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 33 Number 12
August 2005
Allocation issues prompt new council policy
PORTLAND, ME – Following a series of meetings with industry advisers to solicit advice about allocation, capacity, and the use of various management tools, the New England Fishery Management Council adopted a new “conservation and management policy” that will guide its future decision-making.
The policy recognizes that “allocation is an integral part” of the council’s management responsibilities and that any management measures adopted by the council containing “allocative effects” should be “open and transparent.”
Furthermore, the policy states: The council “will develop conservation measures and controls that have a high level of certainty,” meaning that measures will “prevent overfishing, end overfishing, and rebuild stocks.”
Before voting on this policy at its June 21-23 meeting in Portland, the council heard reports from advisory panel representatives summarizing the industry’s stance on allocation issues.
The advisers also commented on the use of “input controls” such as minimum fish sizes and area closures compared to “output controls” such as quotas and hard total allowable catch (TAC) caps.
“The council has wrestled with these questions since its forming,” said Massachusetts council member Tom Hill. “The advisers have given us their advice, and the question now is, ‘What do we do with it?’”
The five industry advisory panel sessions held in May covered: herring, groundfish, scallops, groundfish and monkfish jointly; and red crab, skate, and whiting jointly.
“I think in general, about one-quarter of the advisers and the public would like to stay with the current system, about one-quarter would like us to allocate resources with ITQs or community quotas, and one-half are not happy with where we are, but they’re reluctant to change though they’re willing to have the dialogue,” said council Executive Director Paul Howard.
He added, “I think we got some great responses about the pros and cons of hard TACs.”
Quota already allocated
What was clear from the outcome of the advisory panel sessions was that most industry members are jittery or outright fearful of allocation implications, though many supported the development of a policy.
Howard explained that the council had already started allocating quota in a number of instances, including:
The scallop access program, which involves a yellowtail flounder quota;
Special access programs (SAPs) that have cod bycatch allocations;
The Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector, which directly receives a cod quota on an annual basis;
Georges Bank cod, haddock, and yellowtail quotas negotiated through the US/Canada resource sharing agreement; and
A haddock quota for the herring fishery.
Hill said, “A closed area in someone’s back yard has huge allocation implications. I think the equity people demand of the council requires us to be more specific. We haven’t done it very well in the past. This policy says we’ll (make allocation decisions) in a much more open and much more deliberative way.”
Output vs. input
Council member David Pierce of Massachusetts expressed concern about the type of statement the council was making.
“If we adopt this policy, it seems to me to indicate that we will develop controls that are output in nature. Is that what the council wants to do – adopt a policy that commits us to output controls?” he asked.
Hard TACs and individual transferable quotas (ITQs) were the two output controls industry members expressed the most reservations about.
National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul said, “I don’t think the policy ties the council to output controls in any way, but it does reaffirm that the council will choose measures with a high level of certainty. What it says is exactly what’s required by the law.”
Geoff Smith of The Ocean Conservancy also stressed that the law requires a “high level of certainty” that the measures will end and prevent overfishing and rebuild fish stocks.
“I don’t see why that makes people nervous,” he said. “It’s what the council’s job is. I think it’s important for the council to develop a clear and succinct statement on its conservation and management goals.”
Industry reservations
Those comments didn’t sway everyone in industry.
Maggie Raymond, who chaired the groundfish/monkfish advisory panel session, said, “If this policy does not lock you into output controls and if it just restates what the law tells you to do, then why do you need it? There’s a great concern among the advisers that it does make clear allocation means a range of strategies from days-at-sea to ITQs.”
Jim Kendall of New Bedford Seafood Consulting added, “We understand allocation has played a big part in some of the council’s past decisions, but we’re now moving toward something more permanent. It may increase the level of certainty but it’s going to lead to a high level of ownership in these fisheries.”
Language change
Portland vessel owner Barbara Stevenson asked the council to change the word “allocation” to “management,” which would make the policy more palatable to some fishermen.
“Allocation is a highly charged word,” she said. “Allocation is only one aspect of management.”
East Coast Fisheries Federation Executive Director Jim O’Malley suggested completely altering the first sentence of the policy, which he thought would alleviate some of industry’s fears.
Instead of having the policy state: “The (council) recognizes that conservation and allocation are its two primary functions,” O’Malley recommended starting with: “The (council) recognizes that allocation is an integral part of its management responsibilities and that measures that have allocative effects should be open and transparent.”
The council readily accepted this suggestion.
George Lapointe of Maine said he wasn’t particularly troubled by the policy’s wording, especially after the change.
“This is like saying, ‘I love my mother a little bit more than I did before.’ I’m less concerned about the policy than I am about the follow through.”
What’s next?
Council Chairman Frank Blount of Rhode Island charged the council’s capacity committee with being the first to actually use the policy as guidance in upcoming meetings as it addresses capacity and allocation issues in the groundfish and scallop fisheries.
John Nelson of New Hampshire praised the advisory panels for providing such extensive input, and he encouraged the council to broadly advertise all future meetings regarding capacity and allocation.
“I think we got off to a good start. There are a lot of good ideas out there to follow up on,” said Nelson. “Once we start the process, we’ll have all kinds of folks coming to those meetings. We need to make sure they’re well advertised and as inclusive as possible. We need to be very proactive here.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
