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 1
September 2007
IFQ referenda: Which crewmen get to a vote?
PORTLAND, ME – Given the landmark decision in June by the New England Fishery Management Council to approve an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for the general category scallop fishery, more and more people have begun talking about the possibility of IFQs for everything from groundfish to herring.
However, as a result of a major action by Congress, no other IFQ programs can be implemented in New England unless two-thirds of all “eligible permit holders” who cast votes in a referendum actually approve a new program. The scallop fishery squeaked by without a vote because the New England council acted before the new rule’s grace period expired.
Congress inserted this IFQ language in the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which was signed into law by President Bush in January.
The referendum language (see box next page for excerpts) is a direct response by Congress to New England’s long-standing and deep-rooted reservations about IFQs. At the insistence of US Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Congress took this step to insure that IFQ programs couldn’t be implemented in New England unless fishermen themselves overwhelmingly voted in favor of them.
The only other region with a referendum restriction is the Gulf of Mexico, and fishermen there only need to approve an IFQ program by a simple majority.
How it works
Here in short is how this would work. In New England, the council would develop an IFQ program for a particular fishery and submit the fully developed proposal to NMFS as, for example, a fishery management plan amendment.
NMFS then would conduct a referendum to determine whether two-thirds of the eligible permit holders who vote in the referendum support the proposal.
If the answer is yes, then NMFS will implement the program. If the answer is no, the MSA states that the program “may be revised and submitted for approval in a subsequent referendum.”
Congress specifically stated in the MSA reauthorization that an IFQ “does not include a sector allocation.”
Crewmen
Congress wanted to ensure that “crewmembers who derive a significant percentage of their total income from the fishery under the proposed (IFQ) program are eligible to vote in the referendum.”
However, Congress left one big question open to debate: How do you define crewmember?
This issue became the focus of discussion at the New England council’s June 19-21 meeting in Portland when Dan Morris of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) updated the council on the new MSA requirements and explained what will happen next.
According to Morris, NMFS must publish guidelines within one year of the MSA’s reauthorization – meaning by Jan. 12, 2008 – outlining procedures and voting “eligibility requirements” for conducting referenda “in a fair and equitable manner.”
NMFS is now developing these procedures and the toughest “nut to crack,” said Morris, is determining who should be eligible to vote.
“In-house we’re thinking that we should work on a really good definition of a ‘crewmember’ and then work on a process for conducting a referendum,” he said.
Fairness factor
New Hampshire council member David Goethel asked, “A lot of us employ eight or nine people a year. Does that mean every one of them gets to vote if they only worked a month?”
Many on the council wanted to differentiate between crewmen with a vested interest in the industry and those who only make a transient trip or two.
Maine council member Jim Odlin said, “My opinion is some long-term crewmember who’s been engaged for five years deserves a vote.”
However, Odlin said he thought a crewman needed to prove that he derived a significant portion of his income over several years – not just one – to qualify to vote.
That opened the door to this difficult question: What’s a significant portion of someone’s income? The council floated the idea of 50%, meaning 50% of a person’s annual income would have to be derived from commercial fishing.
But Vito Calomo, executive director of the Massachusetts Fisheries Recovery Commission, had concerns.
“Are we taking into consideration all of these small vessels that don’t have many days-at-sea anymore,” he asked? “Maybe more than 50% of their income is not made on the sea anymore.”
Calomo said more and more fishermen were needing to supplement their income with construction or other jobs, but that didn’t make them any less wedded to the commercial fishing industry.
Proof of participation
Morris explained that NMFS actually has to take two steps to figure this out.
First, he said, NMFS has to define the term “crewmember” while taking into account what Congress meant by the MSA language stipulating that a crewmember must “derive a significant percentage of their total income from the fishery under the proposed (IFQ program).”
Second, NMFS has to develop criteria to determine whether individuals meet the “significant percentage” income requirement, whether it turns out to be 50% or some other number that’s higher or lower.
One possibility being discussed, said Morris, is “self-identification” where, for example, fishermen would sign an “income qualification affidavit” testifying to their percentage income from the fishery.
That didn’t sit well with Rhode Island council member David Preble.
“To me, self-identification would be a nonstarter,” he said.
Others expressed similar concerns about having fishermen vouch for themselves, which led NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul to say, “If self-ID is a nonstarter, then we need an alternative. We’re having a hard time finding a viable alternative.”
Kurkul asked the council for input “to help us make this distinction.”
The council discussed using tax returns, crew contracts, and other forms of proof of participation but didn’t reach any consensus or recommendation.
Corporations?
New Bedford vessel owner Harriet Didriksen raised a number of questions about how the voting process would work.
“Sometimes there are a lot of names on a permit so people can stay within the percentage (cap) you can own,” she said. “Will these corporations get together to decide how this vote will be cast?”
Rhode Island council representative April Valliere asked whether shoreside processors and dealers would be eligible to vote if they had a vested interest in the fishery.
And Connecticut council member David Simpson wondered whether it would be better if crewmembers voted in a separate referendum so the council and NMFS could differentiate between the results.
“I think it would be helpful to get separate votes,” he said.
Morris said all of these points were valid and still unresolved, so he appreciated the council and industry feedback.
Sectors vs. IFQs
Throughout the council discussion, the issue of sectors kept coming up.
David Goethel asked, “What is an IFQ and what is a sector? Someone needs to say when a sector becomes an IFQ before we go down the wrong road and circumvent the regulations. I think we really need clear definitions.”
Jim Odlin thought the differentiation was clear.
“It seems to me there’s a huge difference between a sector and an IFQ,” he said. “A sector is good for one year, and you don’t own the allocation. You can’t take it to the bank.”
When Maine council member Jim Salisbury pointed out that the MSA reauthorization clearly stipulated that an IFQ does not include a sector allocation, Pat Kurkul said, “It is fairly clear, but it keeps coming up, so we really need to spell it out. We have to resolve the question.”
NMFS is continuing to work on all of these issues and the procedure for conducting referendum votes. The agency may publish a proposed rule later this year before issuing final guidelines in time for the Jan. 12, 2008 congressional deadline.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
