November 4, 2010 | 10:01 PM | By

NOAA: This way to safe, sustainable fisheries

FILED UNDER: Fish & Wildlife, Catch shares, Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is backing catch share programs as the best way to ensure sustainable fisheries nationwide. The West Coast will be testing that theory starting in January with the brand-new groundfish rationalization program.

Today, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a new commercial fisheries policy: Catch shares for everyone. That means giving fishermen individual shares of fish to catch when they please and to manage for maximum profit. The idea is to relieve the pressure they’re currently under to catch more fish faster, which many current fishery management plans inadvertently reward.

Proponents of catch share programs, including Environmental Defense Fund, say they reduce overfishing, improve fishermen’s safety and profits, and reduce the negative environmental and economic effects of the race for fish.

The catch share idea isn’t new – there are 14 U.S. fisheries being managed this way already – but building a national policy around it is. NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco has been paying lip service to the idea for awhile now, as the West Coast groundfish trawl fishery gets its catch-share program underway. Here’s what she said today:

“Catch share programs have proven to be powerful tools to transform fisheries, making them prosperous, stable and sustainable parts of our nation’s strategy for healthy and resilient ocean ecosystems. NOAA’s policy encourages fishery management councils and stakeholders to explore the design possibilities of catch shares to tailor programs to best meet local needs.”

Steve Bodnar, the executive director of the Coos Bay Trawler Association, has been working with the Pacific Fishery Management Council to help develop the groundfish trawl fishery program. Here’s what he said about the catch-share policy:

“We’re on the edge of doing something great. This program is opening up communication between fishermen who were used to working alone. We’re going to swap quota to keep as many boats on the water in order to keep our port whole. We’ll also work together to share resources, to develop gear that will avoid fish that are not as abundant and catch the healthier stocks, and to market our catch to help consumers support local fishermen. By working together, we will survive.”

That’s a pretty optimistic outlook for a fisherman, wouldn’t you say? Not everyone is quite so enthused. In fact, just last week, several groups of small-boat fishermen sued the U.S. Department of Commerce saying the groundfish trawl catch-share violates existing fisheries law. One of their complaints is that the method being employed to make fisheries more sustainable essentially puts some fishermen out of business and concentrate ownership shares into fewer hands. That isn’t necessarily going to be good for fishing communities, they say.

Other groundfish fishermen have been irked by the way the quota has been allocated. The Pacific Fishery Management Council took stock of how much fish each boat had caught over certain years and used that data to divvy up shares of more than 80 different species of groundfish. But some species are a lot more valuable than others in the marketplace, like black cod/sablefish, and others are running low, like the canary rockfish. Suddenly, the number of canary rockfish you caught in the past could determine how much money you make next year. So, there’s plenty for fishermen to gripe about. But the truth is they were griping already.

Despite the many complications of designing a catch-share program, a survey by the Oregon Trawl Commission found about 70 percent of their membership supports the idea as an alternative to the hassles of the current two-month catch limit rules. Even fishermen who are selling out because they didn’t get enough quota to keep their business going are glad to have something to sell. Another complaint about catch shares is that they privatize public resources. What do you think about that argument?

  • Megan Mackey

    NOAA’s new Catch Shares Policy references the recently-released National Ocean Policy, and notes that sustainable marine fisheries are one element of healthy ocean ecosystems. The Catch Shares Policy states that its purpose is to encourage well-designed catch share programs to help maintain or rebuild fisheries, and sustain fishermen, communities and vibrant working waterfronts. The Magnuson-Stevens Act’s National Standard 8 also requires management measures to provide for the sustained participation of communities, and to minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.

    There is a concern that some catch share programs in the U.S. do not reflect NOAA’s stated intent of moving toward an ecosystem-based management perspective that sustains communities. In particular, there has been a notable lack of analysis of the impacts of catch share programs on communities and a lack of effort to integrate fair transition policies to help communities handle fallout from some of these programs when capacity becomes consolidated, etc.

    In keeping with an ecosystem-based management perspective, catch share programs should adopt a community, portfolio-based management perspective that takes a broader look at the range of communities that may be impacted. As fishery management councils are developing new catch share programs, NOAA should require standards as part of those programs, including: 1) ecosystem-based management, which must also encompass the full range of gear sectors in each fishery, as a central, guiding element of any catch share program; 2) the development of Community Fishing Associations (CFAs), Regional Fishery Associations (RFAs) and other community structures now authorized in the MSA as part of any catch share program.

    • Ecotrust

      Above comment comes from Megan Mackey, Policy Associate at Ecotrust.
      http://www.ecotrust.org

    • Anonymous

      Thanks, Megan. Do you know of any examples where community catch shares have been successfully applied? I seem to recall a story or two about crab quota being allocated to communities in Alaska. The idea there is to keep the fish – and the related economic activity from processing and selling them – coming back to the communities that have traditionally caught them, right?

