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
Sectors shoulder dockside, at-sea monitoring
PORTLAND, ME – Sector vessels will be heavily monitored both dockside and at sea once they begin operating in 2010, but the level of monitoring will be less burdensome than what was initially proposed.
On June 17, the New England Fishery Management Council’s groundfish committee voted to recommended 100% dockside monitoring and “less than 100%” at-sea monitoring for sector vessels.
But when the full council debated the issue on June 24, numerous people expressed great concern that monitoring costs would financially cripple the fledgling sectors.
“We just don’t see a need for 100% dockside monitoring,” said Jeff Kaelin, representing Lund’s Fisheries Inc. and the Garden State Seafood Association. “It’s a standard that’s excessive, and I think it will keep people from joining sectors.”
Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of Maine said, “We are very concerned that the industry will not be able to pick up the $3-$5 million cost of 100% dockside monitoring. This is simply unrealistic for an industry where the ex-vessel value of the product is $70 million.”
The council eventually adopted 50% “random” dockside monitoring in 2010 and 20% “random” dockside monitoring in subsequent years, coupled with “less than 100% at-sea electronic monitoring and at-sea observation.” The council agreed that the specific levels of at-sea coverage could be set by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center as the center deemed necessary.
Support for 100%
Several audience members supported 100% monitoring – both dockside and at sea.
Emilie Litsinger, groundfish project manager for the Environmental Defense Fund’s Oceans Program, said, “100% dockside monitoring allows for effective enforcement of compliance and provides the most accurate and reliable record of landings.”
On the at-sea end, not only will 100% monitoring improve compliance, science, and management, Litsinger said, “This level of coverage holds each participant equally accountable and levels the playing field so no one feels they are unfairly being singled out.”
Gib Brogan of Oceana said the groundfish committee’s recommendation for 100% dockside monitoring needed to be reinforced with a robust at-sea monitoring program to ensure compliance with reporting.
“This is one of the elements of Amendment 16 that we have serious problems with,” said Brogan. “Going forward with a strong dockside monitoring program without a strong at-sea program won’t work. We know that self-reporting of where the catch is taking place is not reliable, and for sectors to work, we need to be allocating fish from the appropriate stock areas. We’ve brought this up from the beginning of this amendment.”
According to Glen Libby, the Port Clyde sector to which he belongs supported 100% dockside monitoring and believed it might result in less work for the sector manager.
“If you could get that data right off the dock, you wouldn’t have to be chasing people around to figure out what they caught,” he said.
Libby recently was appointed to the New England council and officially will become a member in August.
Money available
Litsinger further said the time was right for 100% monitoring, “especially because the federal government is helping to pay for these programs in the beginning years as the industry becomes more profitable and we find ways to reduce the costs.”
NMFS will have $3 million available to cover sector monitoring costs for 2010. NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul said the agency was seeking additional funds for the following year in the President’s proposed fiscal year 2010 budget, which was being debated in Congress.
“But that’s not a done deal until Congress approves it and the President signs the bill,” she said.
Kurkul acknowledged that monitoring costs were a significant factor for sectors.
“I am actually very sympathetic to industry’s concern about the cost of this,” she said.
New Hampshire council member David Goethel cautioned against creating a system based on government-funded monitoring.
“I’m not counting on the federal government to pay for this for very long. We can’t take a chance on Congress footing the bill,” he said.
Industry opposition
Despite the availability of funds for the immediate future, many people, like Goethel, had grave concerns about industry’s ability to pay for monitoring after the federal money runs out.
“If truly your desire is to continue the small boat fishery, you need to get the cost of monitoring down,” said Gloucester fisherman Dave Marciano.
Ron Smolowitz, representing the Fisheries Survival Fund, also had cost concerns.
“We certainly need to be working toward 100% accountability of the catch, but 100% dockside monitoring will cost a fortune and drive people out,” he said.
“Technically,” Smolowitz added, “we already have 100% dockside monitoring because we have 100% dealer reports. So what we’re really talking about is reliability. If we’re not happy with that, then we need to improve our systems and train fishermen on how to better estimate their discards. We may just need subtle improvements to the current system and a better paper trail.”
Council responds
Massachusetts council member David Pierce felt strongly that a high level of monitoring, including 100% at-sea coverage, was essential.
“We are transitioning to catch share management,” he said. “Monitoring is critical. Without 100% observer coverage, sector management is going to fail. We have to know where these fish are going to be caught so we can get some good assessments.”
Connecticut council member Sally McGee also voiced support for 100% sector monitoring.
“It won’t do anybody any favors to have a leaky system from the start,” she said. “Maybe we can go to less than 100% later.”
On the other hand, Massachusetts council member Jim Fair said he was comfortable having less than 100% dockside monitoring, especially given the system already in place for dealer reporting.
“We can handle quota management very well with dealer reports,” he said. “I would much rather see at-sea monitoring ramped up.”
Is 100% necessary?
The council began considering less dockside monitoring in exchange for more at-sea monitoring with the possibility of 100% at-sea coverage.
To that, Maine council member Jim Odlin said, “This is just crazy, and it’s not necessary. We’ve been talking about the small boats. It’ll bankrupt them if they have to have 100% observer coverage. There are lots of catch share programs in the world and they don’t have 100%.”
Council members turned to Nancy Thompson, director of NMFS’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center, which oversees the region’s stock assessment surveys. They asked Thompson whether 100% observer coverage would be helpful to the center.
Thompson said, “I appreciate the desire to have 100%, but I don’t need 100%. What we’ve been talking about is 25% at-sea coverage and observers.”
She added that the center was still working with industry to make electronic at-sea monitoring work on various vessels.
But, Thompson warned, “We’re not ready for prime time with this yet.”
Several council members then said they were comfortable with letting the science center determine appropriate at-sea monitoring levels. They also said they were OK with a lower level of dockside monitoring if the monitoring was random, reasoning that the fear factor alone would encourage people to comply.
“I have no problems with that,” said Massachusetts council member Rodney Avila. “With random, you never know if you’re going to be checked or not.”
With that, the council voted for 50% random dockside monitoring in year one, followed by 20% random dockside monitoring in subsequent years, with at-sea coverage levels to be determined by the science center.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
