Groundfish A18 Scoping Puts Solutions on the Table

by Brett Tolley

The scoping process for the proposed fleet diversity Amendment 18 to the groundfish plan was completed March 1. Ten scoping meetings took place from Ellsworth, ME down to Manahawkin, NJ with more than 200 people in attendance.

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) members and staff sought to gain public comment on A18’s two main objectives: measures to protect fleet diversity and limits on quota accumulation. It was no surprise that opinions varied on both ends of the spectrum.

On one end we heard opposition to A18 and in one extreme case a commenter threatened to spend $10 million in order to fight any caps on accumulation. On the other end of the spectrum we heard full support for A18 along with recommendations to protect fleet diversity that included things like set-aside programs, policies to keep quota in the hands of actual fishermen, and inshore/offshore designations. Keeping the fishery accessible to new entrants was also a theme repeated by many fishermen.

Opinions varied on the different solutions, yet most agreed that a major problem exists. A majority of fishermen who testified expressed that consolidation was a problem. Fishermen identified fleet consolidation, unaffordable access to the fishery, and a heavy concentration of inshore fishing effort by offshore boats that have occurred as a result of the new Catch Share management as major threats to the fish and to fleet diversity. They are concerned that the future makeup of New England's groundfish fleet and stock rebuilding are at risk.

Concerns about consolidation were validated in a 2011 MA Division of Marine Fisheries report, Comparative Economic Survey and Analysis of Northeast Fishery Sector 10, which concluded, “We do, however, see evidence of a fisheries disaster caused by the transition to Catch Shares, with a disproportionate impact on small boat (30-50') owners, which have been hampered by their limited range and limited access to quota.”

Although their report highlighted what’s been happening to Sector 10’s fishermen, we’ve heard similar concerns from New York to Maine.

In particular, fishermen identified the heavy concentration of fishing effort on the most productive inshore areas such as Stellwagen Bank and the misreporting of where the catch actually occurred—whether George’s Bank or Gulf of Maine—as critical issues that need to be addressed immediately.

The Gulf of Maine cod crisis is clearly relevant. Concern about the poor health of cod stocks demands we pay attention to what many fishermen are saying. Since Amendment 16 initiated sector management, large-scale boats that have historically fished offshore are now fishing inshore waters with no trip limits and with greater resources to lease large amounts of quota.

Even without reference to the recent Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment, we heard several testimonies that inshore cod stocks are currently in trouble primarily because of the concentrated effort that critical areas cannot sustain. If National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the council are serious about sustaining a viable fishery, the inshore/offshore conflict must be resolved.

If we can agree these problems exist, then we need solutions. Is A18 the way to do this? At the very least it is providing the public discussion to hash through what these problems look like and their potential solutions. However, the ability for fishermen to speak openly about these problems is becoming increasingly more difficult as consolidation concentrates power into fewer hands. Fishermen who dare sit in front of the consolidation bus are getting run over, or at least threatened.

We have heard of several fishermen who speak out and are then threatened with exclusion from the leasing market, destruction of gear, and general bullying on the water. Of course, this is not surprising as the Catch Share system created winners and losers, and the winners don’t want the playing field to change. But there are problems with Catch Shares that can lead to ecological disasters, and protections must be implemented or else we should expect these problems to get worse. So what is the roadblock?

Every other Regional Council in the United States that manages Catch Share programs has set some type of fleet diversity protections, including the simplest protections like limiting the amount of quota that any one entity can control. The only other Catch Share program in the US that has not set accumulation limits is the Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog fishery, which is now controlled and owned by a very few large-scale players. And now in that fishery, long after the consolidation has taken its toll, the Mid Atlantic council is currently debating a cap of accumulation. Free market consolidation transformed the Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog fishery into a system where large companies tell fishermen exactly when to fish, how to fish, where to fish, and how much they get paid.

Now it is up to the New England council to take leadership, ensure protections for fleet diversity, and limit the concentration of quota. It is also up to the public to hold the council accountable for its own goals and mandates. After all, they promised to fix the problems with Amendment 16 after it was passed. Well, fishermen are coming forward and identifying the problems. It’s the council’s responsibility to make good on its promise. If we care about a future New England groundfish fleet that includes a diverse range of boat sizes, gear types, and geographic locations; if we care about owner-operators and independent fishermen; if we care about protecting inshore fish stocks and spawning grounds, then we need to listen to the solutions many fishermen have brought forth during the amendment scoping and move forward immediately.

The next opportunity for public input in this process will be at the Groundfish Committee meeting sometime in mid-March and then again at the full council meeting in late April.