      • Ecotrust

        Community Development Quotas (CDQs) assign shares of fishing quota to individual communities for the purpose of enhancing fishery-based economic activity. The main goal of these programs is to ensure that coastal communities, some of whom have limited economic opportunities due to being geographically isolated or dependent on subsistence lifestyles, are allocated a fair share of the benefits from fisheries.

        One example is the federal Bering Sea CDQ program which began in December 1992, with the goal of fostering fisheries related economic development for coastal communities in western Alaska. Portions of the annual allowable catch are allocated directly to 56 eligible communities (later expanded to 65 communities) that are divided into 6 coalitions within a 50-mile radius of the Bering Sea.

        With regard to the success of the program, the Alaska Department of Commerce’s website states that the program has been successfully contributing to fisheries infrastructure in western Alaska by funding docks, harbors, and the construction of seafood processing facilities. The CDQ program has allowed CDQ groups to acquire equity ownership interests in the pollock, Pacific cod, and crab sectors which provide additional revenues to fund local in-region economic development projects, and education and training programs.

  • Megan Mackey

    NOAA’s new Catch Shares Policy references the recently-released National Ocean Policy, and notes that sustainable marine fisheries are one element of healthy ocean ecosystems. The Catch Shares Policy states that its purpose is to encourage well-designed catch share programs to help maintain or rebuild fisheries, and sustain fishermen, communities and vibrant working waterfronts. The Magnuson-Stevens Act’s National Standard 8 also requires management measures to provide for the sustained participation of communities, and to minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.

    There is a concern that some catch share programs in the U.S. do not reflect NOAA’s stated intent of moving toward an ecosystem-based management perspective that sustains communities. In particular, there has been a notable lack of analysis of the impacts of catch share programs on communities and a lack of effort to integrate fair transition policies to help communities handle fallout from some of these programs when capacity becomes consolidated, etc.

    In keeping with an ecosystem-based management perspective, catch share programs should adopt a community, portfolio-based management perspective that takes a broader look at the range of communities that may be impacted. As fishery management councils are developing new catch share programs, NOAA should require standards as part of those programs, including: 1) ecosystem-based management, which must also encompass the full range of gear sectors in each fishery, as a central, guiding element of any catch share program; 2) the development of Community Fishing Associations (CFAs), Regional Fishery Associations (RFAs) and other community structures now authorized in the MSA as part of any catch share program.

    • Ecotrust

      Above comment comes from Megan Mackey, Policy Associate at Ecotrust.
      http://www.ecotrust.org

    • Anonymous

      Thanks, Megan. Do you know of any examples where community catch shares have been successfully applied? I seem to recall a story or two about crab quota being allocated to communities in Alaska. The idea there is to keep the fish – and the related economic activity from processing and selling them – coming back to the communities that have traditionally caught them, right?

      • Ecotrust

        Community Development Quotas (CDQs) assign shares of fishing quota to individual communities for the purpose of enhancing fishery-based economic activity. The main goal of these programs is to ensure that coastal communities, some of whom have limited economic opportunities due to being geographically isolated or dependent on subsistence lifestyles, are allocated a fair share of the benefits from fisheries.

        One example is the federal Bering Sea CDQ program which began in December 1992, with the goal of fostering fisheries related economic development for coastal communities in western Alaska. Portions of the annual allowable catch are allocated directly to 56 eligible communities (later expanded to 65 communities) that are divided into 6 coalitions within a 50-mile radius of the Bering Sea.

        With regard to the success of the program, the Alaska Department of Commerce’s website states that the program has been successfully contributing to fisheries infrastructure in western Alaska by funding docks, harbors, and the construction of seafood processing facilities. The CDQ program has allowed CDQ groups to acquire equity ownership interests in the pollock, Pacific cod, and crab sectors which provide additional revenues to fund local in-region economic development projects, and education and training programs.

  • Dougmaxfield

    Fact: catch shares do not make our jobs any safer. With limited allocations we have to maximize profits at any cost. Fishing in poor weather is the safest way to predict higher market value. Day boats in my area (smaller vessels) have been saving quota to catch in the winter months in hopes that this poor weather will improve markets.
    Fact: trading allocations of different species makes perfect sense when you’re sitting at a board table in an office. Try doing it in the real world when no one wants to buy your “trash”.
    Fact: basing allocations on a few year period a decade ago really rewards people who fished depleted stocks when they needed to be left alone. It also screws any fishermen who made a business plan for the prior system, which often meant a large investment in permits and or gear.
    When EDF was placed in charge of NMFS, things that looked good on paper were fast tracked as long as they were in line with their agenda. As a result, many of the fishermen in my area who have sacrificed for years will not get to see the rewards. There WILL NOT be a younger generation to fill their shoes.

    • Cassandra Profita

      That’s a good point about fishing in bad weather. It would make sense that the fish would be worth more simply because there is less supply during those time frames. What area are you talking about? Also, I have heard that same thing from Oregon fishermen about the rewards for boats that were catching too much of the now-struggling stocks (canary rockfish is a classic example). What are the “trash” species in your fishery? Do you see any upshot to catch shares, or do you think the fisheries should go on under their current management schemes? Some fishermen have suggested to me that at least with the catch shares they now have something to sell if/when they sell out. Maybe they can recoup some of their investment instead of watching its value dwindle as fishery managers lower catch limits. In the West Coast groundfish trawl fishery, that seemed to be the direction they were headed, and a bunch of guys have already sold out based almost entirely on their shares of black cod/sablefish. At least one of them is going to keep fishing, but he won’t be the owner anymore (or have to worry about paying crew and insurance bills).

  • Dougmaxfield

    Fact: catch shares do not make our jobs any safer. With limited allocations we have to maximize profits at any cost. Fishing in poor weather is the safest way to predict higher market value. Day boats in my area (smaller vessels) have been saving quota to catch in the winter months in hopes that this poor weather will improve markets.
    Fact: trading allocations of different species makes perfect sense when you’re sitting at a board table in an office. Try doing it in the real world when no one wants to buy your “trash”.
    Fact: basing allocations on a few year period a decade ago really rewards people who fished depleted stocks when they needed to be left alone. It also screws any fishermen who made a business plan for the prior system, which often meant a large investment in permits and or gear.
    When EDF was placed in charge of NMFS, things that looked good on paper were fast tracked as long as they were in line with their agenda. As a result, many of the fishermen in my area who have sacrificed for years will not get to see the rewards. There WILL NOT be a younger generation to fill their shoes.

    • Cassandra Profita

      That’s a good point about fishing in bad weather. It would make sense that the fish would be worth more simply because there is less supply during those time frames. What area are you talking about? Also, I have heard that same thing from Oregon fishermen about the rewards for boats that were catching too much of the now-struggling stocks (canary rockfish is a classic example). What are the “trash” species in your fishery? Do you see any upshot to catch shares, or do you think the fisheries should go on under their current management schemes? Some fishermen have suggested to me that at least with the catch shares they now have something to sell if/when they sell out. Maybe they can recoup some of their investment instead of watching its value dwindle as fishery managers lower catch limits. In the West Coast groundfish trawl fishery, that seemed to be the direction they were headed, and a bunch of guys have already sold out based almost entirely on their shares of black cod/sablefish. At least one of them is going to keep fishing, but he won’t be the owner anymore (or have to worry about paying crew and insurance bills).

  • Anonymous

    A hard total allowable catch (TAC) will accomplish the same thing without “gifting” ownership of future fish shares.This fishery management plan (FMP) is a scam being promoted by corporate America, EDF & the Obama administration. Catch & Trade-think Cap & Trade.Why should the rich be entitled to buy something that should not be for sale?

  • Anonymous

    A hard total allowable catch (TAC) will accomplish the same thing without “gifting” ownership of future fish shares.This fishery management plan (FMP) is a scam being promoted by corporate America, EDF & the Obama administration. Catch & Trade-think Cap & Trade.Why should the rich be entitled to buy something that should not be for sale?

  • MSW

    The catch shares have to be NON TRANSFERABLE! If someone doesn’t want to fish their shares,
    then they should go back into a lottery for fishermen looking to get into the fishery. The shares
    can’t be owned by anyone other then a real person, not a corp. or group. AND the owner
    has to be on the boat when the shares are fished. These elements are NOT in noaa’s plan
    and that is why its BAD and simply a privatization of a public resource. I’m a small boat fisherman and the furthement of this type of regulation is going to end your “local fisherman” just like it agribusiness ended your “local farmer”

    • Cassandra Profita

      That is food for thought. There are so many trickle-down effects of any new management scheme. Are there other catch-share programs with non-transferable quota?

  • MSW

    The catch shares have to be NON TRANSFERABLE! If someone doesn’t want to fish their shares,
    then they should go back into a lottery for fishermen looking to get into the fishery. The shares
    can’t be owned by anyone other then a real person, not a corp. or group. AND the owner
    has to be on the boat when the shares are fished. These elements are NOT in noaa’s plan
    and that is why its BAD and simply a privatization of a public resource. I’m a small boat fisherman and the furthement of this type of regulation is going to end your “local fisherman” just like it agribusiness ended your “local farmer”

    • Cassandra Profita

      That is food for thought. There are so many trickle-down effects of any new management scheme. Are there other catch-share programs with non-transferable quota?

