This article is reprinted with permission of Commercial Fisheries News, the Northeast's fishing newspaper for over 30 years, ©2003 Compass Publications Inc. Commercial Fisheries News is published monthly; annual subscriptions are $21.95. To subscribe or request a sample issue: call (877) 263-4496; fax (207) 367-2490; e-mail (cfoster@fish-news.com); or click on the hot link.
by Janice M. Plante
PROVIDENCE, RI - While it's still unclear whether the New England Fishery Management Council will ultimately address groundfish latent effort and capacity in Amendment 13, the council has charged one of its committees with further assessing, revising, and perhaps combining nine different proposals to somehow deal with excess fishing capacity.
The council took this action on June 13 in Providence, where it reviewed a list
of 12 proposals discussed the day before at a joint meeting of its groundfish committee, groundfish advisers, and capacity committee.
The full council, based in part on a recommendation from the groundfish/capacity group, knocked three proposals off the list, deeming them too sweeping or complex for full development in Amendment 13.
The council then gave its capacity committee the green light to keep
working on the remaining proposals, which include, in short:
- A permit transfer proposal;
- A permit absorption proposal;
- A days-at-sea transfer proposal;
- An elective days-at-sea freeze accompanied by a reduction in unused days for those who don't choose to participate;
- A days-at-sea reserve proposal, where the number of days-at-sea a permit holder would be able to use at the start of Amendment 13 would be based on permit history plus the mortality reductions the council decides to achieve through days-at-sea cuts;
- A "simple" days-at-sea consolidation plan;
- A different days-at-sea reduction and consolidation proposal driven primarily by an industry-funded buyback; and
- Two industry proposals, one facilitated by the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (NAMA) and the other developed primarily by members of the council's groundfish advisory committee with other industry input.
By the tone of the discussion, it was clear that some council members will be making aggressive attempts to persuade the committee to drop several options early on in the process.
Massachusetts council member Jim Kendall twice tried to remove all consolidation-related alternatives from the list, including the permit transfer and permit absorption options.
"The consolidation issue should be dealt with as a stand alone amendment, just the way it was with scallops," he said.
Other council members were also reluctant to see further development
of selected proposals, even those that addressed latent effort without consolidation.
"I'm very hesitant to go forward in this amendment with any option that addresses capacity," said Massachusetts council member David Pierce.
Confront issue
Others, however, argued that the council had no choice but to confront latent effort.
Connecticut council member Eric Smith said, "If we can't deal with that, I don't think we'll have an effective Amendment 13."
Adding an extra sense of urgency to the discussion is the fact that activation of latent days has escalated in 2001.
Council member John Williamson of Maine said, "I do not want to be dealing with this latency/capacity issue, but there's no doubt in my mind that we've opened Pandora's box and the industry is responding to this discussion."
According to Maine council member Barbara Stevenson, the problem is extremely serious for the existing groundfish fleet.
"The people who are activating effort are doing it not to make money, but to preserve options," she said. "And the impacts on (groundfish-dependent) fishermen are enormous."
The council's June dialogue was again dominated by the same fundamental question it struggled with in May: Should the council keep trying to address capacity in Amendment 13?
The lack of consensus - then and now - has prevented the council from making significant progress on Amendment 13.
Change course?
At one point during the June
meeting, council Chairman Tom Hill of Massachusetts asked the council if it wanted to regroup.
"It is unlikely that we're going to address capacity in any holistic way in trying to get Amendment 13 done," Hill said.
Yet he quickly added, "On the other hand, I believe capacity is intricately intertwined with our success in groundfish."
Hill asked the council
if it wanted to let the groundfish committee and plan development team "wrestle with Amendment 13" over the next few months, reach conclusion on it, and then have the groundfish and capacity committees immediately begin work on goals and objectives for how to address capacity.
"It would give us a drop dead date for Amendment 13, which is critically important, and then people will be able to prepare for the debate on capacity," he said.
Some council members were inclined to support that course of action.
"The urgency to put this in Amendment 13 is not there for me,"
said Massachusetts council member
Vito Calomo.
Stay on track
Other council members, however, expressed support for moving forward.
"I would like to see Amendment 13 take us in a better direction and take a
few wobbly steps into whatever the future might bring," said Rhode Island council member Jim O'Malley.
"It is true that we'll be dealing with some capacity issues, but some capacity issues are more allocative than others,"
he said.
Williamson also voiced support for moving forward.
"Total fleet harvesting capacity continues to undermine all of our groundfish management options and it's the reason that the groundfish committee has struggled for two years," he said. "For better or worse, this Amendment 13 should be the capacity amendment, and we should be exerting our remaining time to get it done."
National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul was also in that camp.
"I believe (latent effort/capacity) is a significant problem," she said. "I think we need to find a way to not completely put this on the back burner, even if we can't completely develop it."
Freeze as backstop
More than one council member
talked about having a fallback position
in Amendment 13 - like a freeze on activation of latent days-at-sea - so that if all else fails, the council can "buy
itself time" to keep seeking solutions
after submitting Amendment 13 to
NMFS for approval.
"We at least need an effective backstop," said Eric Smith. "If we
throw up our hands, there needs to be
a stabilization of effort while we meet
our biological objectives."
But meeting the biological objectives without allowing for some sort of consolidation was troubling to Smith, who believed the situation would create economic hardship within the currently active groundfish fleet.
"The more you cut from where you are now, the harder it is for people to cope," he said.
That's exactly what troubled Maine council member Bud Fernandes the most.
"If we were to just freeze days, the industry would be left hanging," he said. "I feel strongly that consolidation can increase flexibility, so I'd like to see some options in Amendment 13 that address consolidation and latent effort."
Industry speaks
Maggie Raymond of The Groundfish Group of Associated Fisheries of Maine expressed grave concern about what would happen if the council actually met the Amendment 13 biological objectives, which call for, among other things, a 30% reduction in fishing mortality on Georges Bank cod and a 65% cut for Southern New England yellowtail.
Speaking on behalf of the two dozen active groundfish boats she represents, Raymond said, "If you're going to cut active days-at-sea, you've got to give us consolidation.
"We've all lost many, many opportunities, and groundfish is the only fishery we have left," she said. "I think it's pretty clear that Amendment 13 is going
to involve some cuts in active days-at-sea,
so we've got to get more days. A 15% reduction in active days, there's no way we can absorb that as long as it's going to be replaced by additional effort."
Paul Parker, executive director of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association, agreed with Raymond on
one key point.
"From the big picture standpoint ...
the latency that exists out there right now has the potential to threaten our rebuilding program," he said.
Yet Parker, who believes only the people with money would be able to consolidate, added, "I'm very opposed
to consolidation at this time."
Paul Cohan of the Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance said he found
it difficult to speak about latency and consolidation "in the same breath."
"Latency can be addressed without pulling the rug out from anyone," he said, but consolidation is a different matter.
Like Parker, Cohan believes the "financially disadvantaged" won't be able to go into the market to buy days-at-sea.
John Stewart, a small boat fisherman from Maine, strongly encouraged the council to "de-couple the discussion of latent effort and consolidation from Amendment 13 so that some of the better ideas can come forward."
Stewart said many of the most creative proposals to address latent effort were just coming to light as a result of the previous day's groundfish/capacity/advisers meeting, and he urged the council to step back and let those alternatives unfold.
Don't waste gains
Midway through the arduous discussion, council Executive Director Paul Howard brought the council's attention back to the ongoing groundfish rebuilding program.
Howard reminded the council of the enormous headway it has made since 1994 after the painful passage of Amendment 5.
Many stocks have increased 2-1/2 fold since that time, he said, and the slow but continued activation of latent days could seriously compromise the significant gains already achieved by the council.
"Don't forget that you've made great strides," Howard said. "We'll lose all the benefits we've accrued if we allow more effort into the fishery."
On a very different note, Massachusetts council member Bill Amaru repeatedly asked the council to think hard about the mixture of management measures it decides to include in Amendment 13.
"If we combine restrictive trip limits with reductions in days-at-sea, I believe we will actually increase mortality on Gulf of Maine cod," he said. "The reasons for people to stay on the ground and continue to fish will increase."
Rhode Island council member David Borden came into the discussion from a totally different angle.
"We have excess fishing capacity
in every single other fishery," he said.
"If we resolve it in groundfish, we will resolve it on the backs of other fishermen, and nowhere is that more apparent than
in Southern New England and the
Mid-Atlantic."
Borden asked the council to look at capacity from a much broader perspective in order to not "shift" the problem to another fishery or another region.
He was backed by Jim Lovgren of
the Mid-Atlantic council.
"The concern of the Mid-Atlantic council is that the effort displaced
from New England would go to the
Mid-Atlantic," he said.
"We need to look at the overall picture," Lovgren said. "We need a joint committee of the two councils to work on this issue together."
Next move
Connecticut council member Doug Hopkins, who is chairman of the capacity committee, agreed to have the committee develop objectives for addressing capacity and go through each of the nine remaining proposals listed at the top of this story to refine and combine hem if necessary and identify whether each one meets the listed objectives.
The task won't be easy, and Hopkins asked the council for guidance on what the committee should use for criteria to determine "what's in and what's out."
In response, numerous council members ticked off items they wanted
the committee to consider.
In no particular order, the criteria included:
- Does the proposal impact other fisheries?
- Does the proposal control effective effort?
- Does it cap latent days-at-sea?
- Does it treat everyone "fairly?"
Does it include/exclude certain people?
- Does the proposal minimize the impact on active fishermen? Does it minimize the impact on fishermen who have been using groundfish days-at-sea prior
to the September 1999 control date on latent effort and maintain their economic viability? And
- Does the proposal maintain the credibility of the council in terms of any perceived commitments made to the industry by past councils in the days of Amendments 5 and 7?
The capacity committee was scheduled to hold this challenging meeting on Aug. 1. The council's groundfish advisers were expected to meet shortly thereafter to also discuss capacity issues.
