector share will be reduced in the following year; and
• “If all sector and open pool vessels stay within their shares but the resource condition requires a reduction in catch, then all groups will take reductions.”
The omnibus sector committee was scheduled to hold another meeting on April 26 in Danvers, MA as CFN went to press.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
