EDFish

The Future of the Pacific Groundfish Trawl Fishery Without the Catch Share Program

Merrick Burden - Senior Fisheries Economist

Merrick Burden - Senior Fisheries Economist

Fishermen in the Pacific groundfish trawl fishery are understandably anxious about the transition to catch shares that starts January 2011, but it’s helpful to consider what is likely to happen if the fishery is left under current management. Perhaps the biggest problem facing fishermen and fishery managers is that eight out of over 90 species caught by fishermen are overfished.  To protect these overfished species, fishery managers have closed parts of the ocean to fishing by creating “Rockfish Conservation Areas” that have changed shape in response to locations of overfished species.  In recent years, productive fishing grounds off Washington and southern Oregon have been among the areas closed.  If current management were to continue there would likely be more closures off other areas of the coast.

I’ve had the experience of working as a fishery manager in the Pacific commercial groundfish fishery for over 6 years and have seen how the existing management system is slowly suffocating the industry and fishing communities. Avoiding closures is just one reason why I see the groundfish trawl IFQ (catch share) program as progress in Pacific groundfish fishery management.

Read More »

Posted in Pacific / Tagged , , , , , | Comments are closed

Civility, A Surprise Visitor to the NOAA Law Enforcement Summit

Donald Barry - Managing Director, EDF Oceans

Donald Barry - Managing Director, EDF Oceans

I spent  yesterday participating at the NOAA Law Enforcement Summit in Washington DC along with 60 or 70 other stakeholders and a rare thing happened, at least for this city:  Despite having strongly differing views about NOAA’s past law enforcement record and how the agency should move forward in remedying problems from the past, there was no shouting, no name calling , no fist shaking, no angry diatribes.  Instead, there was politeness, constructive comments and interesting and creative ideas on improving law enforcement transparency, consistency and communications.  In polarized Washington DC ? How the heck did that happen?
 
For one thing, the summit was organized and well run by professional facilitators with the participants assigned to small working groups for focused discussions.  The people assigned to my table were an amazing mix of people with extremely different backgrounds with significantly differing views: a representative of the charter boat industry, the head of a state fishery agency, a University of Maryland professor who had conducted exhaustive research on NOAA law enforcement activities, a New England seafood marketer, a NOAA law enforcement agent, a representative of the commercial fishing industry, and myself representing the Environmental Defense Fund. 
 
At least one of our table participants stated firmly at the beginning that he was staunchly anti-law enforcement or something to that effect and my initial internal reaction was “oh boy, here goes the bar fight” but then the unexpected thing happened. A really fascinating conversation began unfolding with everyone being very respectful of each others opinions and folks trying real hard to come up with constructive ideas for helping NOAA enhance the effectiveness of its law enforcement program. 

The professor from Maryland turned out to be a virtual fountain of fascinating statistics and past analyses of NOAA law enforcement activities and the representatives at the table from the Pacific Northwest and Alaska shared insights on how they had resolved many of the issues years ago that are now starting to surface in the South Atlantic. But perhaps the conversation that transfixed me the most was the dialogue which unfolded between the NOAA law enforcement agent and the participant who had initially stated that he was strongly anti-enforcement.  It was respectful, constructive and enlightening. 

By the time the summit ended, the comment that I heard from virtually everyone in our group was that it had been a “really good group of people” at our table and that people had really enjoyed the conversation and the ideas that we had ultimately developed.  Everyone exchanged business cards and I truly expect to touch base with many if not most of these people again.
 
This was the second facilitated summit-like meeting sponsored by NOAA that I have attended in the last three months (the other one involved recreational fishing) and in each case potentially explosive, emotion charged issues were handled diplomatically and effectively, creating an atmosphere that facilitated the exchange of ideas with civility and respect.  Boy, have we been missing those elements recently in the political gladiator wars in this city. 

The hard work on improving and enhancing NOAA law enforcement has just begun and a one day summit is not going to provide all the answers or solutions that will be needed.  Far from it.  But having said that, Dr. Jane Lubchenco and Eric Schwaab have now twice organized meetings where people with strongly held (and often differing) opinions could discuss their differences in a constructive atmosphere without insulting the motives or the values of the person seated next to them.  I generally hate day long meetings but I would willingly come back for a third NOAA summit if it would allow me to work on problem solving again with as interesting and insightful people as the ones sitting around my table.

Posted in Uncategorized / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

Catch Share Design Case Study: Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Conservation Cooperation

Catch Share ConversationsOur last case study in this week’s Catch Share Conversation about harvesting cooperatives comes from the Gulf of Alaska. In 2007, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council implemented a five year pilot cooperative program in the commercial sector of the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Fishery. The program was designed to address problems of overcapacity and derby fishing and to meet various additional goals. After three years, the pilot program is meeting its goals of ending the race for fish, improving product quality, protecting shore plants and communities, and decreasing bycatch and discards.

Alaska OutlinePrior to cooperative formation, the fishery was plagued by problems due to traditional management approaches including overcapitalization, shrinking fishing seasons, decreased safety and poor product quality. The fishing season shrunk to a dismal derby-filled three weeks. Read the full case study of how the Rockfish cooperative combines a number of design features to meet their goals including shares for target and bycatch species, provisions for new entrants, limitations on trading and more.

