Carrie Bartoldus November 10, 2008
The trawl fleet in the coastal communities of Oregon, Washington and California have faced harsh economic times. In the past decade the fleet has been diminished to less than a quarter of what was once close to 500 vessels. The closely regulated industry can turn a 24 hour opening into a mad derby, with each boat competing to get the most catch, often going out into inclement weather and dangerous conditions with high sea swells where a vessel can become swamped in a matter of minutes.
The only other choice, many fishermen say, is to miss the opening and with that the opportunity to bring in any money which means no payment on homes or boats. In one trip fishermen are expected to bring in a big enough catch to make up for weeks (or sometimes months) of sitting tied up. The catch must also cover the wages of the crew as well as fuel and maintenance of the vessel. The toll on the fleet has been high, many boats went down each season and others quit as prices for the miniscule catch couldn’t keep up with the price paid for fuel, wages and upkeep on the vessel and other fishing equipment.
The trawl fleet is regulated by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), one of eight regional fishery management councils established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 for the purpose of managing fisheries 3-200 miles offshore of the United States of America coastline. The Pacific Council is responsible for fisheries off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington.
According to its website, the Council’s groundfish fishery management plan (FMP) include over 82 different species that, with a few exceptions, live on or near the bottom of the ocean. These are made up of the following species:
• Rockfish. The plan covers 64 different species of rockfish, including widow, yellowtail, canary, shortbelly, and vermilion rockfish; bocaccio, chilipepper, cowcod, yelloweye, thornyheads, and Pacific Ocean perch.
• Flatfish. The plan covers 12 species of flatfish, including various soles, starry flounder, turbot, and sanddab.
• Roundfish. The six species of roundfish included in the fishery management plan are lingcod, cabezon, kelp greenling, Pacific cod, Pacific whiting (hake), and sablefish.
• Sharks and skates. The six species of sharks and skates are leopard shark, soupfin shark, spiny dogfish, big skate, California skate, and longnose skate.
• Other species. These include ratfish, finescale codling, and Pacific rattail grenadier.
The Council manages groundfish through a number of measures including harvest guidelines, quotas, trip and landing limits, area restrictions, seasonal closures, and gear restrictions (setting minimum mesh size for nets and small trawl footrope requirements for landing shelf rockfish). The Council states that all sectors of the groundfish fishery are constrained by the need to rebuild groundfish species that have been declared overfished. Fishery Management Plan amendments are being developed by the Council to incorporate rebuilding plans for these species. The Council’s Groundfish Fishery Strategic Plan calls for sharp reductions in fleet capacity across all sectors of the commercial groundfish fishery in order to manage sustainable fisheries because the Council questions the ability of the groundfish resource to support the current levels of participation in the fishery. The aim of the plan is to ensure that West Coast groundfish resources are fished sustainably while making the groundfish fleet more economically stable. With this in mind trawlers hope to implement the Individual Fishing Quota system.
The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan contains the rules for managing the groundfish fishery. It outlines the areas, species, regulations, and methods that the Council and the Federal government must follow to make changes to the fishery. The plan also creates guidelines for the annual process of setting harvest levels. As of May 2004, 17 amendments to the plan have been implemented. (This counts Amendment 16-1 and 16-2 as separate amendments). The two most important amendments were Amendment 4—a complete rewrite that replaced the original document—and Amendment 6, which set up a license limitation program for vessels taking the vast majority of the groundfish harvest. This program went into effect in 1994.
Processors want a part of the new quota system that the trawling fleet has asked the Council to consider. Processors have created an entity called Coastal Jobs Coalition to inform consumers and media of their side of the issue in which, mainly, they feel that without a guarantee that 20% of the quota allotted to the fishermen would be allotted to the processors their investment, as stakeholders, would be lost.
The processors argue that trawlers could collude with one another as to which processor was paying the most or they could collude for prices, refusing to fish unless their price was met, or worse, sell to foreign markets. This would be damaging to the processors as well as to the local communities that depend on the work provided by processors. For every fisherman who is working, processors argue, they employ between 4-12 people in their processing plants. These jobs would be jeopardized if they cannot have a guarantee of how many fish they will be getting each year. Jay Bornstein argued before the Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners that he has just finished a multi-million dollar renovation to his processing plant in Astoria which seasonally employs hundreds of people, so that tourists would be able to watch how his plant operates. Without the assurance that he will have fresh fish from the local fleet those local jobs are in jeopardy.
The trawlers, who have been working with the Environmental Defense Fund to bring about the Individual Fishing Quota system, are vehement about not allowing the processors to have a share of the quota. They state that giving the processors a share of the quota system goes against free trade. Processors, they say, are not required to sell to local businesses. Local businesses must compete with out of the area businesses as well as foreign markets for the product that the processor is putting out. Local businesses, such as the restaurants and the grocery stores, are also stakeholders in the fishing business, but they are not being considered for a share of the quota because, the fishermen reason, they are not the one harvesting the fish. They are not the one that has the mortgage on the fishing vessel, who puts fuel into it and who, if they come home empty handed, is left holding all of the bills at the end of the month.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the principal law governing marine fisheries in the United States. It was originally adopted to extend control of U.S. waters to 200 nautical miles in the ocean; to phase out foreign fishing activities within this zone; to prevent overfishing, especially by foreign fleets; to allow overfished stocks to recover; and to conserve and manage fishery resources. The MSA explains the role of regional fishery management councils and describes their functions and operating procedures. The Act includes national standards for management and outlines the contents of fishery management plans. The Act has been revised and reauthorized a multitude of times with the latest leaving it with ten National Standards for fishery conservation and management, with which all fishery management plans must comply, through 2010.
The trawlers have stated that not only is giving the processors 20% of the quota unsound business practice it is illegal according to the National Standards of the Act, specifically standards 4,5 and 8, making the processor quota illegal. The battle between the trawlers and processors has grown heated with both debating before city councils and county commissions locally with all of the administrative bodies signing resolutions to back the trawlers and writing to the PMFC asking that the processors not receive a share of the quota.
Recently, Coastal Jobs Coalition accused the Environmental Defense Fund of illegally garnering support for the trawlers by offering to pay the expenses of those elected officials who wished to go to the Council’s November meeting to testify in regards to processors role in the quota system (see related story).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council recently met from the November 1-7, 2008, in San Diego, California to discuss and make a final decision on implementing the IFQ system. They will be announcing their decision no later than November 12.
Alaska’s halibut population is now growing, and so are the revenues of its fishers. For many years, Alaska’s halibut fisheries were in decline. Poor management resulted in dangerous, sometimes fatal fishing practices. Now, there is a solution: the Catch Shares system. Making a quick appearance is local advocate for the Trawl Fleet, Bernie Bjork. This video does a good job giving a brief explanation of the Individual Fishing Quota (or Catch Shares, as they are called here) system.
The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association and the Alaska Marine Conservation Council also argue against the processor fishing quota.
A processor with the Coastal Jobs Coalition, The American Fish & Seafood Company, explains food safety, something which processors argue could be jeopardized if they don’t get a part of the quota, to the consumer.
Another question that has been asked is who will be a part of getting this 20% share that the processors want? Corporate processors? Small independent processors? In some areas there is the fear that if the processors get the 20% share they will try to run the smaller independent processors out of business. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUOd718oFv0
2 Comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment