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 Lorelei Stevens
WASHINGTON, DC - Amid all the controversial measures being considered during reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, there is one hot-button issue that has really hit a nerve in New England - individual fishing quotas (IFQs) and the allocation of quota share to processors.
The main reauthorization vehicle, HR 4749 introduced on May 16 by House fisheries subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), includes a large section on "individual quota systems."
The bill defines this as "a system that limits access to a fishery in order to achieve optimum yields through the allocation and issuance of individual quotas."
It further defines the term individual quota as "a grant of permission to harvest or process a quantity of fish in a fishery during each fishing season for which permission is granted equal to a stated percentage of the total allowable catch for the fishery."
The bill allows regional fishery management councils to establish individual quota systems and allocate individual quotas to "fishing vessel owners, fishermen, crew members, fishing communities, other persons specified by the council, and US fish processors."
Moratorium up
For a number of years, Congress has imposed a moratorium on the development of IFQ systems. But the most recent two-year moratorium expires on Sept. 30 and there is no indication anyone in Congress is interested in renewing it again.
Even US Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who was a major player in winning the moratorium extension in 2000, last year filed the Individual Fishing Quota Act of 2001 as a focal point for working out IFQ concerns in order to lift the moratorium.
Accepting that reality, a number of groups have been strongly advocating that any IFQ system be governed by specific national standards.
Without such standards, the fear is that small operators will wind up with so little quota that they'll be forced to sell out to bigger companies and, finally, to big conglomerates.
Independence at stake
That means independent and owner-operated fishing boats and processing businesses will become a thing of the past, warned Peter Baker of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (CCCHFA).
"Instead of the free market system we've had here for 300 years, the government will force fishermen to sell to industry cartels," he said. "There will be no more independent fishermen, no more independent buyers. There will be multinational corporate take-over just like we've seen in farming, poultry, logging, mining, and every other natural resource-based industry in this country."
Baker said that he found it disturbing that during the initial May 23 markup of the Gilchrest bill, fisheries subcommittee members offered eight amendments, but not one of them dealt with the bill's IFQ section or processor quotas.
CCCHFA has been completely opposed to IFQs in the past, but seeing the political writing on the wall, the association has moved to lobbying for a national IFQ program for US waters.
IFQ standards
According to materials supplied by CCCHFA, such a program would:
- Ban processor quota shares;
- Limit consolidation by limiting transferability of quota shares, mandating quota share caps, and prohibiting "cross-sector consolidation" by allocating IFQs to sectors based on vessel size and/or gear types;
- Require a super majority of 60% or greater of permit holders to first vote in favor of allowing a council to consider an IFQ system and then vote again in favor of allowing implementation before such a system could go into effect;
- "Promote conservation as well as minimize negative social and economic impacts of the system on local coastal communities";
- Provide for a fair initial allocation by dividing vessels into sectors and provide for an equitable distribution of quota for each sector through the possible use of a fee-based system or a royalty auction system;
- "Prevent regional fishery management councils from discussing IFQs in fisheries that are not rebuilt";
- Recognize that "IFQs would be inappropriate in multispecies and multigear fisheries";
- "Not create or be constructed to create any right, title, or interest to any fish before the fish is harvested," but rather permit a privilege to access the resource; and
- Issue IFQs only "to a citizen who is a natural person of the US and held in an individual's name" to prevent "foreigners and large corporations" from holding quota "for our shared public resources."