  • Anonymous

    On the evenings of 18,19,and 20 of September,2011 the commercial gill net fleet caught 28,982 salmon.  The highest number of participating boats was on the 18th with 172 boats participating.  This data is avaiable on the ODFW site under “Commercial Landings”.

    The average Chinook carries about 3000 eggs.  I have counted them by hand.  If half of the fish were hens then 42,000,000 (42 Million) eggs were prevented from getting up the river in 3 nights of fishing.  In a really good year, 4 million salmon will get past Bonneville dam.  In a good year, back in the days of Lewis and Clark, the runs were more like 15 to 25 million salmon.

    At one point in the late 1800′s there was a survey done by the precursor to the USGS of the net and trap systems below Cathlamet.  Over 1700 net systems were in place including fish wheels, weirs, and gill nets that went from shore to shore and from the surface of the river to the very bottom.  The salmon runs were so rich that the canneries would be overwhelmed by the volume and entire loads of dead salmon would be dumped back into the Columbia or used as fertilizer. 

    In Alaska, where salmon runs are on a definite uphill swing, gill netting is prevented by law as has long been the case. Fishing there is allowed only by purse seine nets which are far more delicate on the fish and allow much better treatment of bycatch and native stocks.  An excellent film has been made of this fishery and its concerns and is titled “The Viking Maid” and can be ordered through Netflix.  The map of the lower Columbia fishery is in the archives at Portland State University and is available online. 

    One source I have spoken with told me that the vast majority of the gill net boats in the Columbia belong to folks that fish primarily in Alaska; and that the portion of their income that comes from the Columbia is about 3% of their yearly gross.

    With that in mind I propose that the fishery in the Columbia be phased out as follows.  Purse seines only; and with an eye toward eventual elimination of the commercial fleet working in the river; the stipulation that the commercial fleet can never take more fish than they caught this year, and that the permits for in river fishing be limited to the lifetime of the current holder and that when the current permit holder is no longer able to physically be on the boat during the harvest that the permit will be retired forever.

    The place for commercial fishing is in the Ocean.  Once the salmon make it past Buoy 10 they should be managed with an eye toward reproduction and recreational fishing only.  A fish caught commercially is worth about $200 to our economy as far as the importation of funds from outside the region but that same fish caught by an out of state sportsman that comes here and hires a guide and buy an out of state license and stays a couple of nights in a hotel might bring a couple grand here from Iowa or Tokyo.

  • Anonymous

    On the evenings of 18,19,and 20 of September,2011 the commercial gill net fleet caught 28,982 salmon.  The highest number of participating boats was on the 18th with 172 boats participating.  This data is avaiable on the ODFW site under “Commercial Landings”.

    The average Chinook carries about 3000 eggs.  I have counted them by hand.  If half of the fish were hens then 42,000,000 (42 Million) eggs were prevented from getting up the river in 3 nights of fishing.  In a really good year, 4 million salmon will get past Bonneville dam.  In a good year, back in the days of Lewis and Clark, the runs were more like 15 to 25 million salmon.

    At one point in the late 1800′s there was a survey done by the precursor to the USGS of the net and trap systems below Cathlamet.  Over 1700 net systems were in place including fish wheels, weirs, and gill nets that went from shore to shore and from the surface of the river to the very bottom.  The salmon runs were so rich that the canneries would be overwhelmed by the volume and entire loads of dead salmon would be dumped back into the Columbia or used as fertilizer. 

    In Alaska, where salmon runs are on a definite uphill swing, gill netting is prevented by law as has long been the case. Fishing there is allowed only by purse seine nets which are far more delicate on the fish and allow much better treatment of bycatch and native stocks.  An excellent film has been made of this fishery and its concerns and is titled “The Viking Maid” and can be ordered through Netflix.  The map of the lower Columbia fishery is in the archives at Portland State University and is available online. 

    One source I have spoken with told me that the vast majority of the gill net boats in the Columbia belong to folks that fish primarily in Alaska; and that the portion of their income that comes from the Columbia is about 3% of their yearly gross.

    With that in mind I propose that the fishery in the Columbia be phased out as follows.  Purse seines only; and with an eye toward eventual elimination of the commercial fleet working in the river; the stipulation that the commercial fleet can never take more fish than they caught this year, and that the permits for in river fishing be limited to the lifetime of the current holder and that when the current permit holder is no longer able to physically be on the boat during the harvest that the permit will be retired forever.

    The place for commercial fishing is in the Ocean.  Once the salmon make it past Buoy 10 they should be managed with an eye toward reproduction and recreational fishing only.  A fish caught commercially is worth about $200 to our economy as far as the importation of funds from outside the region but that same fish caught by an out of state sportsman that comes here and hires a guide and buy an out of state license and stays a couple of nights in a hotel might bring a couple grand here from Iowa or Tokyo.