Posted in Pacific / Comments are closed

Catch Share Design Case Study: Chile’s Area-based Cooperatives

Catch Share ConversationsChile, on the Pacific side of South America, enjoys one of the most productive upwelling ecosystems in the world (the Greater Humboldt Current Marine Ecosystem) along much of its 2,500+ mile coastline. Around two percent of the labor force, or over 120,000 people, are employed in the fishing industry including artisanal and industrial fishermen and aquaculturists.

Chile has a well-developed system of area-based cooperatives, known as Territorial User Rights Fisheries (TURFs) or Management and Exploitation Areas for Benthic Resources (MEABRs). The system was primarily developed to manage “loco” (Concholepas concholepas), Chile’s most economically important benthic artisanal resource. Loco may only be fished by members of the area-based cooperatives and exclusive access of over 100,000 hectares has been granted to groups of artisanal fishermen (called guild associations, unions or cooperatives). 

All other species found in the TURF,except those declared as fully exploited, can be extracted by cooperative members if the species are included in the fishery management plan developed by their cooperative.3 At least 63 species including molluscs, algae, crustaceans, finfish and other invertebrates are landed under the Chilean area-based cooperative system.

Take a look at the full case study of Chile’s Area-Based Cooperatives, a part of our Catch Share Conversations series, to learn more about the cooperatives’ history, performance, and key design features.

Posted in Uncategorized / Comments are closed

Catch Share Design Case Study: The Pollock Conservation Cooperative

Catch Share ConversationsIn continuing with our look at harvesting cooperatives as a part of our Catch Share Conversations series, the Pollock Conservation Cooperative in Alaska’s Bering Sea shows a good example of how a cooperative form of catch share can lead to conservation and economic benefits for fisheries.

The Pollock Conservation Cooperative (PCC) was established in 1999 and is made up of six member companies operating 19 catch-processor vessels. As an industry led initiative, the PCC is used to coordinate harvesting activities that promote conservation of fish stocks and better utilization of landed fish. The PCC has resulted in slower paced pollock fishing, a longer season – from 74 days in 1998 to 285 days in 2009, and 50 percent more product per pound of fish landed.

Read the CSC Pollock Conservation Cooperative of the Pollock Conservation Cooperative to learn more about its history, performance, and key design features.

Posted in Pacific / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

Want to Help California’s Economy? Eat a Lobster.

Next time you’re lucky enough to crack open a lobster, consider this: you may be doing your part to stimulate California’s economy.

Lobster fishing in California takes place from October to March in Southern California— from Point Conception around Santa Barbara to the Mexican border. Business has been solid in recent years: 728,000 pounds of lobster were landed in the 2008-09 season by the state’s 200-plus commercial lobster fishermen.  Sales to local markets, as well as Asia, generated about $8 million in economic activity.

But looming threats exist to lobstermen’s livelihoods. As The San Diego Union Tribune recently reported, “In coming months, state officials plan to expand a set of marine reserves under the Marine Life Protection Act that likely will shut down vast tracts of coastline to lobster fishing, including a prime spot off the coast of La Jolla, that will take away about 20 percent of the state’s lobster catch.”

Protected areas are critical to the state’s fisheries, as they allow species to survive and thrive.  In many cases, these protected areas increase the amount of seafood that can eventually be harvested along the coast.  At the same time, these protected areas and changing rules mean that fisheries have to update the way that they manage themselves.  Scientific monitoring of species and new management techniques are needed to allow both fishermen and the environment to thrive.  But then questions arise over how to fund the new science and management reforms in a fragile economy.

This is where the creativity of the lobstermen comes in:

California’s government is cash-strapped and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), while prioritizing the lobster fishery, doesn’t have the money to advance management reforms.  Lobstermen have stepped up with a unique approach that starts to build funding for improvements.   They’ve asked the state to form a private-public partnership to create rules that will protect lobster populations while improving the economies of California’s coastal fishing communities.

The California Lobster and Trap Fishermen’s Association, environmentalists and Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego) have teamed up to propose an annual $300 fee on holders of the state’s 204 lobster fishing permits. This annual fee amounts to about 14 lobsters per fisherman (give or take).  Resulting revenues would go directly into a fund to make improvements to the fisheries that fishermen and DFG prioritize.  The legislation – AB 408 – has passed the Assembly and is awaiting Senate action.

Lobster fishermen are hoping their offer to fund a piece of what’s needed for better science and management will attract money from other sources such as the state Ocean Protection Council and the California Fisheries Fund (CFF), a philanthropic revolving-loan fund that lends money to fishing communities to improve fishing sustainability. Since CFF makes loans, not grants, it requires borrowers to prove an income stream, which is just what the $300 annual fee would help create.

As we’ve argued in EDF’s California Dream 2.0 blog, California can lead the way with new approaches to protect the environment while growing our economy.  AB 408 is such a ‘win-win’ idea, empowering lobstermen to improve the marine environment while improving their industry’s bottom line.  Lobstermen won’t be able to fund the necessary improvements alone, but their willingness to put skin in the game will encourage other funders to see this industry offer for what it is: a sustainable way to manage its lobster fishery, help fishing communities thrive and protect the ocean.

Posted in Pacific, Seafood / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed