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 36 Number 12
August 2009
Permit history to be sole factor for sector contributions
PORTLAND, ME – Of all the difficult and divisive issues in Amendment 16, the worst involved sector baseline calculations – the formulas to determine how permit history will be tabulated for sector members.
People struggled during the New England Fishery Management Council’s June 24-25 groundfish session to get a grip on terms that now are supposed to be part of everyone’s vocabulary – permit history, potential sector contribution (PSC), and annual catch entitlement (ACE). The combined PSCs from all sector members will be used to determine that sector’s ACE, meaning its quota.
The council had five PSC options. In the end, it picked two.
For the 17 brand new sectors that will be created under Amendment 16, the council voted to base each permit holder’s contribution to the sector on “landings history only” from fishing years 1996 through 2006. Known as Option 1 in the public hearing document, this alternative uses an 11-year timeframe, which is intended to “mitigate regulatory changes and their impacts on individual vessels.”
The second PSC option applies to the two existing Georges Bank cod sectors on Cape Cod. The council voted to allow those sectors to continue using fishing years 1996 through 2001 to calculate their Georges Bank cod allocation.
These were the baseline years adopted under Amendment 13 when the first of the two Cape Cod sectors formed, and it is the only baseline period either sector has ever had for cod. Fishing years 1996-2006 will be used to calculate PSC for all other stocks for these two sectors.
Known as Option 5 in the public hearing document, this alternative was intended to “recognize that … members of the two existing sectors made investment decisions based on the qualification criteria adopted by Amendment 13.”
The council’s groundfish committee voted on June 17 to recommend that both Options 1 and 5 become part of Amendment 16. So that’s what groundfish committee Chairman Rip Cunningham put on the table on June 24 to launch the full council debate.
“Different standards”
Erik Anderson of the New Hampshire Commercial Fishermen’s Association said he was still unsure about which option would be best for everyone. But he was adamant that Option 5 should not be among the picks.
“This is a heavy subject here and it has ramifications for everyone,” he said. “There is something fundamentally incorrect about using different timeframes and standards. You’re slicing the pie differently for different user groups. I hope there will be consistency across the board.”
Jeff Kaelin, representing Lund’s Fisheries Inc. in Cape May, NJ and the Garden State Seafood Association, said he, too, opposed Option 5.
“We want everyone today to go forward with the same allocation,” he said.
But Kaelin also opposed Option 1.
“We’re opposed to a straight history allocation,” he said. “It’s important to establish allocations not just on landings. We’ve been forced to lease days, which diminished the value of our permits under Option 1. We support Option 2.”
Option 2 proposed using 50% landings history and 50% vessel baseline capacity for landed stocks during fishing years 1996-2006.
Stocks shift
Chris Brown of the Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association voiced his own concern about Option 1.
“Historical allocation may seem like the way to go for the average guy in the short term, but stocks shift,” he said. “We had a wonderful codfish recovery in Southern New England, but the time period you’ve selected will exclude Southern New England for codfish. They were not there then.”
Aaron Dority of the Penobscot East Resource Center in Stonington, ME opposed Option 1 but not Option 5.
Of Option 1, he said, “To go with straight catch history is probably the least equitable option for the majority of fishermen in New England. The reality is: those fishermen have very little catch history. We’re looking at entire communities that no longer have a place in the fishery. We hope you don’t forget about those communities that are left out of this allocation process.”
Vito Giacalone of the Northeast Seafood Coalition said the coalition itself had not taken a formal position on which sector baseline option should be chosen.
Instead, he said, “The coalition simply wanted to have alternatives on the table.”
According to Giacalone, the biggest problem sectors will face is that there won’t be enough fish to go around. Under any formula, sector quotas will be low because annual catch limits (ACLs) for most stocks will be extremely low.
“There’s a lack of ACLs to work with, and that’s a reality,” he said. “We can do the math. We know what this will do to fishermen.”
“Only fair way”
Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of Maine (AFM) said AFM had been asking for 18 months for a clear rationale for alternatives other than straight catch history, but none had been put forward to the association’s satisfaction.
Raymond acknowledged that all of the options in Amendment 16 would be “extremely disruptive” for the industry.
But of the choices available, she said, “We think Option 1 is the least disruptive. It’s consistent with how allocations are made in other places around the country and around the world. And it is the option supported by the majority of those who submitted written comments.”
Allyson Jordan of the fishing vessels Jamie & Ashley and Theresa & Allyson concurred.
“It’s the only fair way to do this for the people who are in the industry and didn’t leave the industry,” she said. “We worked for our history.”
Representatives from the two existing Georges Bank cod sectors strongly urged the council to adopt Option 5 as part of the mix.
Paul Parker, former executive director of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association and now director of the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust, said by choosing Option 5, the council will be setting the stage for future sectors, letting fishermen know that the game-plan won’t change midstream.
“People who are going into these sectors know they will have some stability in the future,” he said. “We need to go with the option that creates stability for our fleet.”
John Our, a member of the Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector who has been in the fishing business for 28 years, agreed.
“I just want to be treated the same way today and the same way in the future,” he said.
Fellow sector member Stu Tolley added, “I know a lot of people are going to get hurt (by Amendment 16), but this is the fairest way to go.”
Council responds
Once the audience made its comments, New Hampshire council member David Goethel moved to amend the motion by dropping Option 5 and having Option 1 apply to everyone. He cited National Standard 4 in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as justification, arguing that the standard makes it “inherently unfair and inequitable to have one group get more.”
“You can’t have different baselines,” he said. “If one person gets more, that means someone else gets less. I can’t support Option 5. They get their best five years and everyone else gets what’s left. We have to send a message of consistency.”
Maine council member Jim Odlin said he understood the concerns about Option 5, but he supported it nonetheless.
“I think the rest of the industry will want to be treated the same way in the future,” he said.
What about Option 2?
The discussion didn’t go on for long before Massachusetts council member David Pierce moved to substitute Goethel’s change with Options 2 and 5. Option 2, remember, mixed landings history and vessel baseline capacity 50:50.
“There is no best option,” said Pierce.
But he listed several particular concerns he had with Option 1, including his belief that it would have a “tremendous impact” on small vessels and the inshore fleet and did not account for stock shifts by geographic area.
Furthermore, he said, “Many people invested heavily in additional permits to acquire A-days, and Option 1 will devalue people’s permits and lead to great unfairness and inequity.”
And, Pierce said, “The windfall of stocks and quota – the tremendous windfall – will go to individuals with history. These stocks will rebuild, and there will be fishermen who will not be able to take advantage of those rebuilt stocks.”
Pierce’s motion failed 3-to-13 with one abstention.
Back to 1 and 5
The council then tried to vote up Option 1 without Option 5, but that failed as well in a 2-to-14 vote with one abstention.
“In my mind, (including Option 5) is the fairest and most consistent way to do this,” said Rip Cunningham. “To have someone invest in an alternative and then change it doesn’t seem right. We should do what we can to keep it as consistent as possible for the future.”
New Hampshire council member Doug Grout supported having a common baseline for everyone but, he said, “I don’t want to set a precedent of changing people’s allocations. The only thing that’s making this palatable for me is that it only applies to one stock of fish (Georges Bank cod).”
The final vote to adopt Option 1 with 1996-2006 for the 17 new sectors and Option 5 with 1996-2001 for Georges Bank cod for the two existing sectors passed 12-to-4 with one abstention.
Voting “no” were Pierce, Goethel, Mark Alexander of Connecticut, and Mark Gibson of Rhode Island.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
