According to statements from NOAA, the catch share strategy is viewed as a way to end overfishing and rebuild fisheries, improve the economics of fishing and fishing communities, and protect ecosystems. The task force comprises regional fishery management council members and representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and its science centers. In fisheries managed with catch shares, individuals or groups of fishermen are allotted a share of the total allowable catch of a fish stock. These fishermen then decide how to catch their allotment when weather, markets and individual business conditions are most favorable, and they must ensure that they do not exceed their catch limits. Catch shares programs range from individual transferable quotas to community-based management systems such as sectors. While catch shares take many forms, in general they allocate the quota to allow fishing entities—individuals, communities, cooperatives, etc.—exclusive access to a portion of the quota, but require that fishing cease once that entity’s share of the quota is met. The problem is accentuated by a rapid decision-making process mandated for setting ACLs by timelines in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, New England Fishery Management Council member and New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel told the U.S. House Subcom- mittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife, which was holding oversight hearings on the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 27. Goethel predicted that problems inherent in the ACL process will result in the contraction of most commercial fisheries in New England into a handful of large boats in large ports. “The largest single systemic problem encountered has been the inability to provide fishermen or the council with analyses of the economic and social costs and benefits of various management options that are adequate to support meaningful public comment and debate,” Goethel said. “For example, in groundfish, we voted an allocation scheme and management regimes in June and the ACLs in September; and yet no fisherman has any idea what these mean in terms of their catch and business viability in 2010.” On Oct. 30, fishermen in Gloucester, Mass., held a demonstration to protest the concept of catch shares. “We are being forced into them,” fisherman Allyson Jordan said in an email communication with Fishermen’s Voice. “My opinion is we should have gone directly to ITQ (individual transferable quota) based on 100 percent history.” Groundfishermen who have worked hard to stay in the fishery in the face of ever-changing regulations will be penalized, Jordan said, and people who chose to move to a fishery that was thriving instead of trying to make the groundfishery work will benefit from the concept of community shares. “The demonstration’s goal was to attempt to unite fishermen and gets some flexibility in the law,” she said. “The primary goal of the demonstration was to point out that the fishing industry is having catch shares forced down its throat, without due consideration of the effect this will have on fishermen and fishing communities,” Gloucester, Mass.-based maritime law attorney Stephen Ouellette said in a telephone interview with Fishermen’s Voice editor Mike Crowe. Ouellette said the timeframe is rushed, the data poor, and the potential impact on fishing communities huge. “The program is being railroaded through,” Ouellette said. In a letter to the task force, a group of fishing interests—including Maine fishermen’s groups Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, Midcoast Fishermen's Association, and the Penobscott East Resource Center, as well as fishing industry individuals in Maine and Massachusetts, and marine scientists and professors—asks for a careful consideration of catch shares in the context of communities, ecosystems, varying scales of fishing practices, and fairness to conservation-minded fishermen. The groups ask for a change of the task force’s definition to ensure that catch shares are “equitably distributed among a limited number of individuals, fishing associations, communities, or specified areas,” in order to ensure that fishermen can be allocated catch on the basis of association with a community and/or with a specific ecosystem. “This is a particularly sensitive subject in New England where fishermen who stopped fishing on severely depleted groundfish stocks have since been excluded from the fishery,” the letter says. “In other words, Catch Shares as defined would punish these fishermen for their rebuilding efforts.” The catch share concept, the letter says, verges on a return to single-species management at a time when ecosystem-based management is emerging as a key strategy. In addition, the letters says, any provision for transferring catch shares must be carefully crafted in order to avoid industrial-scale consolidation of effort at the expense of the small-boat local fleet and the marine ecosystem. “There is abundant evidence in other fisheries globally, as well as other food production systems, that consolidation on an industrial scale degrades the environment, erodes dependent communities, endangers food safety, and undermines food sovereignty,” the letter says. “If there is to be transferability of allocations it is essential the policy address the following: Transfer- ability should be permitted only among fishermen and permit banks inextricably tied to fishermen or community fishing associations for the use and benefit of fishermen and their communities. Careful initial design of incentives must be built into the transferability. Strong, legally effective limitations must be instituted prior to adoption of the policy to address occasions when incentives are not enough. Fish and fish quotas must not be allowed into investment markets.” Catch share management, the letter says, is only one tool among many, and should not be viewed as appropriate for all fisheries under all conditions. “To date in the Task Force process, it has not been demonstrated that the Catch Share tool will in fact correct the fisheries-related problems,” the letter to the Task Force says. The group asked for a peer-review process to assess the effectiveness of catch shares for rebuilding depleted fish stocks or slowing the decline of fish stocks. NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, who appointed members to the catch share task force, received another letter from a group that includes the Midcoast Fishermen’s Association, Island Institute, Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and the Pew Environment Group (PEG). The letter warns that catch shares, while having a place in the management toolbox, “are not a panacea.” Catch shares, the group says, “will only be effective if properly designed and implemented within a comprehensive approach that strengthens conservation and supports communities.” The concept is not viable for every fishery, the group says: “a ‘one size fits all’ approach should not be required guidance for fisheries management.” A recent news conference convened by PEG brought together representatives from several community-based programs that use a form of catch shares and which have proven successful in maintaining local control and the small-boat, owner/operator flavor of the fleet. Both PEG and representatives of these programs did caution, however, that careful consideration went into the programs, and they said catch shares are not a blanket solution to fisheries management. The Cape Cod Fisheries Trust is one such “community-based sector” that allows the local fleet to buy catch share and regulate itself. The Alaska Longline Fishermen's Asso- ciation (ALFA) set up a catch share program for sablefish and halibut. “It’s been successful, to a large degree,” said ALFA executive director Linda Behnken. Shares are mostly held by coastal Alaska residents and members are mostly still owner/operators. The program, however, did significantly increase the cost of buying into the fishery, she said. Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, with members spanning the West Coast from San Diego to Alaska, said that, while the federation’s membership is small- to mid-size boats, there is increasing concern about consolidation of ownership of the resource. Grader warned against leaving it to the free market to sort out fishery management issues. Local fishermen, Grader said, are increasingly becoming “seafaring share-croppers” for “absentee quota-owners with little connection to actual fishing operations.” |
